9 
 
 l^'. 
 
 ■r^r^-^^-^^ 
 
 
 
 ► t 
 
 '. W6756 
 
 i 
 
/\ 
 
 yu^\c\^ 
 
 
 ;**-r4,_.«i.j.jk. 
 
A 
 
 * VINDICATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES 
 
 OF 
 
 HUMAN DEPRAVITY, THE ATONEMENT, 
 DIVINE INFLUENCES, &c. 
 
 IN A SERIES OF 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO 
 
 T/ie Rev. T. B ELS HAM: 
 
 OCCASIONED BY 
 
 HIS " REVIEW OF Mr. WILBERFORCE's TREATISE." 
 
 WITH 
 
 AN APPENDIX 
 
 AUDRl'SSED TO 
 
 Tbe AUTHOR of "LETTERS ON HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY:* 
 
 By THOMAS'^ WILLI A MS, 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE AGE OF INFIUELIXY, &C. 
 
 The man wliofe lole fpring of aftion is a concern for !uft 'buls, and a care ti pre Vive the 
 purity of that gofpel which alone teaches the mr.ft effectuai method of their reco\ery 
 from the power of fiii and Satan u.ito d'od, will feel an ardour of mind that wii p-ompt 
 him ftrenuouflv to op.ofe all iho-e whom he confiders as obftrucliiifr his benevolent 
 defign;. — I co'.'ld overlook, every thinsf in a man who, I thought, niea; t n th,n_- but my 
 evcrlafiiiig welfare. ' " l-r. PkiE-- iLEY. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for the Author by A. Paris, Roll's Buildings; 
 And Ibid at No. jo, Stationers' Court, Ludgate HJl 3 
 
 Sold alio by MellVs. Chapman, Fleet-ftreet ; MAxrHhVvs, Strand 3 
 Ogle, Tuvnllilej Kkp iixstall, Holborn; iiUXXON, Huust, 
 and Pahsons, Paternoiier-row ; L'ickie, Bow-lane; and Knott, 
 Lombard -Iheet: jAMiS, Brlllol ; and OcLE, Edinburgh and 
 GIaio;ow. 
 
 1799' 
 Price 4s. in Beards. Entered at Stationers HalL 
 
W. WILBERFORCE, Esq. M. P. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 BEFORE I began these Letters, 
 I thought it necessary to enquire whether 
 you had any similar design. Though 
 your assurance to the contrary determined 
 me to proceed, a variety of more pressing 
 engagements retarded the pubhcation. 
 Should it in any degree subserve the cause 
 of Evangelical Religion, those fragments 
 of time which have been redeemed (or 
 perhaps stolen) for the purpose, will not 
 prove misemployed, 
 
 Averse as I am to party language, I 
 have not been able \^hoily to avoid it. 
 The term Cahinijlic, in particular, has, 
 by various arts, been rendered odious ; 
 yet, under this term Unitarian Writers ge- 
 nerally comprehend the doctrines of Hu- 
 man 
 
( ^'i ) 
 
 man Depravity, the Atonement of Christ, 
 
 and the Influences of the Holy Spirit, a 
 circumstance which has obhged me to 
 adopt it ; though I am sensible that these 
 truths are no less dear to thousands who 
 do not pass under the denomination of 
 Calvinists, 
 
 As the following Defence originated in 
 an attack on your * Practical View," you 
 will, I flatter myself, excuse this liberty, 
 and permit me, in addressing the Advo- 
 cate of Religion and Humanity, the ho- 
 nour and privilege of subscribing myself 
 
 Your mucli obliged, 
 
 and moft obedient fcrvant, 
 
 Jugujl 1 , 1 799' THOMAS WILLIAMS, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Letter I. Introductory Page 9 
 
 II. On the Ted of Truth ^ 14 
 The authority of" reuion — and of fcripture — Mr. B.'s 
 
 fentlmcnts examined. 
 
 III. Scripture docftrine of the depravity 
 
 of hunran riat-ure. 19 
 
 "^he qntilion {l:ated — Proofs from Mofes, David, 
 Solomon, Jeremiah, Jesus, Pau^ — Mr. B.'s fenti- 
 raents eompand — aifo thoie of ancient philofophers — 
 Mr. B.'s attempt to evade fcripture evldence-^appeal 
 to experience. 
 
 IV. Mr. B.'s view of the prefent flate 
 
 of human nature 34 
 
 Chara6ler defined — that of mankind confidered — 
 Nature of v >tiie and vice — Mr . B.'s ideas erroneous and 
 dangerous — Difj-ohtions of cliildren confidered — All 
 aftions iinful before conveifiun — All men involved in 
 Adam's fall. 
 
 V. Origin of human depravity 34. 
 
 Objedioav to the Calvlniftic dodrine confidered — 
 
 Man created pure — fell, and propagated a fallen nature 
 
 —Job cited — Mr. B.'s fyftem charges fm on the Crea- 
 
 toi and excufes man. 
 
 Vi. The quantum of moral evil 56 
 
 The queftion ftated, whether the preponderence of 
 moral evil on earth impute malignity to the Creator. — 
 If the quantum of evil prove this, fo muil its exif- 
 tence . — Whether ^ny degree of iin be good ? — The 
 preponderance of m.oral evil not univerfal, nor perpe- 
 tual — Th? cafe of angels, and other worlds. 
 
 VII. Of Satan and a future punifhment 66 
 
 The exillcnce and charader of Satan from Paul, 
 Peter, Jude, .John, and Jesus.— Objedions anfwered 
 — Antiquity of this hypotheiis — The name Sat(?ti ex- 
 plained — Prince of this world, who ?— Future punifh- 
 ment, whether endlefs— its caufe and nature— Nature 
 of human inability — aiunov, &c. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 VIII. Unitarian notions of atonement 86 
 Mr. B.'s mlfreprereutation of Mr. W'ilbcrforce and 
 
 the Calviniits — Charafter of the Father and Son uni- 
 form — Calviniftic and Armhiuiu hypothefcs — Sins not 
 llridly debts — Mr. B.'s account of the atonement con- 
 fidered and expofed. 
 
 IX. Origin and defign of facrifices 96 
 Sacrifices of divine inllitution — thofe of Abel, Adam, 
 
 Abraham, and Mofes — defifjned to make atonement, 
 \)y hearing fm, &c.r-referred to Chriit — So imderftood 
 by David, Ifaiah, and Daniel — Notions of the later 
 Jjeus — and of the Pagans. 
 
 X. The fcripture dodrine of atone- 
 
 ment iio 
 
 Previous queries. — Jefus gave himfelf a facrifice — 
 his blood the blood of fprinkling — his death a propitia- 
 tion and Hn-offering : — (aid to bear our fins: — Mr. 
 B.'s explanation of this phrafe conlidercd. — Chrill our 
 E.edeeuier and Ranfom — Mediator and Surety — Thefe 
 doftrlnes taught by Chrlll himfelf, and not dogmata 
 of the apollles. — Mr. B.'s opinions contralled with 
 this evidence. 
 
 XI. The intercellion of Chrift 126 
 Mr. B.'s ilrange affertion. — Where Jefus is, and 
 
 how employed. — Scripture doctrine of his advocacy and 
 interceffion. -^Propriety of addreifes to him. — Abiba<5l 
 of fcripture evidence on this fubjedl — Conduifl of Jefus 
 as it refpeds this head. 
 
 XII. Terms of acceptance with God 141 
 Mr. B.'s hypothclis and proofs examined. — On faith 
 
 in Chriil. — Juitification by faith and works— how re- 
 conciled — Th^ good work.s o^ believers only acceptable. 
 — Of imputaiion, and pleading the name of Chrifl. 
 
 ]^I1I. Of divine influences and experi- 
 mental rehgion 162 
 
 Mr. Wilbcrforce's ftatement, and Mr. E.'sremarki. 
 
 Abftraft of fcripture evidence on this fubje6t. — 
 
 Scriptural converiion, what? — ' The giace of God,' 
 its import. — Divine influences necellary — admitted by 
 the old philofophcr.s — conliftont with reafon ; but to 
 be fupportcd on fcripUual ground ojily. 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 XIV. EiFed:s and confequences of the 
 Calvinillic fyftem \nj 
 
 Acknowledged importance of tliis topic of argu- 
 ment. — Calvinilts jullitied from tlie charges of being 
 bigottedand narrow-minded — felfifh — inimical to found 
 I'eafon and criticifm — too confident in the fcriptures. 
 
 XV. Farther efFedls and confequences, 191 
 Calvinifts fabbatarians — enemies to theatrical amufe- 
 
 ments — idolators of Chrift — Summary of thefe charges: 
 conclufion of letters to Mr. B. 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 AddreJJed to the Author of ' Letters on Hereditary 
 Depravity. 
 
 XVI. Additional remarks on the autho- 
 rity of Scripture in this Controverfj 201 
 
 Introdudlon. — Unitarian firft principles inconfiftcnt 
 with the authority of fcripture, and fupercede its ufe — 
 The preaching and writings of the apoilles compared — 
 How far 'Hereditary Depravity' a fundamental doctrine. 
 
 XVII. Man's original ftate and fall 220 
 The image of God, what?— The fall argued from 
 
 the introduction of mortality — The death threatened 
 to Adam, what? — Adam a public perfon, the head of 
 his poilevity — who therefore finned and fell with him. 
 
 XVIII. Scriptural proofs of natural de- 
 pravity vindicated ; and its con- 
 iiflency \wth other doctrines 230 
 
 Of being born in fin ; What David meant by the 
 
 expreilion? — what the Pharifees, and our Lord's difci- 
 
 ples?— How we are ' children of wrath by nature, 
 
 * 
 
 • XIX. The poffibility of Hereditary De- 
 pravity 239 
 The queflion confidered, phyiically and metaphyii- 
 cally— Prof. Edwards on tlie Nature of human Depra- 
 vity—not poiitive, but privative. 
 
 XX. Recapitulation of evidence. — Con- 
 
 cluiion. 249 
 
TEXTS ELUCIDATE!?. 
 
 Gen. 1. 27, P. 49, 22 
 
 ii. 2. igz 
 
 iii. I. — gH 
 
 vi. 5, (). 19, 20 
 
 viii 21. — 20 
 
 Exod. xvi. 23, &c. 193 
 
 Lev. V. I. 117 
 
 xvi. 21, 22. 115 
 
 xvii. II. — 102 
 
 Job xiv. 4. 50 
 
 XV. 14. — ib. 
 
 Pf. li. 5. 21, 231 
 
 Eccles. vil. 29. 221 
 
 Prov. xxii. 5. — — 41 
 Ifa. liii. 4 — 2. 105, 106, 118 
 Jer. xvii. 9. 10. 22 
 
 Dan. ix. 2 j. — 7. 94, 106 
 
 Matr. viii. 7. — 117 
 
 John ix. 2. — 232 
 
 xii. 31. 74> Z"; 
 
 xiv. 30. ib. 
 
 xvi. n. ib. 
 
 xvi. 23 — 26. 156 
 
 Aftsii. 2^ — - 53, 4 
 
 iv. 28. — ib. 
 
 vii. 35. ■ 121 
 
 Rom. iii. 9 — 19. 23, 24 
 
 iii. 25. • 112 
 
 Rom. iii. 28. 
 
 
 »44^ 
 
 14& 
 
 iv. 5. 
 
 — 
 
 
 150 
 
 v. 12. 
 
 — 
 
 
 222 
 
 viii. 5 — 9 
 
 
 38, 
 
 169 
 
 xiv. 5, 6. 
 
 
 
 195 
 
 I Cor. v. 19 — 21 
 
 
 
 114 
 
 _ xli. 8, 9. 
 
 
 
 203 
 
 Gal. iii. 13. 
 
 -~. 
 
 
 I20 
 
 Eph. i. 3. 
 
 - 
 
 
 '54 
 
 ii 3. 
 
 — 
 
 29, 
 
 2^3 
 
 vi. 1 1 — 16. 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 Col. ii. 16. — 
 
 — 
 
 
 »95 
 
 iii. I. — 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 
 
 121 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 6. 
 
 
 - 
 
 70 
 
 Heb. vii. 25. 
 
 — 
 
 
 129 
 
 ix. 28. 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 115 
 
 x. 10, 14. 
 
 
 UI, 
 
 112 
 
 xi 19. 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 100 
 
 xii. 24, &c. 
 
 
 
 112 
 
 James ii. 10. 
 
 — 
 
 - 
 
 37 
 
 ii. 24. 
 
 
 i45» 
 
 146 
 
 I Vet. iii. 18. 
 
 
 »i5» 
 
 iig 
 
 V. 8, g. 
 
 
 7C 
 
 > 76 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 4. 
 
 
 
 ib. 
 
 Jude 6. — 
 
 
 7 
 
 576 
 
 I John ii. 2. 
 
 
 
 IIZ 
 
 Rev, V. 6. — 
 
 - 
 
 
 132 
 

 A 
 
 Vindication 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES, 
 
 L E T T E R I, 
 
 IntroductorYo 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 A LTHOUGH the avowal and vindi- 
 cation of his religious fentiments 
 is every man's birth-right, yet to appear 
 as the advocate of Mr. Wilberforce, or the 
 opponent of Mr. Beifham, may feem to re- 
 quire fomc apology. The former charac- 
 ter I have not the prefumption to aifume : 
 it is only accidentally that I have noticed 
 that Gentleman's work, as having occa- 
 fioned your attack on principles equally dear 
 and important to me as to Mr. W. And 
 with refped: to the latter, if there be any 
 B temerity 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 temerity in the attempt, it mufl arife from 
 my- inferiority in the contefl, which I fhal) 
 be quite as wilUng to admit as you can be 
 to aflert ; and if the difference fhould prove 
 ten-fold in your favour, let it be remem- 
 bered your advantage is proportionate, and 
 no lefs fo my claim on the candour of the 
 Pablic. 
 
 It is equally favourable to your caufc 
 that your fentimcnts are fo flattering to hu- 
 man nature, and fo palateable to the tafte of 
 this Joi~difant Age of Reafon : and this ad- 
 vantage is the greater if, as you inform us, 
 there are many thoufands, both in the 
 church and out of it, who are, at leafl: fe- 
 cretly, on your fide *. A circumftance I 
 am the more ready to believe from what I 
 know of the fpread of infidelitv. 
 
 In addreiring your Letters to a Lady, you 
 feem defn-ous to ftrcngthen your intereft 
 farther by the patronage of the fiir fex, 
 whofe influence over us commences vvitli 
 the cradle and the brcaft, and continues 
 commenfuratc with the current of our lives. 
 1 confcfs that from my opinion of the piety 
 
 * Review, p. 227. 
 
 and 
 
( II ) 
 
 and intelligence of women (who have been 
 often remarked to have more religion in 
 genera], than men), I fhould have no fear as 
 to the refult of an appeal to their judgment ; 
 but I am perfuaded they have too much 
 modefly to give an av/ard on queflions of 
 Theology. 
 
 Should it be enquired with what difpofi- 
 tion I enter \ipon this inveftigation ; whether 
 I feel that indifference to fentiment, which 
 feme writers confider as a neceilary pre- 
 requilite to a difcovery of truth — an indif- 
 ference which makes it perfectly the fame 
 to me whether my principles on examina- 
 tion prove true or falfe — I muft confefs 
 that I am not thus indifferent : 1 have 
 found that comfort and fatisfa6lion in them, 
 that * my heart's deiire and prayer to God is,' 
 that you, and my readers alfo, may en- 
 joy the fame. — If this fhould appear un- 
 promifing, permit me to aik. What M'ould 
 be thought of an advocate for Natural Re- 
 ligion, who Ihould fet out with confefling it 
 a matter of perfe6l indifierence to him, 
 whether or not there were a God, or a 
 divine providence ? — But you, Sir, need not 
 be told that a regard to principles may con- 
 
 B 2 fifl 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 fill with a juft fenfe of our own fallibility, 
 and an opennefs to convidlion by the argu- 
 ments of an opponent. Whatever others 
 may have advanced, you have, much to 
 your honour, contended for the importance 
 o^ religious truth. On this point, therefore, 
 I may fuppofe we are agreed : I wifh we 
 were equally fo as to what is truth. 
 
 Before I conclude this letter, permit me 
 to mention one thing which has embarraffed 
 me a httle. I hate the illiberality of party 
 names j and yet, in ipeaking of parties, I am 
 obhged to ufe them. On my own lide I 
 can find no difficulty, you and your friends 
 have furniihed me with a variety : we are 
 Trinitarians, Calvinifts, Enthufiafts, and 
 Chriftian Idolators *. All, or any of thefe 
 names may do for us -, but by what term 
 fhall I diilinguifh the friends of your hypo- 
 thefis ? 
 
 The n^me Socinian you difavow; and So- 
 cinus would have difavowed you as an 
 heretic, or an infidel ; and probably have 
 immured you in a prifon -f-. As to the 
 
 • Review, p. 129, 130, 
 
 f Toulmin's Life of Socinus, p, 105. 
 
 name 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 name llnitariariy I am unwilling exclufively 
 to allow it j becaufe we believe in no more 
 gods than you do^ yet, for diflindtion's fake, 
 I mufl be content to adopt this as 2l popu- 
 lar term for your non-defcript denomination. 
 
 It is necefiary, however, to obferve, that 
 as by uling thefe terms I do not wifli to 
 make you anfwerabie for the fentiments of 
 other Unitarian Writers, fo neither do I 
 make myfelf refponfible for the opinions of 
 other Calvinifts, any farther than I have 
 avowed them. In general, my ideas corref- 
 pond with thofe of the great Reformer of 
 Geneva -, but in all parties the fhades of dif- 
 ference in opinion are as numerous almoft 
 as the individuals who compofe them. 
 
 Having fettled thefe preliminaries, I fhall, 
 for the prefent, fubfcribe myfelf, in the 
 caufe of God and truth. 
 
 Your humble fervantp 
 
 T, W, 
 
( H ) 
 
 L P: T T E R II. 
 
 On the Teji of Truth. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 T> EFORE Ave enter on the iuveftiga-r 
 "^ tion of any particular point of faith, 
 it is necelfary that we agree upon certain 
 criteria as our rulej otherwife we may 
 wrangle without end, but fhall make no 
 progrefs in the fearch after truth. The 
 only criteria I woi^ld employ in thefe Let- 
 ters are Reafon and the Scriptures. 
 
 I fuppofe we are agreed, that it is the 
 province oi Reafon to judge of the evidences 
 of Revelation, and of its import. I pre- 
 tend not, any more than yourfelf, to be an 
 infpired expofitor: but being fatished, after 
 a due examination, that the fcriptures com- 
 monly received by Proteflants are genuine, 
 I ufe my underftanding to invciligate their 
 meaning, not without prayer that my fa- 
 culties may be flrengthened in the refearch, 
 and my judgment chaftened by divine in- 
 
 flrudlion 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 {Iruction. Perhaps you will accompany me 
 in this, it no farther. 
 
 Having received full fatisfa(5tion on the 
 divine authority of the Bible, I confider 
 myfelf bound to fubnait, whenever it ap- 
 pears determinate and clear ; without tortur- 
 ing the facred writers by forced criticifm, 
 or conje(51ural emendation ; and without pre- 
 fuming to call only fuch precepts or doc- 
 trines as are agreeable to my inclination, or 
 within the Iphere of my comprehenfion. 
 To inftance in a fmgle point : when I read of 
 the Refurre6lion of the Dead, I think mv- 
 feif boLWid to receive it on the authority of 
 the Revealer, altho' utterly incomprehenfible, 
 and implying innumerable circumftances to- 
 tally diilimilar to any .thing which 1 have 
 witnelled ; and, in my view, one of the 
 greatcfl myftcries either in nature or chrif- 
 tianity. 
 
 I fear we differ widely in our eilimation 
 of the authority of the facred writers ; but 
 in order to meet you on your own princi- 
 ples, and for the fake of argument, I fhall, 
 in thefe Letters, infiil: only upon that degree 
 of authcrity which you feem willing to al- 
 low them, < as capable and faithful witnefTes, 
 
 * both 
 
( '6 ) 
 
 * both of the cio(flrine which Jefus taughi:^ 
 
 * and of the fads which they relate*.* 
 
 To a critical invefligation of the authen- 
 ticity and tranflation of particular pafTages I 
 have no objection ', and am willing (fo far 
 as I may be able) to employ -"all the care 
 you recommend, to difcovcrjtheir * genuine 
 ' fenfe, without takinp; j^into confidcratiort 
 
 * whether it agrees with "this, or is repugnant 
 
 * to that hypothecs of vam and ignorant men^ 
 ' who flrain the apoftolic language to thd 
 
 * fupport of their favourite fy ftems-f*.' 
 
 But though'" you acknowledge the Scrip- 
 tures, critically examined, and rightly under-' 
 flood, to be the teft of Truth, and com- 
 plain of rational chriftians being * often ac- 
 
 * cufed of not paying due refpedl* to their 
 
 * authority J / yet I obferve^ that your man- 
 ner of criticifing is fuch as to leave very little 
 in them, to which a mutual appeal can b« 
 made. 
 
 On this principle you might well ob^ 
 ferve, || that * It would be difficult to prove 
 
 * that David in his penitential lamentatioa 
 
 * Review, p. 28. t Ibid, p. 30. 
 
 X lb. p. 20. il lb. p. 43. 
 
 * over 
 
( 17 ) 
 t over his enormous crime, wrote Under ^ 
 ' divine impulfe, or that Solomon was fuper- 
 ' naturally endowed with any other thati 
 
 * political wifdom.' You might have added 
 on this principle, that it would be difficult to 
 prove that one himdreth part of the Bible is 
 infpired. On this ground, one need not be 
 furprifed at youi' making no ufe of it in judg- 
 ing of the divine character, but in the true 
 fpirit of infidelity, declaring, that * we have 
 
 * no fatisfa<5tory rule of judging of the cha- 
 
 * ra(fl:er of the Deity, but from his operati- 
 
 * ons"*/ in v/hich it is manifeil:, by what fol- 
 lows, you do not mean to include the Scrip- 
 tures. Farther, you * allow the infpiratiori of 
 
 * the writers of the New Tertament in no 
 
 * cafes where they do not themfelves exprefs- 
 
 * ly claim it -f-.' This appears to me very 
 iinreafonable. An ambaflador having pro- 
 duced his credentials, expedis to be acpredi- 
 ted till he is recalled or fuperceded: A 
 fteward empovvered to receive rents, pro- 
 duces his authority on the firil; demand, but 
 does not expedf it to be required every time r 
 A feryant empowered to open credits, and 
 
 * Review, p. 32. f Ibid, p. i?>. 
 
 C receive 
 
( i3 ) 
 
 receive payments, retains his power while he 
 retains his fervice, unlefs his authority he 
 withdrawn. So the apoftles were ambalTa- 
 dors, flewards, fervants of Jefus Chrifl:, and 
 had a right to be refpecfted in their pubhc cha- 
 radler, wherever no intimations are given to 
 the contrary, of which we have fome re- 
 markable inftances in the Epiftles of Paul *; 
 and thefc exceptions forcibly confirm the 
 opinion of his writing in general under the 
 influence of infpiration. However, in order 
 to accommodate myfelf to the weaknefs of 
 your faith, care fhall be taken as to the au- 
 thority, as well as perfpicuity, of the evi- 
 dence adduced by 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 • I Cor. vll. 6, 10, IQ, 25, 26, 40.— xi. \7, &c. 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 LETTER IIL 
 
 *T^he Scripture Do^rine of the Depravity of 
 Human Nature, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 /^UR firft queflion relates to a matter 
 of fatfl:. Is human nature deprave d^ 
 or not? A queftion I fhould fnppofe un- 
 necefliiry with the friends of Revelation, 
 iince the evidence of the fad: is fo full and 
 complete, that it pours around like day-light. 
 It abounds every where in the facred writ- 
 ings. Moses not only gives the hiflory of 
 its origin in the fall, but delivers this fen- 
 tance, as from God himfelf, prior to the 
 flood. ' And God faw that the wickednefs 
 
 * of man was great in the earth, and that every 
 
 * imagination of the thoughts of his heart was 
 
 * only evil continually,' And it repented the 
 
 * Lord that he had made man on the earth, and 
 < it grieved hini at his heart *,' As you. Sir, 
 profefs yourfelf a lover of criticifm, permit 
 me to remark, that there is an emphafis, not 
 
 * Gen. vi. 5j 6, 
 
 C z only 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 only in the words themfelvcs, but in their 
 grammatic form ; in thp original, the future 
 tcnfe being here uled for the pretcr, or 
 rather the prcfent tenfe (\vhich is deficient 
 in the Hebrew), as often is the cafe where 
 the fenfe is not retrained to a particular 
 period ; and, if I am not greatly miftaken, 
 this form of fpeaking denotes the character 
 given to belong tp every generation of man- 
 kind. For the truth of the propofition 
 however, whether the criticifm be admitted 
 or not, we have divine authority ; for we 
 find the Lord again declaring, immediately 
 after the flood, that the human heart is ll:ill 
 the fame : * I will not again curfe the 
 * ground uny more for man's fake ; for the 
 ' imagination of man's heart is evil from 
 ' his youth */ 
 
 David 
 
 * Gen. viii. 21. — Some critics have been nibbling at 
 this text by rendering the particle O aUhiugh, iiiftead of 
 for ; but admitting it fometimes to bear that rendering, 
 there fecms no occafton for here departing from its firft 
 and primary fignification. " I will not add to curfe the 
 earth any more (Tl^V;^) on account of man; (»;^) 
 becaufe the thoughts of the heart of man are evil from 
 his youth." Here the two Hebrew particles are evi- 
 dently fynonimous j God would not curfe the earth any 
 
 more 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 David and Solomon may be writers 
 of little weight with you. Poffibly you 
 will admit, however, that they had feme 
 knowledge of human nature, and of their 
 pwn hearts. The fornier confeiles himfelf 
 to be * fhapen in iniquity and conceived in 
 
 * fni * / an-d the latter witnelies, that ' God 
 
 * made 
 
 more on account of vRzw-^becaufe of the wickednefs of his 
 heart, &c. 
 
 The argument, however, does not reft upon a crlti- 
 cifm. Admitting the propofed rendering of although, {^\\\ 
 it fuppofes the fadl, that *■ the thoughts of the heart of man 
 are evil from his youth.' 
 
 * Pf. II. 5. Rather, more literally and accurately, 
 
 * Behold, in iniquity was I born; 
 
 * Yea, in fm did my mother conceive me.* 
 Mr. Bulkley, in his late Apology for Human Na- 
 ture, feems to intimate as if this was fome misfortune 
 peculiar to David, conveying an oblique refledlion 
 on his mother ; but afterwards, as if confcious of this 
 being unfounded, and afhamed of the innuendo, he tries to 
 explain it away in another manner ; as if he had faid, 
 
 * Were fuch a thing any way pojfible, I could even be- 
 lieve myfelf to have been born with a propenfity to 
 fm' Is not this faying that the Pfalmift had felt fo 
 ftrong a propenfity to fm that he knew not how other- 
 ways to account for it ? And that, admitting the poflibility 
 of original fin, it was certainly the beft and only method 
 tp folye the problem ? But after all, we are told it is only 
 
 a ftrong 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 *madc man upright, but they have fought 
 
 * out many inventions' — ' yea, ahb the heart 
 
 * of the fons of men is full of evil, and mad- 
 
 * nefs is in their heart *.' 
 
 The Prophets, in general, feem deeply 
 affedted with this humbling truth ; and 
 Jeremiah, in particular, delivers the fol- 
 lowing oracle from the mouth of God him- 
 felf: * The heart is deceitful above all 
 
 * things, and del'perately wicked ; who can 
 
 * know it ? I the Lord fearch the heart 
 
 * and try the reins,' &c. As if the Lord 
 had faid, * None but myfelf, whofe prero- 
 
 * gative it is to fearch the heart, can com- 
 
 * prehend the depth of its iniquity -f-.' 
 
 Jesus Christ himfclf, whom you admit 
 to be * a teacher fent from God,' exprefies 
 the fame dod:rine, in terms at leajfl: equally 
 clear and ftrong : * from within, out of the 
 
 a ftrong poetical or proverbial expreflion ; as if one fhould, 
 fay, * Surely I was mad — out of my fw*nfes, or bewitched !' 
 A very proper iiluftration to fuch a qommeur, and very 
 much apropos ! Sec Bulklcy's Ajol. p. 7K — 8j. 
 
 * Ecclcf. vii. 29. ix. 3. 
 
 -f Jer. xvii. 9, lo. * Defperately wicked' XIH Ci^ii^ 
 depravity itfelf.-^Ji^.'IJ'f EmJ})^ is a man depraved, fallenjj 
 niortal. 
 
 * heart,* 
 
( 23 ) . ' 
 
 * heart,' lays he, not pointing to any indi-* 
 vidua! , but to the fpecies — * Out of the 
 
 * heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adul- 
 
 * teries, fornications, murders, thefts, co- 
 
 * vetuoufnefs, wickednefs, deceit, lafcivi- 
 
 * oufnefs, an evil eye, blafphemy, pride, 
 ' fooh/hnefs : all thefe evil things come 
 
 * from v^rithin, and defile the man *.' 
 Once more, Paul, the difciple of Gama- 
 
 liel, but who afterward received his dodrine 
 from the Lord himfelf -f-, gives the followino" 
 account of the ftate of human nature ; part 
 of which being quoted from the Pfalms^, 
 unites the authority of the Prophet with that 
 of the Apoflle. Speaking * both of Jews and 
 Gentiles,' Paul fays, * They are all under 
 
 * fm.' — « As it is written, ** there is none 
 *« righteous ; no, not one : There is none 
 " that underflandeth, there is none that 
 " feeketh after God. They are all gone 
 ** out of the way ; they are altogether be- 
 ** come unprofitable: there is none that 
 " doeth good, no, not one." Then, after 
 enumerating particulars, he fays, ' Now wc 
 ' know that what things foever the law 
 
 * Mark, vii. 21—23. t Gal. i. i, 12. 
 
 * faith, 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 * faith, it faith to them that are under tha 
 
 * law: that every mouth may be flopped, 
 
 * and ALL THE WORLD bccomc guilty be- 
 
 * fore God *.* 
 
 Now, Sir, will you permit me to place 
 
 * Rom. ill. 9---I9. Though I have not mfcrted it 
 In the text, I arri miich inclined to admit the Tug- 
 geftion of a friend, that bv thofe who ' are under the 
 *law,' Paul intended the Ifraelites, in diftlndtion from 
 the world ; and that he meant to rcafon from the de- 
 pravity of that chofen nation to that of the whole 
 world. Having in the firfl: chapter proved the Gen- 
 tiles to be wicked in the extreme : the only exception 
 
 that could be pleaded was that of the Jews. A?e 
 
 they no better ? He allows, chap. ii. that they had 
 greater advantages than the others, in being favoured 
 with a divine Revelation, &c. 3'^et did they not prac- 
 tice what they knew, nor did the goodnefs of God 
 lead (or influence) them iinto repentance, ver. l/--*- 
 23. Chap. iii. he then aflcs, where is the difference 
 between Jew and Gentile? They differ in advan- 
 tages, but not in charafter. Hear their own fcrfp- 
 tures, vef. n— 18. Thefe things are not faid of igno- 
 rant heathens, but of God's own nation ; for what the 
 law, or Jcwifh fcripture faith, it faith to thofe that 
 are under the law^ /. e. to the Jews : and if they are 
 thus depraved and wicked, where fliall we fmd the 
 good? Every mouth muff be ffopped, and all the 
 world become guilty before God.-— This view of the 
 paffage ffrengthcns my argument, but is not elfential 
 to its validity. 
 
 tinder 
 
( ^5 ) 
 
 under thefa quotations your own opinlort ? 
 That * there is upon the whole a very great 
 
 * preponderence of good in general, and 
 
 * with few, if any exceptions, in every in- 
 
 * dividual in particular *.* And let me afk 
 what reafon will you give that your word, 
 and that of a few other modern philofophers, 
 is to be preferred to the folemn decifion of 
 prophets, apoflles, and Jefus Chrift him- 
 felf? 
 
 I have faid modern philofophers, becaufe 
 the antients clearly are againft you. Dr. 
 Doddridge^ who will be admitted to have 
 been well acquainted v^^ith their writings, 
 and certainly a man of candour, fays — 
 
 * Thofe who have carefully ftudied human 
 
 * nature, even amongfl: pagans^ have acknow- 
 
 * ledged (and that in very Jlrong terms) an 
 
 * inward depravation and corruption, adding 
 ' a difproportionate force to evil examples, 
 
 * and rendering the mind averfe to good -I-/ 
 On the general queftion of the depravity 
 
 of human nature, Mr. Wilberforce has very 
 
 * Review, p. 13. 
 
 t Doddridge's Le(flures, vo]. ii. p. 193. Kippis's 
 edition. Alio Hiiloric Defence, vol. i. chap. G. 
 
 D properly 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 properly appealed to fa(fbs, and * fads arc 
 ftubboni things.* He has ably and elo- 
 quently argued from a variety of topics 
 equally popular and convincing. I have no 
 defire to repeat his arguments, and it feems 
 the more unneceffary as you have replied to 
 them only in a few inftances, which I Ihall 
 notice as we proceed. 
 
 T cannot omit this opportunity of obferv- 
 ing the expedients to which you are fre- 
 quently driven, in attempting to account for 
 the language of Scripture on this fubjeft. 
 
 * The Jews (you tell us) having been chofen 
 ' by God to peculiar privileges, entertained 
 
 * a very high notion of their own dignity, 
 
 * and exprefled themfelves in the mofl con- 
 
 * temptuous language of the idolatrous Gen- 
 
 * tiles, who were not in covenant with 
 
 * Jehovah. Of themfelves they fpoke as a 
 '* chofen and a holy nation, fons of God, and 
 " heirs of the promifes' But the heathens 
 
 * were reprefented as * fmncrs, as aliens, as 
 ** enemies to God,* and the like. In allulion 
 
 * to which forms of expreilion, the con- 
 
 * verted Gentiles being entitled equally 
 
 * with converted Jews, to the blefllngs of 
 
 * the new difpenfation, they are therefore 
 
 * faid 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 * faid to be forgiven, reconciled, and faved, 
 « to be ' fellow-citizens with the faints, and 
 " of the houfehold of God*." 
 
 So then. Sir, the Gentiles only were Tin- 
 ners and enemies to God ; and thefe not in 
 rcahty, but in the prejudiced opinion of the 
 felf righteous Jews 3 and thefe prejudices 
 were carried fo far as to be mingled with 
 the chriftian dodrine of falvation ; and we 
 ^^Q forgiven, reconciledy Tiwdfaved, only by a 
 Jewifli conceit ! A happy way this of ex- 
 plaining Scripture phrafes ; and, i^ I miflake 
 not, fome improvement on the method of 
 Dr. Taylor ! 
 
 But to be ferious— as the fubjed: certainly 
 requires, though your gloffes fcarcely will 
 permit — Do the facred writers afcribe the 
 terms linners, enemies to God, &c. only to 
 the Gentiles ? Did not Jefus Chrift declare 
 that it fliould be more tolerable for Sodom 
 
 and Gomorrah than for unbelieving Jews ? • 
 
 Did not Paul renounce all moral pre-emin- 
 ence of the Jews above the Gentiles ? « Are 
 ^ we better ^than they ?' faid he ; « No, in 
 * no wife.' — Did not Peter charge upon the 
 
 * Review, p. ir, 18. 
 
 ^ 2 Jews 
 
'( 28 ) 
 
 Jews the enormous fin of crucifying the 
 Lord of glory ? — What then can you mean 
 by infinuatlng, that the apoftles in the ufe 
 of thefe terms wrote under the influence 
 of Jewilh prejudices; and when they called 
 the Gentiles Jinjiers^ 6cc. did not mean to 
 include themfelves ? 
 
 I rifk nothing in faying that the oppofite 
 to this is exprefled, in terms as clear and 
 unequivocal as any language can furnifh. 
 Paul, in particular, exprefsly fays, that be- 
 tween Jew and Gentile, in the bufmefs of 
 falvation, ' there is no difference ; for ali, 
 
 * \i2iYQjinnedy and come Ihort of the glory of 
 ' God *.' Alfo in writing to the Ephefians, 
 fo far from makins: an illiberal, diftincflion 
 between his countrymen and thofe Gentile 
 converts, he exprefsly includes himjelj\ who 
 was an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and a 
 Pharifee. * You (faith he) hath he quicken- 
 
 * ed, who were dead in trefpafTes and fins, 
 
 * wherein, in times paft, ye walked, accord- 
 ^ ing to the courfe of this world, according 
 
 * to the prince of the power of the air, the 
 
 * fpirit that now worketh in the children of 
 
 • Rom. iu. 22, 23. 
 
 difobe- 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 * difobedlence : among whom we all had 
 
 * OUR converfation in times paft, in the 
 < lufls of OUR flefli, fulfiUing the defircs of 
 « the flelh, and of the mind; and were by 
 
 * NATURE the CHILDREN OF WRATH 
 
 ^ EVEN AS OTHERS.' Now, Sir, in what- 
 ever fenfe the terms by nature and children 
 of wrath are here ufed, it is certainly clear, 
 that they apply equally to Jews and Gen- 
 tiles 'y and, if it were poflible to doubt this 
 in the words here cited, the fubfequent con- 
 text would demonflrate it ; for there ' the 
 
 * partition wall' between Jews and Gentiles 
 is broken down, and both are * raifed to- 
 ^ gether* to the privileges of chriftianity. 
 But you. Sir, tell us this pafTage means no- 
 thing more than that the perfons to whom 
 he wrote had been originally Gentiles, en- 
 flaved like others to the idolatries and vices 
 of their heathen ftate *. That is, * we 
 [Paul and his converted Jewj/Ji brethren; 
 — * we] Jews, were formerly idolatrous 
 
 * Gentiles !' If this be a fpecimen oi rat ion" 
 al criticifm, and we muft lignify youy and / 
 a third perfon, whenever the caufe of 
 
 * Review, p. 44. 
 
 Unitarianifm 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 ' . . . 
 Unitarianlfm requires it, there is an end 
 
 to all certainty of Icripture interpretation. 
 If indeed the penmen of the New Tefta- 
 ment wrote thus vaguely, they deferve all 
 the contempt you caft on them ; but if they 
 wrote like men of common fenfe and ho- 
 nefty (waving the queflion of their infpi- 
 rationj, the opprobrium recoils on your fyf- 
 tem ; and your art of criticifm is the art of 
 fliewing how little the fcriptures may be 
 made to mean. 
 
 Finally, Sir, permit me to appeal to your 
 own oblervation and experience. I will not 
 afk, whether you be wholly infenlible of 
 innate depravity ? This might appear im- 
 pertinent : but did you ever meet with 
 a wife and good man, who pretended to 
 be fo. — As far as my inquiries have ex^ 
 tended, I have found men of the moft libe- 
 ral fentiments, the mofl amiable tempers, 
 the mofl benevolent hearts, and the moft 
 ufeful hves — I have uniformly found thefe 
 always ready to acknowledge and lament 
 the fad:. Doddridge ^ 1 have already cited. 
 Watts (juftly reprefented by Dr. Knox, as 
 one of the moft perfedl of human chara6lers) 
 mingles it with all his fongs. The bene- 
 volent 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 volent Hanway fays, ' Thofe know but 
 
 * little of the human heart who do not per- 
 
 * ceive an evident inconfiflency in it. No 
 
 * one can be ignorant that there is a perpe- 
 
 * tual flruggle between his good and evil 
 
 * propenfities. This feems to mark out, in 
 
 * the flrongeft chara^ers, our being fallen 
 
 * from fomething we originally were, agree- 
 
 * able to what is related in the facred writ* 
 
 * ings of the fall of man.' — He adds (far- 
 ther on), * Our hearts are treacherous, and 
 
 * we cannot eafily fathom the depth of our 
 
 * own corruption *.' 
 
 To name but one other, a man of fuch 
 excellency as to be univerfally efteemed an 
 ornament to human nature, Howard the 
 philanthropifl ; this man, when he found 
 the nation meant to honour him with a 
 premature monument, immediately and re- 
 folutely oppofed it -)-. — * Alas ! (faid he) our 
 
 * befl: performances have luch a mixture of 
 
 * fin and folly that praife is vanity, and 
 
 * prefumption, and pain, to a thinking 
 
 * Hanway's Refledlions on Lite and Religion, vol. li. 
 p. 412, 453. 
 
 f Stennet's Funeral Sermon for Howard. 
 
 * mind.' 
 
( 3^ ) 
 
 * mind.* — Such are the opinions of the heji 
 men on the ftate of human nature ! 
 
 I fliould here certainly introduce the 
 apoftle Paul again, as confelTing and be- 
 wailing his natural depravity and confe- 
 quent infirmities, * O wretched man that I 
 
 * am !' &c. but I expedt you would put him 
 to critical torture, by making him fpeak 
 m a falfe and afllimed chara(5ter ; and I 
 have been already fo much difgufted by 
 this violence to common {tnit and truth, 
 that I choofe rather to let him rell: in 
 peace. 
 
 I hope I have faid enough to prove, if 
 any regard be due to fcripture or experi- 
 ence, that mankind are univerfally depraved j 
 now permit me to afk, if you knew any 
 one familv which, from generation to crene- 
 ration, and in every variety of climate and 
 of country, were fubjedt to a particular 
 diforder, would not this be fufiicieat to 
 prove that diforder natural and contlitu- 
 tional ? Surely then, if all mankind, ia 
 every age, country, and fituation, and from 
 their earlieft youth are contaminated more 
 or lefs with fin, this is abundantly fuffici- 
 
 ent 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 ent to prove the difordcr is originally feated 
 in human nature *. 
 
 Under a proper impreflion of my own 
 (hare in this depravity, and with a becom- 
 ing fenfe of my infirmity, I defire to fub- 
 fcribe myfelf 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 * Pref. Edwards, in his " Chriflian Dodrine of 
 Original Sin," (Parti, chap. i. fed. 2.) has proved 
 and illultrated this univerfal propenlity to fin with 
 great variety of argument. I fhould have quoted 
 him at length, had not the cafe appeared too obvious 
 to require it : but I take the liberty of faying in this 
 place, that whatever on this fubjed may be found too 
 flight}}- treated in my brief fketch, may be found ar- 
 gued at length in that work with a force of reafon, 
 that to me appears nothing fhort of demonftration. 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Mr. Belpains View of the prefent State of 
 Human 'Nature, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 TTHE doctrine of human depravity is con- 
 feffedly fo much a fundamental princi- 
 ple, that I entered farther into the proof of it 
 than perhaps was neccflary, when my objedl 
 is not to write a feries of theological ellkys, 
 or a body of divinity ; but only to obviate 
 feme objedions, and remove the llumbling 
 blocks which you have thrown in the way 
 of truth 'y however, my lafl: letter was too 
 long to admit an apology, and this may be 
 better employed than in attempting one. 
 
 That there is a defect in the human cha- 
 racter, and a degree of moral evil in the 
 world, you feem willing to allow, by endea- 
 vouring to account for it, in confiftency with 
 your" hypothefis. Men are not abfolutely 
 free from evil, you admit ; but then they are 
 good characflers upon the NVhole, though not 
 perfect ones. ' CharaCler (you obferve) is 
 
 • the 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 the fum total of habits ; but in formino" an 
 eflimate of moral worth, it is an invariable 
 principle that one vice flamps a characfter 
 vicious, while a thoufand virtues will not 
 atone for one immoral habit. If a man be 
 a liar, or diOioncfl:, or intemperate, or im- 
 pious, his charadier is denominated vicious, 
 with whatever virtues it may otherwife be 
 adorned. He who keepeth the whole law, 
 and offendeth ** in one point, is guilty of 
 * all.'* And the reafon is evident, virtue is 
 that fyflem of habits which conduces to 
 the greateft ultimate happinefs -, vice is 
 that which diminiihes happinefs, or pro- 
 duces mlfery. The union, therefore, of a 
 fmgle vice with a conflellation of virtues, 
 will contaminate them all; will prevent 
 them from producing their proper effecfl, 
 and will, in proportion as it prevails, di- 
 minifli the happinefs, or produce the mi • 
 lery of the agent, who never can attain 
 the true end of his exiflence till this vice 
 is eradicated. 
 
 * Hence it follows, that there may be a 
 conliderable preponderance of virtues, even 
 in charadlers juftiy efhimated as vicious ; 
 and likewife, that the quantity of virtue 
 
 * in 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 ' in the world may far exceed that of vice, 
 
 * though the number of virtuous characters 
 
 * may be lefs than that of vicious ones *.' 
 A little farther on, you add, * Few cha- 
 
 ^ raders are flagrantly wicked ; and perhaps 
 
 * even in the worji of men, good habits 
 
 * and adlions are more numerous than the 
 ^ contrary. Certainly they are fo in the 
 
 * majority of mankind, and .... preponderant 
 
 * virtue is almoft univerfal-f-.' 
 
 This you confider as * the real ftate of 
 ' things:' how far it differs from the flate- 
 raent of the facred writers may be ieeu by 
 comparing it with my laft letter ; how far it 
 is confluent v/ith itfelf, and with common 
 fenfe, is the point now to be examined. 
 
 I. If' one vice jflair.p a charac^ler vicious,* 
 and that ' juftly,' it muft be bccaufe it ren- 
 ders it fo. There muft be fomething in 
 the indulgence of this one vice that gives 
 an immoral tinge to the whole mafs of dif- 
 pofition, cr as you cxprels it, ' which con- 
 taminates all.' This is doubtlefs the truth : 
 for he that indulges one fm proves that it is 
 not from any regard to God, but merely 
 
 * Review, p. 3/", 38. f Ibid, p. 3.9. 
 
 owinof 
 
 c 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 owino- to the influence of feme felfifh motive 
 that he is deterred from others. A difobe- 
 dient fon may not live in the pradical viola- 
 tion oi all his father's commands; but if he 
 continually allow himfelf to violate one, 
 that is a iufficient proof, it is not from 
 regard to parental authority, but with a view- 
 to his credit or Intersil, that he complies 
 with the others ; and confequently, there is 
 no principle of obedience in him. It Is thus 
 that * he who offendeth in one point' of the 
 law is said to be ' guilty of all *.' One al- 
 lowed tranfgreflion deflroys the authority of 
 the lawgiver, and with that the principle of 
 obedience : for * he that faith do not com- 
 
 * mit adultery, faith alfo, do not kill -, now 
 
 * if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou 
 
 * kill, thou art become a tranfgreflbr of the 
 
 * law.' So we may reafon, If thou doft not 
 indulge intemperate anger, yet if thou in- 
 dulgeil pride -f ; or if thou fubdueft pride, if 
 
 * James ii. 10. 
 
 f I recolle6l bat one inftance of anj pcrfon claim- 
 ing an exemption from this mafter vice (pride) and 
 that was Dr. Brown, the author of Rellgio Medici, 
 and it has been univcrfallj confi4ered as a proof of 
 las exceiiive vanity. 
 
 thou 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 thou dofl not fubdue anger, thou art become 
 a tranlgreflbr of the Liw, and a violator of 
 the authority of the legillator. 
 
 In perfc6l confiftcncy with this, the fcrip- 
 tiires reprefent it as impoffible for thofe that 
 are * in the flefh,' or under the dominion of 
 vicious propenfities, to pleafe God *, as it is 
 for an evil tree to bring forth good fruit. 
 Thofe that bring forth good fruit are good 
 trees : fo * he that doeth righteoufncfs is 
 righteous/ Now if thefe things be true 
 (and they appear to rel'uk necelfarily frora 
 your own premifes), what becomes of that 
 
 * confteilation of virtues,' which you had 
 even m vicious charafters, and on which 
 
 ^refls your whole argument for the prtpon^- 
 derance of virtue in the world ? 
 
 In what you fay of vice, either in men or 
 children, being * a deviation from the ac- 
 
 * cuftomed order of things^' you make vir- 
 tue to confift in the mere appearance of ir, 
 or in abftaining from grofs immoralities, ir- 
 refpec^live of the motive; whereas you can- 
 not be ignorant, that it is from this moral 
 actions are determined good or evil. Accord- 
 
 * Rom. vHi. 8. 
 
 ing 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 ing to your reafoning a man may do rio-hte- 
 oufnefs, yea many adts of righteoufnefs to 
 one of wickedners, and yet not be righteous. 
 Your good fruit confefiedly fprings from a 
 bad tree, which evinces that, 'however bene- 
 ficial it may prove in fociety, it is not good in 
 his iight whofe judgment is ever according 
 to the truth. 
 
 Not only are you defective in your ideas 
 of virtue, but vague and unfcriptural in your 
 ideas of vice. Were every man good and 
 honefl: who efcapes a prifon, or avoids the 
 penalty of the laws, there might, indeed, be 
 fome plaufibility in your eilimate of the pre- 
 ponderance of virtue. But if according to* 
 the dod:rine of Jefus, every man that looks 
 luflfally upon a woman committeth adultery, 
 and every one unjuftly, or inordinately angry 
 is a murderer 5 if (as will follow from the 
 fame principle) every man who forms the 
 the wifh to deceive his neighbour is a liar, 
 and he wlio alms to defraud him is diflio- 
 nefr ; where then iliall we find your boafled 
 preponderance of virtue, and your great ma- 
 jority of good and virtuous men ? On th( 
 contrary, I fear we mull borrow the lanteri 
 of Diogenes, or rather the candle of the Pro- 
 phet 
 
( 40 ) 
 J>h:t *, to find here and there a good and 
 pious character. 
 
 2. If chara(fter be the fum total of habits, 
 or (which is the fame thing) if the majority 
 of habits, upon the fum total being efti- 
 mated, denominate charadler, then where 
 the habits of virtue preponderate above thofe 
 of vice, the charadter may be denominated 
 virtuous ', and if good habits and actions are 
 more numerous than the contrary, as you 
 fay * they certainly are in the majority of 
 
 * mankind,' it follows that the majority of 
 mankind are certainlv virtuous chara(fi:ers 5 and 
 not the majority only, but the whole -, for you 
 think * there may be a confiderable prepon- 
 
 * derence of virtue, even in characters juftly 
 
 * eftimated as vicious, and perhaps in the 
 
 * worfl: of men :' but how you reconcile thefe 
 fuppofitions with each other, and efpecially 
 with the alfertions of Scripture, and in par- 
 ticular, with that of Jesus Christ, that 
 many walk in the broad road of vice, and 
 few in the narrow way that leads to life -f-, I 
 confefs myfelf utterly unable to conceive. 
 
 * Zepli. i. 12. t Matt.vli. 13. 
 
 3. Admit 
 
( 4' ) 
 
 y. Admitting that part of your premlfes, 
 that * one vice flamps a charadler vicious/ 
 1 fhould rather infer, that inflead of a ma- 
 jority of ^virtuous habits and anions in the 
 'iiDorjl men, we (hould liiid a majority of vi- 
 cious habits and aCTions, even in the bcjl 
 men. And thus the facred writers uniform- 
 ly reprefent the fa-ft. ' In many things we 
 all offend — he that offendeth in one point 
 is guilty of the whole,' &c. 
 ' Who,' faith David, * can underftand 
 his errors ? clcanfe thou me from fccret 
 faults. — Mine iniquities have taken hold 
 upon me, fo that I am not able to look 
 up : they are more in number than the 
 hairs of mine head, therefore my heart 
 faileth me.' Under the deepefl: contrition 
 he was fo far from thinking of the preT)on- 
 derance of his virtues, that he ufes language 
 fuiting only the lips of a polluted creature ; 
 *' Create in me a clean heart O God, and 
 " renew a right fpirit within me*." The 
 apoftle Paul is one of tlie mod moral cha- 
 racfters in the fcriptures, yet he not only 
 confelles himfelf a finner,but the vervchief-i- 
 
 *Pr. xlx. le. xl. r^. 11. 10.. f I Tim. i. 1:., 1,;. 
 
 F of 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 of fiiincrs, and a dlflinguiHied inftance o/ 
 forgiving grace. 
 
 It is true, that the fcrlptures fpeaks of 
 faints as well as Iinners ; and while they rc- 
 prefent all men as guilty and depraved^ 
 fpeak o^fome as good men, righteous, holy; 
 but then, it is in confequence of a moral, 
 or. rather of a Ipiritual, change wrought in 
 them: — they are 7nade good, juftificd, and 
 fandtificd ; operations. Sir, to which you 
 unhappily confefs yourfelf a fiiranger, and 
 nluil; therefore feek another way to explain 
 the paradox. 
 
 4. It may not be amifs to examine the 
 chara(fter of thefe excellent virtues, and 
 your very courtly deiinition of virtue from 
 its utility. — I know that fome perfons judge 
 every adtian to be right which they find ufe- 
 ful, or convenient ; and thus make their 
 own intereft the criterion of right and 
 wrong. But, I think, we have a far better' 
 teft in the will of our Creator, regulated ac- 
 cording to the eternal litnefs of things j 
 though, at the fune time, I admit that fuch 
 is the original conilitution of providence, 
 that our duty is always in unifon with our 
 bcif in^tcrefls, and conduces to our fin d hap- 
 
 pinefs 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 plnefs. Neverthelefs, it is dangerous and 
 injudicious to eflablifh this as the criterion 
 of right and wrong, becaufe, in many cafes, 
 it is far more difficult to determine what 
 mode of conduct is conducive to our happi- 
 nefs, or to the general beneiit of mankind, 
 than to afcertain our duty, which is com- 
 monly plain and clear : this, therefore, 
 would be explaining what is eafy by what is 
 difficult and obfcure. 
 
 The definition of virtue as a * fyftem of 
 ' habits,' is alfo remarkably inaccurate for 
 a writer of your talents. There are virtu- 
 ous principles, habits, and adtions, but thefe 
 fliould not be confounded with each other. 
 In a general view, virtue may comprehend 
 the whole ; in a prpp^r and diJiinBive fenfe 
 it refers, I conceive, rather to the principh 
 than to the habit, or the condudl. 
 
 You proceed — * Children, we are told, [by 
 Mr.Wilberforce] " are perverfe and fqrward ;" 
 *• that is, they now and then difcover fuch 
 * a temper *.' If you are a flither, Sir, which 
 I know not, and this is the extent of your 
 pbfervation, I may pronounce you a happy, 
 father, and your children happy-tetnpered 
 
 * Review, p. 39, 
 
 F ^ children 
 
{ 44 ) 
 
 children. But a writer of more experience, 
 and (if I may fpeak it witlioiit offence) of 
 luperior wifdom, has informed us, that 
 *' FooHflmefs is bound (up) jn the heart of 
 *' a child *." And truly, there is a per- 
 verfenefs in the tempers of mofl: children, 
 not eafily to be accounted for on any other 
 principle than that of hurnan depravity. But 
 as this is rather a fubjedt of experience than 
 of reafoning, I fhall content myfelf wijh 
 appealing to the hearts of parents. 
 
 ' Honefty,' you fay, ^ al fumes the name 
 ' of common honefly from its general pre- 
 * valence:* and this is the reafon, I fuppofe, > 
 that it is fo little valued; for, to fiy a man 
 pofleiles common honefty, is tantamount to 
 faying he is half a rogue. So mere mora- 
 lity is cheap enough, for, as that term is 
 commonly underftood, it implies the ah- 
 fence of all true religion. 
 
 As to the doctrine, that ' -^11 actions and 
 ' habits, previous to converfion, are fmful ;' 
 it proceeds on principles fo juil: and obvious, 
 that I think you very happy in the expedi- 
 ent you have adopted to get rid of it, by the 
 alluiting us that the refutation of ' fuch. an 
 
 * Prov. xxii, I J. 
 
 ' abfurdity 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 ^ abrurdity would be an abufe of argument.* 
 Here, indeed, you are right enough, for it 
 is only by the * abufe of argument' that 
 it could be refuted. ■ The whole abfurdity, 
 however, lies in believing that man, with a 
 heart at enmity with God, can do nothing 
 in that ftate with a view to pleafe him, and 
 confequently, nothing that is well plealing 
 to him : — or in the emphatic language of 
 Jefus Chrift, that * an evil tree cannot 
 < bring forth good fruit.' A doctrine that 
 you will not lind it fo eafy to prove an ab- 
 furdity as to call it one. 
 
 That the narratives of the creation and 
 fall are literally true, I have no doubt ; but 
 it is not necefTary to my prefent defign to 
 inveftigate them, and the attempt would 
 greatly extend my plan. That we fome 
 way or other become partakers of the o-^ilt 
 of our firit parents, and fubjed: to its con- 
 feque.uces, is, what T Ihould have fuppofed 
 no chriflian minifler v/puld deny; but it is 
 become fafhionable to advance bold and dar- 
 ing paradoxes ; and nothing has a greater 
 eflfedt with many readers. I will leave it, 
 however, to your judgment to determine, 
 whether it be moll: reafonable to believe that 
 
 wc 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 we partake of pain and ficknefs, and death, 
 which are the wages of iin, from Adam, on 
 account of our being related to him, and 
 fome way imphcated in his crime ; or whe- 
 ther we partake the penalty without any 
 participation of the fault — Leaving this to 
 your confideration and enquiries, I again 
 fubfcribe myfelf 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
( ^1 ) 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 The Origin of Human Depravity, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 'OU have raifed two grand objec- 
 
 Y' 
 
 tions to the do(fi:rine of Human De- 
 pravity, as flated by Calvinifls : 
 
 1 , That if moral evil be natural and ne- 
 ceifary it muft be the w^ork of God, in fuch 
 a manner as to make him anfwerable for it. 
 
 2. That if a majority of evil prevail, it 
 imputes malevolence to the Creator. — Both 
 thefe inferences appear to me blafphcmous 5 
 either then the premifes, or the conclufion, 
 muil:, in my view, be erroneous. 
 
 The formal difcuffion of thefe propoil- 
 tions would naturally involve the grand 
 queftion of the origin of evil ; an enquiry 
 upon which I dare not enter. It was in- 
 deed too great for Milton, and for Milton's 
 angels, -at leaft when fallen ; who 
 
 — — — " Reafon'd high 
 
 *• Of Providence, foreknowledge, will and fats ; 
 ** Flx'd fate, free-will, foreknowledge abfolute ; 
 " And found no end, in t/and'rmg mazes lofl*." 
 
 * Paradife Loft, book ii. line ■ir^'i. 
 
( 4? ) 
 
 All I fliall attempt ill this letter, is mere-* 
 ly to offer a few oblervations on your lirft 
 objection, and the rcaionings by v/hich you 
 fupport iti 
 
 Firil, In tlie axiom which you have ai-^ 
 fumed from the words of a fuppofed objec- 
 tor, that * whatever we are by nature^ we 
 *■ are what our Creator made us *,' you 
 have availed yourfelf of the ambiguity of 1 
 term to mifreprefeiit the fentiments of your 
 opponents. The term nature, as applied to 
 man, properly fignifies that which belongs 
 to his frame or conllitution as Jiian : but, it 
 is alfo ufed for a mere accidental property, 
 in cafes where that property comes into the 
 world, and grows up with us, in oppofition 
 to properti'es contra(5led by imitation or 
 cuflom. Thus, fome perfons feem at leaf!:, by 
 your own acknowledgement -f-, ' to inhe- 
 ' rit the vices, as well as the difeafes of their 
 * parents ;' and where this is the cafe, it is 
 common to fa}', they are ilUnaturedi or that 
 evil is ingrained (as it were) in their' very 
 nature. Vou well know. Sir, that it is not 
 in the firll {Q,\\{(t, but in the laif, that wc 
 
 •* Rev. p. 31. t lb. p. H. 
 
 confd;r 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 Confider men as depraved by nature. We do 
 hot believe that iin is an efTential property 
 of human nature ; but itierely an accidental 
 tone : not produced by the Creator, but con- 
 traded by the creature *; 
 
 You are certainly aware that Calvinifts do 
 not confidcr the ftate in which men are now 
 born into the world, as being the fame with 
 that in which they were originally created. 
 They believe, from what they conlider as 
 the higheft authority, that *' God made man 
 ** upright, after his own image— in the 
 *' Jikenefs of God made he hirn^" but that 
 by means of the Iin of our firlt parent, the 
 whole fpecies is become polluted. This 
 connexion they allow to have been eftablifh- 
 ed by a divine conilitution : even by that 
 fundamental law of nature, that like fro* 
 duces like. By this law the branch refembles 
 the flem, the flreami the fountain, and a 
 
 * I have fomctimes thought^ that much of the dif- 
 ficuUj on this fubjed arifes from fpeakiiig of fiti as a 
 pofitive being ; whereas, it is onlj a negative affec-- 
 tion of being, and is accordingly generally exprelfed 
 in the New Teflament by terms of a negative import, 
 as (Avo,!xj«) illegality, or tranfgrefllon :-~(A^«/iT<a) 
 milling our aim, &c\ 
 
 G de- 
 
( 5° ) 
 
 degenerate, mortal, finful parent produces 
 a degenerated, mortal, finful oftspring. 
 ' Who,' faith Job, ' can bring a clean 
 
 * thinor out of an unclean ? — What is man 
 
 * (faith Eliphaz) that he fhould be clean ? 
 
 * or he that is born of a woman, that he 
 
 * fhould be righteous * ?' 
 
 In this difpenfation of providence, we do 
 not, however, confider the Deity as anfwer*- 
 able for the defects, infirmities, or faults of 
 his creatures. You, Sir, may object to this 
 view of things, and may charge it with ab- 
 furdity, and us with the want of imder- 
 ftanding ; but you have no right to impute 
 your conclulions to us, as axioms, or allow- 
 ed principles. 
 
 * Job xiv. 4. XV. li. I have quoted tliefe only 
 iiH aphorlfins of the ancients ; but I fee your endea- 
 vour (p. 43) to fet afide the tellimony of Eliphaz, by 
 obferving, that Jehovah cciifured hhn as having ' not 
 ' fpokca the thing that was right.* You can hardly, 
 however, fuppofe this the point in queftion, becaufe 
 here we fee Job and his friend were perfeftly agreed. 
 Bcfides, the point alluded to was evidently the pro- 
 vidence of God, and not the condition of mankind. 
 
 * You liave not fpokcn of me,' faith the Lord, * ihe 
 thing that is right.* It' Job's friends believed this 
 doftrinc, however, it is, at leail, a proof of its an- 
 il qui h'. 
 
 Secondly, 
 
( SI ) 
 
 Secondly, The arguments which you 
 have advanced agalnft our principles are c- 
 qually direcfled againll your own. You fay, 
 
 * It is futile to alledge, as a palliation of the 
 
 * difficulty, that the firft parents of the hu- 
 
 * man race were originally innocent and 
 ' happy ; but that, in confequence of their 
 
 * fill, they contracted a depraved nature, 
 ' which they tranfmitted to their pofterity, 
 
 * for which God is not accountable. Such 
 
 * rcafoning as this cannot impofe upon the 
 ' underftandingj even of a child. Did God 
 
 * refign the dirediion of his works as foon as 
 
 * he had placed Adam in paradife ? Is not 
 
 * his agency as really, and as immediately 
 
 * concerned in the formation of every indi- 
 
 * vidual, as in that of their original ancef- 
 
 * tors ? If I am born into the world a de- 
 ^ praved creature, it is by his appointment, 
 
 * and even by his immediate energy, * I am 
 ^* what my Creator made me *." 
 
 That divine providence extends to the per- 
 fons and pofterity of Adam, and that divine 
 energy is continually exerted in carrying 
 into effed the eftabliflicd laws of nature, is 
 
 •* IleviciV; p. 32, 3D. 
 
 readily 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 readily allowed : but does it follow from 
 hence, that God is ' accountable' for the 
 creatures' linf If fo, it will follow equally 
 from your own principles as from ours. 
 Whether men become finners in confequence 
 of the fall or not, finners they are, without 
 exception ; and if we fuppofe with you, that 
 they are * the creatures of circumftances, 
 ' and that the habits they form are the refult 
 
 * of the imprefiions to which they are ex- 
 
 * pofed *;' flill the divine providence having 
 placed them in thofe circumfl-ances, God 
 would be equally anfwerable for the crea- 
 tures' fin, whether it arife from their orgin- 
 ^1, or fubfequent fituation. Indeed you feem 
 to have no objed:ion to this confequence, 
 when you fay, ' The only enquiry of im- 
 
 * portance upon this fubje(^, is into the quan^ 
 
 * thy and proportion of the evil which ac- 
 ^ tually exifts. How it was hrft introduced 
 ' is a queflion comparatively of little mo - 
 *" ment. The difficulty is the Jame upon all 
 
 * hypothefes. All muft ultimately be referred 
 
 * to God f .' 
 
 Thirdly, The moft important difference 
 
 * Review, p. 41. f Ibid. 
 
 between 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 between us, relative to thefe fubjedls, re^ 
 fpedts .the Creator being confidered as < ac- 
 f countable for the lins of the creature.' 
 Whatever certain neceflarian Philofophers * 
 may have advanced, it is well known that 
 Calvinifts agree in rejecting this idea as blaf- 
 phemous. We afcribe the government of 
 human volitions, as well as adtions, to the 
 Supreme Being: but do not confider any in- 
 fluence to which we are expofed, as deftroy- 
 ing our free agency, and accountablenefs. 
 Judas in betraying Chrift, and the Jews in 
 putting him to death, did no more than 
 God's * hand and counfel determined be- 
 ' fore to be done :' yet, neverthelefs, * by 
 * wicked hands . he was crucified and 
 'f flain -f.* The Son of man went, as was 
 determined ; yet a heavy woe was denounc- 
 ed on him by whom he was betrayed. 
 
 But, Sir, your manner of reafoning appears 
 |:o afcribe the fins of men to the Creator in 
 fuch a lenfe as to render &m * accountable,' 
 rather than the creature. If divine provi- 
 dence extends over all events, you infer that 
 }t is abfurd to reprefent Adam as contracfting 
 
 * See Prieftlej's Dodlrine of Phllofophical Necef- 
 iity. S(i6i, x. f Ads ii. 23. iv. 28. 
 
 any 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 any fm, or tranfmitting It to his poftcrlty, 
 * for which God is not accountable.' So de- 
 cidedly are you in favour of the linner, that, 
 on the fuppofition of his inheriting a corrupt 
 nature from Adam, (which, after all, you 
 elfewhere treat as a matter of little moment) 
 you fcruple not openly to efpoufe his caufe. 
 You fide with the bold objecftor introduced 
 by Mr. Wilberforce, juftify him throughout, 
 and as if his expreffions were not ftrong 
 enough, you encreafe their energy. Why, 
 Sir, did you not alfo efpoufe the caufe of 
 Paul's objector, and fay with him, * Why 
 
 * doth he yet find fault; who hath refiftcth 
 
 * his will ?' You mud furely perceive the 
 great refemblance between his language and 
 the axiom to which you are fo partial — ** I 
 " am what my Creator made me." 
 
 Why did you not become the advocate of 
 Judas, and of the murderers of Jefus Chrifl? 
 They were, as you fuppofe, * the creatures 
 
 * of circumftances,- "and their charadlers 
 formed by the influences to which they were 
 expofed, all which miiil ' ultimately be re- 
 
 * ferred to God.' You could, doubtlefs, 
 put a plea into their lips equally plaufible 
 with that of Mr. W's. objecftcr. Judas, i^ 
 
 particular. 
 
( 5S ) 
 particular, might have been furniihed with 
 a Shield from your armory to repel the 
 threatenings of his mafter. ^Che traitor, 
 while fitting at table with him, was told, it 
 had ht^n. good for him not to have been born: 
 but inftrudted by your divinity, he might 
 have replied, * It is plainly repugnant to 
 
 * the juftice of God, that the gift of exift- 
 
 * ence to any of his intelligent creatures 
 
 * fhould be upon the whole a curfe *.' 
 
 Here, Sir, at prefent I leave you advo- 
 cating the caufe of the ungodly ; an employ- 
 ment which will affuredly be of fliort dura- 
 tion, as the day draweth nigh in which 
 every mouth will be flopped, and all the 
 world become guiUy before God ! 
 
 I am yours, &c. 
 
 * Review, p. 14. 
 
( s6 ) 
 Letter vi 
 
 ne ^antum 6f Moral Evit. 
 
 Rev. Sir^ 
 
 T NOW proceed to examine your fecond 
 
 objection. If there be a preponderance of 
 
 evil in the worlds ?nalignity is imputable to the 
 
 Creator * : or, as you elfe where exprefs it, 
 
 * If vice and mifery' preponderate * in the 
 ' world, we muft conclude that the Maker 
 
 * of the world, whofe charadler we learn 
 
 * only from his works, is a weak, dr a ma- 
 
 * lignant Being -f-.' 
 
 Whether tnifery preponderate in the 
 world is no part of our controverfy ; and 
 whether weaknefs be afcribed to God by 
 our fyflem, or by that which reprefents 
 him as introducing and permitting evil < be- 
 
 * caufe it is unavoidable J,' let the Reader 
 judge. I confine my enquiry to the charge 
 of f/^j^wZ/y which you. Sir, on the fuppofi- 
 tion of the preponderance of evil in this 
 
 * Review, p. 32. f Ibid. p. 13. % Ibid. p. 12. 
 
 world, 
 
( n ) 
 
 World, have had the temerity to exhibit a- 
 gainft the Deity. And here I obferve, 
 
 I . If the qua?2tii?n of moral evil be fup- 
 pofed to affedl the divine character, fo muft 
 its exijience, in a proportionate degree. Now 
 as we both admit this, both our fyftems 
 mufl: be affected by it, though unequally. If 
 my fyflem be affected by the exillence of 
 evil, it muft be on account of that exillence 
 being chargeable on the Deity : but if this 
 be chargeable on Deity, then is your fyftem 
 alfo proportionabiy affedled by it. That is, 
 if my fyftem reprefent the divine Being as 
 malignant, (I fpeak with reverence) fo muft 
 yours, though in an inferior degree. The 
 vine that produces noxious grapes is bad* 
 whether they be few or many; becaufe it is 
 not from the quantity, but the quality of the 
 fruit, that the tree is charadterifed. 
 
 Here vour maxim fhould be recollected, 
 
 * that one vice ftamps a chara(5ler vicious, 
 
 * while a thoufand virtues will not atone for 
 
 * one immoral habit.* Will not this apply 
 to the Supreme Being equally as to his crea- 
 tures ? If he be the author of evil in any 
 degree fo as to affed: his moral character, 
 that chara6ter is ruined ; he muft be an evil 
 
 H ■ or 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 or malienant Belnd: : but if the cxiftence of 
 evil" do not afFed: his chara(5ler, neither can 
 its proportionate quantity : for this plain 
 reafon, that if God be not anfvverable for 
 the exiflencc of evil at all, he cannot be an- 
 fwerable for the exifting quantum. 
 
 Your reafoning, as I have already re- 
 marked, proceeds upon the fuppofition that 
 God is fo concerned in the exiftence of 
 moral evil, that himfelf, rather than the fin- 
 ner> is accountable for it. In fliort, you feem 
 to confider it as a kind of medical potion, a 
 degree of which may be falutary, and fo 
 might be given from benevolence ; but a 
 larger degree poifonous and fatal, and fo in- 
 dicative of a malignant defign in adminiiler- 
 ing it. But is there nothing fallacious in 
 this v\ ay of ftating the queftion ? Can any 
 degree of moral evil, in itlelf, be really ^W.^ 
 Alas I Sir, inftead of refembling the v.feful 
 poifons of the Materia Medicat fm is rather 
 like the poifon of the afp, or of a rabid ani- 
 mal, the fmallefl proportion of which is 
 dan serous, if not fatal. — Did the Creator 
 really prefcribe this deadly potion ? Ah no ! 
 it is * the abominable thing which his foul 
 ' hateth.' — Is man as innocent and blame- 
 
 lefs 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 lefs in drinking this forbidden draught as in 
 following the friendly recipe of the phyfi- 
 cian ? This you certainly cannot fuppofe, or 
 why feel indignant toward the wretch that 
 defames or injures you, and not rather apo- 
 loorize for him as impelled by philofophical 
 neceffity ? But if you cannot ftt down to 
 the account of his Maker the evil treatment 
 of a fellow-creature, you have no reafon to 
 believe that the Creator himfelf will thus 
 excufe fin, or confider the linner as the paf- 
 five inftrument of his own will. 
 
 2. Allowing the exigence of a prepon- 
 derance of evil to reflet^ dillfonour on the 
 divine character, it muft bo on the fuppoli- 
 tion of that preponderance being univerfal 
 and perpetual, neither of which can be ad- 
 mitted. If this world iieth in wickednefs, 
 it does not follow that the cafe is the lame 
 with the whole creation. Indeed, there is 
 the clearefl: evidence to the contrary. For, 
 to fay nothing here of thofe parts of the 
 creation of which revelation is filent, we are 
 informed of a very numerous order (or ra- 
 ther orders) of intelligent beings, who have 
 kept their iirft eflate imcontarninated by 
 moral evil j and who inhabit a world where 
 H 2 * nothing 
 
( 6o ) 
 
 * nothing that delileth fhall in anywife en^ 
 
 * ter in.* Neither is the preponderance of 
 evil in the prefent world any proof that it 
 always will prevail here. We are taught in 
 various paflages of the'facred writings, to 
 expedt a long, a happy period, a millenium, 
 a golden age, when the ballance will be 
 turned, and the earth be filled ^ith peace 
 and righteoufnefs. And when the great in-' 
 creafe of mankind during that period, un- 
 diminifhed by intemperance, war, oppref- 
 fion, or artificial fcarcity, is duly confidered | 
 together with the number of dying infants 
 (equal to half the fpecies) of whofe falvation 
 I have elfewhere given the reafons of my con- 
 fidence *, we, have a grand majority of the 
 human race among the faved — * An inmw 
 
 * merable multitude which no man can 
 
 * number.' 
 
 Part of this reafoning you appear to have 
 anticipated, and reply, that it is * prepof- 
 
 * terous' to argue, ' That although evil 
 
 * prevails in this diflridt of the univerfe, 
 
 * good may greatly preponderate upon the 
 « whole. This is nothing more than an ap- 
 
 • Infant falvation. An EfTay. 
 
 ' peal 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 « peal from fa<a to gratuitous fuppofition. 
 
 * We can only reafon from what we know. 
 
 * If evil prevails as far as our obfervation 
 
 * extends, we can have no reafon to believe 
 
 * that it does not prevail in the fame pro- 
 
 * portion through the univerfe. Revelation 
 
 * itfelf could not prove the contrary ^ for if 
 
 * God be a malignant Being, How can we 
 < know that he does not take pleafure in de- 
 
 * ceiving his creatures ? What ground have 
 
 * we for depending upon his veracity * ?.* 
 
 Am 1 reading Mr. Belfliam, or Thomas 
 Paine ? Since I had the honour of reviewing 
 The Age of Reafon^ I do not recoil e(fl to 
 have met with a palTage fo replete with in- 
 fide'lity and fophiftry. 
 
 * We can only reafon^ (you [2iy)from what 
 
 * ipe knoWi and that from our owji obfer- 
 
 * vat ion.' The fcriptures then contain no 
 data on which we can place any reliance. 
 3ut, if fo, the ancient Hebrews, who ' re- 
 
 * ceived the promifes, were perfuaded of 
 ' them, and embraced them,* muft, on your 
 principles, have had no reafon for their 
 confidence. And how is it that you believe 
 
 * Review, p. 2,2>^ 34. 
 
 in 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 in a future refurrec^tion ? I pre fume that 
 nothing of this kind has come within the 
 iphere of your obfervation. Reafon, in- 
 deed, arguing from the moral perfecfiions of 
 Deity, compared with the unequal diflribu- 
 tion of rewards and puni(hments in the 
 prefent life, renders it probable ; but revela- 
 tion alone affirms it. Revelation, however, 
 according to your principle of reafoning, 
 cannot prove this, becaufe, without a future 
 flate we cannot vindicate the divine jufcice ; 
 and if God be unjuft (I fpeak with reve- 
 rence), how can we be aflured of his veraci- 
 
 ty? 
 
 Now, fuppofing the prevalence of evil in 
 this world, and afTuming its prevalence uni- 
 verfally, you are confident the Deity mufl 
 be a malignant being. Mull:, then, the 
 Deity be arraigned at the bar of his own 
 creatures as a malignant Being, becaufe they 
 cannot account for fome circumflances in his 
 providence ? Mufl human wifdom be made 
 the flandard of divine perfc(fl:ion ^ Prefump- 
 tious worm ! is this thy reverence to thy 
 Creator, to pronounce his chara6ter malig- 
 nant, becaufe thou and the crawling tenants 
 of thy mole-hill are depraved ? — For my 
 
 part, 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 part) Sir, if I knew nothing of a better 
 world, I fliould think it criminal temerity 
 to accufe my Maker : but as I know 
 
 * There is another and a better world/ 
 
 Temerity would be too weak a term to de- 
 Ibribe my folly. As well may the Arabian 
 infer that all the earth is defert, or the in- 
 habitant of the Poles, that the whole globe 
 ts covered with ice and perpetual fnows, as 
 we conclude, in the narrow view we have 
 from this little corner of the creation^ that 
 all other worlds inuft refemble ours. In 
 fad:, every argument from analogy or obfer- 
 vation leads to a conclufion dire(flly oppolite. 
 No two fpots of this terraqueous globe — 
 no two plants, or animals, are perfedlily alike* 
 if we raife our eyes to the celeflial worlds. 
 We difcern the fame variety. All the planets 
 of our fyftem vary in their fize, diilance 
 from the central luminary, and in their pe- 
 riodical revolutions. Their external forms 
 and circumilanccs arc no lefs dillimilar : 
 fome differ in their brilliancy and colour j 
 others in their attendant fatellites : Jupiter 
 has his belts, and Saturn has his ring. Thus 
 * one ftar differs from another ftar in glory.* 
 
 What 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 What reafon have we then to afTert fhaf^ 
 where e/ery other circumftance differs, the 
 tnoral charadler of all worlds mufl uniform- 
 ly be the the fame ? 
 
 If we receive the authority of revelation 
 the cafe is ftill more clear. The facred 
 writers inform us of ten thoufand times ten 
 thoufand, and thoufands of thoufands, of 
 pure and happy fpirits who attend on the 
 divine prefence, and worfiiip before the 
 throne : and, comparing the lights of fcrip- 
 ture and philofophy, it appears probable to 
 me, that the proportion of evil, natural and 
 moral, is to that of good, not greater than 
 this little globe we dwell in^ compared with 
 the innumerable worlds that compofe the 
 univerfe. This, I fay, appears probable to 
 me : but, however this may be, it is fuffici- 
 ently evident that no juft inference can be 
 drawn from the prevalence of evil in this 
 world to its prevalence throughout all the 
 works of God. 
 
 There is one point. Sir, which, amidfl all 
 this weaknefs and profanenefs, you have 
 rendered clear ; namely, your wifh to admit 
 of nothino: from the evidence of divine re- 
 velation, but what you know without it. 
 
 This 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 This is the plain import of your reafoning ^ 
 and wherein this is preferable to the fenti- 
 ment of Bolingbroke, Plume, or Paine, I 
 am at a lofs to conceive. Only carry this 
 principle into efte6l and you will give up the 
 refurredion of the dead, and every other 
 docflrine peculiar to Revelation. And thus. 
 Sir, you may congratulate yourfelf on hav- 
 ing accomplifhed what one of your fellow- 
 labourers feems to have had in contempla- 
 tion — * a retreat to the fortrelTes of Deifm ; 
 • a jundlion with the illuftrious philolophers 
 ' of claffic times *.' Leaving you in fuch 
 company, you cannot regret that I here 
 fubfcribe myfelf 
 
 . Yours, &G« 
 
 * WakefieUrs Examination of the Age of Rcafon, 
 p. 4. 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 O/" Satan ^«^^ Future Punishment, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 T3 EFORE I quit this gloomy part of my 
 
 fubjedl, I think myfelf bound to take 
 
 fome notice of your * doctrine of a devil and 
 
 * his agency/ and of your remarks on future 
 punifhment, fo far as connected with our 
 fubjedl. Your reprefentation of this arch- 
 enemy of goodnefs as • a being of pure ma- 
 
 * levolence, who is, to every practical pur- 
 
 * purpofe, omnifcient and omniprefent *,' is, 
 perhaps, as far from truth as that of the 
 painters and the poets, who drels him with 
 hoofs and horns, and a forked tail ; nor do I 
 find either pleaded for by 'Mr. Wilberforce, 
 whole notions,, if I do not mifconccive him,, 
 differ not materially from mine. 
 
 If you are a materialift, as I fuppofe, you 
 may fmile at me when I talk of a fpiritual 
 w^orld and immaterial beings -, however, ri- 
 
 * Review, p. 4b. 
 
 dicule 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 dicule is not a tefl of truth with me, and 
 though I have no difpofition to enter into the 
 controverfy refpedling fpiritual exiftence, I 
 will frankly give my views of this fubjed', 
 and then confider your objedlions. 
 
 The fcriptures, as I underftand them, afTert 
 the exigence of a fpiritual, as well as of a 
 material world : — that there are innumerable 
 angels, io called, as agents^ made ufe of by 
 divine providence in the government of the 
 univerfe : — that a confiderable number of 
 thefe are fallen, as well as men, from their 
 original flate of happinefs and purity : that 
 they are full of mifery and malice, and wifh 
 to involve mankind in the fame fituation 
 as themfelves. The original chief of thefe 
 fpirits 1 fuppofe to be Satan, fo denominated 
 as the great adverfary of mankind -, and, as 
 the name is rather chara(R:eriftic than proper, 
 it may alfo apply to any of his emifTaries em- 
 ployed in doing mifchief 5 and this has oc- 
 cafioned fome confufion among the vulgar, 
 who may have attached to the character of 
 Satan a fort of omniicience and omniprefence, 
 fuch as you defcribe. 
 
 In vindication of thefe notions you require 
 
 \i to be proved, * iirft, that the facred ^^Titers 
 
 \ 2^ * believed 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 ^ believed and taught' them ; and * fecortdly, 
 
 " that this doctrine was commwiicated to them 
 
 * by re'a'elation, and that they were author 
 
 * rized to make it knoivn'^.' 
 
 One of thelb articles I have no difficulty 
 m undertaking to prove, namely, that the 
 facred writers taught this doctrine ; but 
 how t'icy came bv it, whether they believed 
 it themfelves, or were authorized to teach it, 
 are, in my opinion, very impertinent enquir- 
 ies. When the great God fends mellcngers 
 endued with miraculous powers for their 
 credentials, furely it is fufficient. to demand 
 our credit, without, in every inllance, queili- 
 oning them whence they received their no- 
 tions, or whether tiiey were commilTioncd 
 to promulgate them. If the apoftles taught 
 dodlrines they did not believe, then were they 
 hypocrites ; if they preached the command- 
 ments or traditions of men for the oracles of 
 God they were deceivers ; if they betrayed 
 fecrets which ought not to have been divulg- 
 ed, they were weak and foolifh men, not fit 
 to have been trufted : in j^U thefe cafes it is 
 of little confequence ivhat they taught. Bu^ 
 
 * Revic\r, p. 46. 
 
 if 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 if they were faithful and honefl men, which 
 voii leem willing to admit, much more if 
 they were infpired, as we affert — we maV 
 fafely believe all they taught, without any of 
 thofe improper queftions with which you 
 perplex the fubjed:. The fimple queftion 
 with me is. Did the facred writers teach the 
 exiftence of a devil ? 
 
 Though I confider not myfelf as called 
 upon in thefe letters to produce formally, 
 and at length, the fcriptures ailed ged to prove 
 the affirmative of this quefiion, fomc of 
 which hav« been cited by Mr, Wilberforce ; 
 I ihall, however, adduce thofe which appear 
 to me moft decifive, and are fupported by a 
 great number of corroberating palTageS. 
 
 Paul exhorts the Ephefians * to *put Ofi 
 
 * the whole armour of God,* that they might 
 be thereby * able to ftand againfl the wiles 
 
 * of the devil. For (fays he) we wreftle not 
 
 * againft flefh and blood' — /. e. againfl human 
 enemies, fuch as ourf^lves ; * but againft 
 
 * principalities, againft powers, againft the 
 
 * rulers [or princes] of the darknefs of this 
 
 * world, againft fpiritual wickednefs in high 
 
 * Eph. vl. 11 — iG. 
 
 * places,* 
 
( 7° ) 
 
 * places/ — or rather * againll: wicked fpirits 
 
 * on high : *' — that is, * the prince of the 
 
 * power of the air', (as he is elfewhere cal- 
 led-f*,) and his angels. And again, he recom- 
 mends, efpecially ' the fhield of faith,' as 
 
 * able to quench all the fiery darts of the 
 
 * wicked [one],' i.e. the temptations of the 
 devil J. 
 
 So Peter derives an argument for chrif- 
 tian vigilance from the malevolent activity 
 of this arch-enemy of mankind. * Be fober, 
 
 * be vigilant ; becaufe your adverfary, the 
 
 * devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, 
 
 * feeking whom he may devour : whom re- 
 « M, fteadfail: in the faith,' &c. The fame 
 apoftle, fpeaking alfo of the fallen angels in 
 general, fays, — * God fpared not the angels 
 
 * that finned, but cafl: them down to hell, 
 ^ and delivered them into chains of darknefs, 
 
 * to be referved unto judgment §. Jude 
 exprefles the fame idea, in nearly the fame 
 words, a little arnpliiied — * The angels which 
 
 * So the Syrlac— Theophjladi, CEcumenius, &c. 
 among the fathers— Grotius, Bpza, Le Clerc, Dod- 
 dridge, and many others, among the moderns. 
 
 •f Eph. ii. 2. J 2 Tim. ii. 26. 
 
 § I Pet. V. 8, 9. 2 Pet. ii. 4. 
 
 * which 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 * which kept not their firft eflate [or priiici- 
 
 * pality], but left their own habitation, he 
 
 * hath referved in everlafting chains, under 
 
 * darknefs, unto the judgment of the great 
 
 * day *.' 
 
 John refers, perhaps, more frequently to 
 this hypothefis than any other of the apof- 
 tles, efpecially in the book of his Revela- 
 tion -f-. But I have quoted pafTaii^es fuffici- 
 ent to prove that this is the uniform dodlrine 
 of the New Teftament writers. Should you 
 ftill infill upon knowing whence they had 
 thefe notions, I will endeavour to fatisfy 
 you even in this. They had them from their 
 divine Mafler, v/ho taught them to refer to 
 diabolical agency moft of the evils in tlie 
 world, either natural or moral, particularly 
 vice and madnefs. They heard from him 
 (we may believe) the flory of his temptation 
 in the wildernefs : they heard him fpeak of 
 their grand adverfary, as the Prifice of this 
 ivorldy and the great infhigator of human 
 mifchiefs, who infpired the Icribes and Pha- 
 rifees with malice, Judas with covetuoufnefs, 
 and even Peter with improper fentiments of 
 
 * Jude 6. 
 
 I 1 JoliAil. 14. Hi. 18. Rcv.i:. 1 3, iil. o, -sr. 2. fi^c. 
 
 falls 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 f^lfe teiidemefs for hh Maftcr *. — It will 
 be proper now. Sir, to lifleii to your ob- 
 jcifliona. 
 
 1. You fay, ' the exiftence of an evil fpi- 
 
 * rit is no where exprefsly taught as a doc- 
 
 * trine of Revelation.' I admire the caution 
 difplayed in this fentcnce. You do not fim- 
 ply fay, it is * not taught / but not * exprefsly 
 < taught:* and if even here you fhould be 
 refuted, you have another referve — * it is not 
 
 * taught as a doBrme of revelation -J but only 
 (I fuppole) as a private dogma of the writer. 
 Both thefe infinuations have been I think al- 
 ready fufficiendy refuted and expofed. 
 
 2. You affure us — ' It was unknown to 
 
 * tlie Jews previous to the captivity ; but 
 
 * was probably borrowed by their learned 
 
 * men, at that time from the oriental philo- 
 
 * fophy, of which it is well known to have 
 
 * conftituted an effential part.' This is fiid 
 on the fuppofition that the Book of Job was 
 not written till this period — a fuppofition 
 that appears to me not only gratuitous, but 
 evidently erroneous ; for proof of which I 
 mull refer however to Bp. Lowth's Lec- 
 
 ♦ John Yiil. 44. xlli. 3. Matt. xvl. 23. 
 
 tures. 
 
( 72 ) 
 tures> and Mr. Peter s's Critical DifTerta- 
 tion upon Job. But it is not in Job only 'that 
 the name and charadler of Satan may be 
 found. It occurs in other parts of the Old 
 Teftament. The word in the original proper- 
 ly Signifies an adverfary, and in many places 
 it is thus trarifiated *. It is fuppofed to be 
 ufed, however, as a proper name, both by 
 David, and the author of the firfl book of 
 Chronicles, as well as by the prophet Zecha- 
 riah -f-. Bifliop Watson is of opinion, that 
 it was originally the proper name of the de- 
 praved archangel, and was from thence made 
 the root of a verb, implying enmity : how- 
 ever, as this verb is certainly Hebrew^ there 
 feems no reafon for afcribinsf the name or 
 
 o 
 
 characfler to a Chaldaic original, as you have 
 done, after the example of Voltaire and 
 Thomas Paine ^ 
 
 3. You deny, that by the Prince oj 
 this World, our Lord intended Satan, and fup- 
 pofe his meaning to be, that he ' was about 
 *. to be unjuflly arrefted by the Roman magi- 
 * ftrate.' Let us examine: — The expreffion 
 
 * See Num. xxil, 29, 32. — 1 Sam. xxix, 4. — 2 Sam. 
 xix, 22. — 1 Kings V. 4. — xi, 14, 23, 2.5. 
 t PiiJai c'lx. G. — 1 Chron. xxi. l.-^Zecli. iil. 1, 2. 
 
 K is 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 is nfed three times by our Lord, according 
 to his beloved difciple *, and may naturally 
 be fuppofed to have the like import in them 
 all. In the lirfl: inftance, a heavenly voice 
 had been heard in approbation of the Son 
 of God. But, faid he, this voice was ' not 
 ' for my fake, but for yours' — to fortify you 
 in the approaching trial of your faith during 
 my crucifixion and death. 'Now' in this 
 event ' is the judgment of this world :' now 
 lliall * the Prince of this World be cafl: out' of 
 his dominion. * And I, when I be lifted up 
 
 * from the earth,' upon the crofs, * will draw 
 ' all men unto me.* The fecond pallage is 
 cited by you and Mr. Wilberforce, and ^^^ls 
 uttered in limilar circumflances. Jeius had 
 been fpeaking of his end, and preparing the 
 mhids of his difciples for the event. ' I have 
 
 * told you before it cometh to pafs, that when 
 
 * it is come to pafs, ye might believe* Here- 
 ' after,' as my fufferings draw nearer, * I will 
 ' not talk much with you : for the Prince of 
 
 * this World cometh, and hath nothing' — or 
 as fome copies read, ' can find nothing in me.* 
 — ' But that the world may know that I love 
 *'the Father; and as the Father gave me com- 
 
 * Jobu xll, j1. xiv. 30. xvi. 11. 
 
 mandment 
 
( 75 ) 
 f mandment, fo I do — arife, let us go hence :' 
 that is, let us go forth to meet the danger, 
 and prove the readiuefs with which I obey 
 ipy P'ather, even unto his laft painful com- 
 rnand of * laying down my life.' 
 
 The third palTage relates to the promife of 
 the Comforter, who was, in confequence of 
 the death of Chrift, to * convince,' or rather 
 < convid: the world of fin, of righteouinefs, 
 ^ and of judgment :' — of the latter, ' becaufe 
 ' the Prince of this world is judged.* 
 
 'By a comparifon of thefe texts with each 
 other, and with their refpedtive contexts, 
 which I take to be the proper method of cri- 
 ticifm, it appears to me that they are all, to 
 a certain degree, fynonymous, referring to 
 the fame event, and to the fame perfon ; of 
 which, if there can be any queflion, the fol- 
 lowing circumftance will be fufficient to 
 decide. In feveral parages *, the crucifixion 
 of Chrifi: is fpoken of as an a6l of triumph 
 over Satan, and his hofts, and the over- 
 throw of his empire : By this * the Prince of 
 * this world was judged,' condemned, and his 
 ^aufe defi:royed ; and it was this that prepar- 
 
 * See Cof. ii. 15. Heb. li. 14, &c, 
 
 ed 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 ed the way for the gifts of the Spirit, and 
 the confequcnt fuccelles of the gofpel. As 
 to the title, it fhould be obferved, that Satan 
 js elfewhere called the god of this world, 
 the prince of the power of the air*, &c. 
 
 The above texts in Peter and Jude, how- 
 ever, you apprehend cannot be brought in 
 favour of diabolical agency, becaufe they re- 
 prefent the fallen angels, not as ranging at 
 liberty, but as bound in chains. Thefe 
 chains. Sir, you muft be aware are metapho- 
 rical, and inaply reftraint and confinement 
 only to a certain degree. It is our mercy 
 and our comfort, that the great enemy of our 
 fouls is chained', yet to the extent of his 
 chain — fo far as Providence permits — he 
 ranges to and fro' the world * feeking whom 
 
 * he may (or r^;;) devour -f-', 
 
 Laftly, our fcheme is unphilofophical. 
 
 * Philofophers difcover no phcenomena which 
 
 * countenance the hypothelis of an invifible 
 
 * malignant energy;' — neither * do the fcrip- 
 
 * tures, carefully ftudied, and rightly undcr- 
 'Jioodj authorize any fuch unphilofophical and 
 
 * mifchievous opiniono' The former part of 
 
 * 2 Cor. iv, 14. — Ep. ii, 2. &c. 
 •]■ Job i. 7. — 1 Pet. V, 8. 
 
 thq. 
 
( n ) 
 
 the fentence may be true enough, if by philo^ 
 fophy we iinderftand the modern fcepticifm ; 
 and the latter may be admitted with the 
 change of a word or two : e. g. inftead of 
 
 * rightly underftood', read * as underflood by 
 
 * usy the rational Chriftians and philofophers 
 f of the age of re af on /' 
 
 I fhould not have thought it neceffary to 
 connect with this difcuflion, the dcdlrine of 
 eternal pimifiment ^ if you had not drawn it 
 Into the fphere of obfervation by the follow- 
 ing grofs mifreprefentation. *The only quef- 
 
 * tion (you fay) is about a plain fmiple fad: 
 
 * — Can infinite juftice and goodnefs doom a 
 f being to eternal mifery, for no other caufe, 
 
 * but that of not extricating himfelf out of 
 
 * the flate in which his Creator placed him, 
 
 * without any power to adl qr will * ?'• — Not 
 to infift upon the impropriety of confound- 
 ing hypothefis with fadt, I am compelled to 
 fay this flatement is compounded of the grof- 
 feft mifreprefentations poflible. It is not 
 fac^t, nor is it alferted by Mr. Wilberforce, or 
 any other Calvin iftical writer with whom I 
 am acquainted, that man, even in his prefent 
 flate is * without any power to ^tl or will ;* 
 
 * Review, p. 53. 
 
 much 
 
{ 78 ) 
 
 much lefs was he fo in * the flate in which 
 
 * his Creator placed him.' — It is not true, 
 that man * is doomed to eternal mifery' for 
 ^ not extricating himfelf out of the flate in 
 ? which his Creator placed him,' or even the 
 flate into which he is now fallen -, much lefs 
 is it true that he is fo doomed * for no other 
 
 * caufe'. 
 
 I'he only caufe of fuffering is fin : and 
 unbelief is only the fource of our mifery fo 
 far as it is criminal. It is true, the fcriptures 
 rcprefent unbelief as tlie great caufe of con-, 
 tiemnation; bec^ufe it rejedls the remedy 
 which God has provided in the gofpel. Our 
 Lord has taiio;ht us to conlider the Brazen 
 Serpent as typical of himfelf and his falva- 
 tion. Suppofe an Ifraelite flung with one 
 €)f the fiery ferpents, and dying with the tor- 
 ture, direcSled to its brazen Type : — Suppofe 
 this man to be polfelied of a philofbpliical 
 genius 5 and not being able to difcgver 
 any * pha^nomena which countenance the 
 ' hypothefis,' that the fight of a brazen 
 ferpent could heal the bite of a real one, he 
 turns away from it with as much fcorn as you 
 rejecfl the atonement of the Saviour 5 he trufls 
 to nature, or to medicine for a cure, and pc- 
 
 rilhes 
 
( 1<) ) 
 
 rljlies like a philofopher. Now, SIk, it Was 
 the fling of the ferpent which was the pri- 
 mary caufe of this man's death, yet may it 
 alfo be fairly attributed to his rejection of the 
 remedy provided by authority, becaufe all 
 who looked live. Thus our own tranfo-ref- 
 iions are the primary caufe of our condem- 
 nation 'y yet when a remedy is provided in the 
 gofpel, the rejection of it may be properly 
 confidered as the more immediate caufe : — 
 
 * Except ye believe — ye fliall die in your 
 
 * fins.* 
 
 Still you will obje61, that we reprefent 
 man under an abfolute inability to believe, 
 which therefore excufes his unbelief. Let 
 me, however, beg you to confider the nature 
 of this inability, that it is not natural, but 
 moral. Either the man is a philofopher and 
 c^n find no phenomena in nature to counte- 
 nance the gofpel method of falvation, and 
 thei"efor€ cannot believe it; or he loves his 
 vices and cannot perfuade himfelf to renbunce 
 them for the humbhng virtues of the gofpel. 
 In fliorr, he is a proud man who cannot 
 {loop — a revengeful man who cannot for- 
 give — a lafcivious man who ^<^w;c/ mortify — 
 or an idle man who cannot work ; — fuch are 
 
 ' the 
 
( 8° ) 
 
 ttie pleas, and fuch is the inability of finnefS, 
 Judge yon, whether this excufes, or aggra- 
 vates, their crime. 
 
 As to the dodrine of eternal piinifhment, 
 I am aware of its unpopularity among phl- 
 lofophers ; yet I believe the principal objec- 
 tions to it, arife from mifconception, or from 
 miftaken fentiments of compaffion. Our 
 feelings are not the teft of truth; yet I abhor 
 the idea of arbitary punifhment as much as 
 you can. God originally fixed an indillolu- 
 ble connedtioQ between fin and pain; and 
 at the fame time endued man, as I con- 
 ceivCj with an immortal fouL None of the 
 perfedtions of the Deity could bind him to 
 disjoin the connexion between fin and its 
 natural confequences; or to revoke the im- 
 mortality of the finner. Death, it is true, 
 by intervening, produces a temporary fuf- 
 penfion of animal fenfation ; but even you 
 , cannot confider it as annihilation, without 
 giving up the refurrediion. 
 
 You allow, that * in the nature of things^ 
 * mifery is nccefilirily connected with vice.*' 
 Let us fuppofe, that God had been pleafcd to 
 have puniflied the finner in the prefent 
 
 * Review, p. 14. 
 
 world. 
 
( 8i ) 
 
 World, only by fuffering the natural confe-. 
 quences of vice to take place without 
 mortality : — What then would have been 
 the iflue ? — Debauchery would have in- 
 duced immortal difeafe — and one fin, in 
 many inflances, have plunged the tranf- 
 greffor into perpetual mifery. His charadler 
 ruined, mufl have expofed him to everlafting 
 fhame and remorfe ; and earth would have 
 been an hell of eternal punidiment. Now, 
 as fm is in its nature hardening and progref- 
 iive, the queftion is, fuppofmg men to per- 
 fifl for ever in this courfe of fin, whether 
 the juftice of God require him, either to dif- 
 folve the oric^inal union between fin and for- 
 row, or to terminate their exiflence and their 
 pain together ? — I think hardly any tn^n 
 capable of forefeeing confequences, would 
 maintain the affirmative. Yet, if jujllce 
 require not this, no other attribute can — for 
 mercy mull be free. 
 
 Farther, it is not for us to pronounce upon 
 the degree of demerit which attaches to mo- 
 ral evil. The facred writers have declared 
 ftn to be ' exceeding linful / and that it is ' an 
 ' evil and bitter thing to depart from the 
 * living God,' And were we in other re- 
 
 L. fpe(fts 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 rpe(5ls- equal to the tafk, we are too much 
 implicated in the queftion to decide impar- 
 tially. Light thoughts of fin, and apologies 
 for vice, may indeed harmonize with the 
 other parts of your fcheme ; and truly, if 
 moral evil had fo little criminality attached 
 to it, as Unitarian writers feem unanimous 
 in fuppofing, we might well difpenfe with 
 the dodrines of the atonement, and the divi- 
 nity of the Saviour. 
 
 I do not think it necelTary to cite here the 
 various fcriptures which denounce endlefs, 
 or everlafting punifhment againft linners fin- 
 ally impenitent,^ You know, Sir, the Judge 
 himfelf hath f^iid — ' That thefe fliall go into 
 
 * everlafling punifhment — where the worm 
 
 * dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.' I 
 know that you poflefs a critical talent where- 
 by you can explain everlajiing to mean tem- 
 porary ; and endlefs y but of lliort duration. 
 By the fame art you can explain away every 
 important fa(5^ or doctrine of the Bible ; but. 
 Sir, if any human laws had attached to cer- 
 tain crimes a certain fearful punifliment; and 
 if the terras to exprefs that punhhment were 
 as naturally exprelfive of death, as thofe em- 
 plo^^ed in the Icriptares on this fubjedl: are 
 
 of 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 of endlefs mifery *-, we fhould think that 
 criminal might be much better employed, 
 who, inftead of cherifning repentance, 
 and fuing for a pardon, fhould perfuade 
 himfelf and his fellow-prifoners, that the 
 fentence would not be literally infli(5ted — ■ 
 that it bore fome milder import, and intend- 
 ed merely a temporary chailifement. 
 
 You, Sir, appear to confider the provi- 
 dence of God, in placing his creatures in cir- 
 cumftances fo perilous to their virtue as ours 
 are in the prefent life, as rendering him ac- 
 countable, and excufing them ; and accord- 
 ingly plead the injuftice of punilhment fo 
 
 * The natural and obvious import of the terms ren- 
 dered eternal and everlafting, {aimm, &c.) has been 
 very fully examined by the prefent Dr. Jonathan 
 Edwards, in his Anfwer to Dr. Chancey, to which I 
 therefore refer. 
 
 As thefe terms are applied to the mifery of the im- 
 penitent, they are greatly flrengthened by fuch con- 
 siderations as thefe, viz. 1. They are the fame that 
 are applied to the eternal happinefs of the blelTed. 2. 
 They are explained by other terms which admit of 
 no equivocation, as '• their worm dieth not — they 
 ♦ never Ihall be forgiven— fhall not fee life,'* &c. 
 which give thefe words in this connedion a peculiar 
 emphafis. 
 
 fcvere 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 fevere as that of cndlefs mifery *. But i£ 
 God were accountable for the fins of men 
 upon this principle, it mujft not be for part 
 only, but for the whole j fince you acknow- 
 ledge plainly that the whole muft ultimately 
 be referred to God 5* and this would fet afide 
 not only the equity of eternal punifhment, 
 but of punifhment for fin altogether. Thus 
 inllead of every mouth being ftopped, and 
 all the world becoming guilty before God> 
 all men would be furnifhed with a fubftan- 
 tial plea in arreft of judgment, and in excufe 
 of punifhment, whether of long or of fhort 
 duration. And thus the greatefl criminal 
 might appear before the bar of Heaven, and 
 plead as you have taught him — ' I am what 
 my Creator made me'-f* j or as Paul expreffes 
 the plea of the reprobate — * Why doth he 
 
 * yet find fault, for who hath refifled his 
 
 * will ? ' Or, in an immediate addrefs to the 
 Creator* himfelf — * Why haft thou made 
 me thus ? * J 
 
 The above reprefentation of all punifh- 
 ment as the confequence of fin by an immu- 
 table and eternal law of nature — or rather of 
 
 * Review, p. 4i. f Ibid, 33. — X Rom. ix. Ip, 20. 
 
 the 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 the God of nature, — filences, with me, all 
 complaints of its cruelty or injuftice^ while 
 the dod:rine of redemption by the Son of God 
 opens a vifla through the gloom of this fub- 
 jedl, that converts my lilence into praife. — 
 O Sir, if you and I fliould be the fubjed:s of 
 this mercy, we iliall find fuch abundant rea- 
 fon for humility and gratitude as it refpeds 
 ourfelves, as will make us well fatished to 
 leave our fellow iinners in his hands, and 
 fay — ' Shall not the Judge of all the earth 
 < do right ?' In this temper I remain, 
 
 Your^s, &c. 
 
( B6 ) 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Unitarian Notions of Atonement, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 T>EFORE we enter on the dodrine of 
 atonement, I fhall attempt to wipe away 
 an arperfion on Mr. Wilberforce, and the 
 friends of evangelical trtith, for which there 
 appears to me no jufl occafion. I allude to 
 your charge againfl \is, of reprefenting the 
 
 * Father and the Son as diftincft beings, of dif- 
 
 * ferent, and even oppofite characters ; the Fa- 
 
 * ther flern, fevere, and inflexible -, the Son ail 
 
 * gentlenefs and compafiion ; fubmitting to 
 
 * bear his Father's wrath, and to appeafe his 
 ' anger, by fubjdituting himfelf in the ftead 
 
 * of the fnmer*. It is impoffible to regard 
 
 * thefe two characters with equal affedion, 
 ' and the love of the imaginary Chrift robs 
 
 * the living and true God of his honour and 
 « homage*.' 
 
 * Page i2C. 
 
 Some 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 Some parts of this charge appear to me 
 totally untrue, and the reft exaggerated. 
 
 I. It is not true that we reprefent the Fa- 
 ther and Son as diJlivM beings. On the con- 
 trary, Mr. B. knows that the creeds and 
 confeflions of ail Trinitarian churches repre- 
 fent them as one being — as one God : accord- 
 ing to the Son's declaration, * 1 and my Fa- 
 
 * ther are o?2e.' 
 
 Aeain, it is Jiot true that we reDrefent 
 them as ^.different and even oppojite charac- 
 ters ;' becaufe we always inlifl that the Son 
 is * the exprefs image o^ the Father,' pofTefT- 
 ing the fame divine perfedtions, both natu- 
 ral and moral; as well, therefore, may the 
 wax and the feal be fuppofed to bear difFe- 
 charad:ers, as the Father and the Son. 
 
 It is not true, as this fappofes and inlinu- 
 ates, that we reprefent the Son's fufferings 
 as the caufe of the Father's love. On the 
 contrary, we confcantly maintain that the 
 Father's love and mercy induced him to give 
 his Son. * God fo loved the world that he 
 
 * gave his only begotten Son, that whofoever 
 
 * belie veth in him, fhould not perilh, but 
 
 * have everlafting life ! ' 
 
 Laflly. It is not true that by honouring the 
 
 Son 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 Son we difhonour the Father j at leaft, if the 
 Son himfelf may be believed : for he fays 
 that * the Father judgeth no man; but hath 
 ' committed all judgment unto the Son : 
 
 * that all men fhould honour the Son, even 
 
 * as they honour the Father : He that ho- 
 
 * noureth not the Son, honoureth not the Fa* 
 
 * ther which hath fent him.* 
 
 2. That part of the charge is exaggerafeJ., 
 v/hich accufes us with * reprefenting the Fa- 
 
 * ther as llern, fevere, inflexible ; the Son all 
 
 * gentlenefs and compaffion/ It is true in- 
 deed, that we reprefent the Deity as 
 
 * FuU-orb'dj in his whole round of rays complete.* 
 Nor dare we facriiice the glory of any of his 
 attributes to advance the others -, or reduce 
 them to any human flandard of ideal exceI-» 
 lence. 
 
 We believe that God is equally, (i, e. in- 
 finitely) great and good, jufl: and merciful: 
 That he hates lin and is angry at the fin- 
 ner "* ; yet is well pleafed to difplay par- 
 doning mercy thro' the atonement he has 
 provided, as I fhall have occafion prefently 
 to fhew. But we do not confine thefe attri- 
 
 * Jer. xlivj 4.— PC vii, 11. 
 
 butcs 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 botes to the Father, fince, as ah-eady hmted, 
 we believe the Father and Son to be one 
 God — 'the fame in fubftance, equal in 
 
 * power and glory,' So far from reprefent- 
 ing the Son as * all gentlenefs and com- 
 
 * paffion,' we know that * the Lamb of God' 
 is aifo * the Lion of the tribe of Judah ;' and 
 we look for him a fecond time from heaven, 
 to take vengeance on his enemies, Thus 
 Dr. Watts, the writer particularly pointed at, 
 in his hymns : 
 
 * His v/ords of prophecy reveal 
 
 ^ Eternal coimfels, deep defigns; 
 
 * His grace and vengeance fhall fulfil 
 
 * The peaceful and the dreadful lines.*' 
 
 Thefe hints premifed, we proceed to con- 
 fider the dod;rine of the atonement. — 
 This dodtrine of the crofs appears as much 
 foolifhnefs to you, and the philofophers of 
 this age, as it did to thofe of the firll age 
 of chriftianity. A circumftance that fliould 
 make you cautious, left you alfo ftum- 
 ble at the ftumbling ftone-f* \yhich is laid in 
 Zion. 
 
 t Hymns xxv. b. i.— See alfo Hymns xxvili, xxix.-- <- 
 Pfalm ii. &c. f Rom. ix, 32, 3 a. 
 
 M In 
 
( 90 ) 
 
 In opening this part of the controverfy, 
 you give us three different fchemes of the 
 atonement, affedling to doubt which Mr. 
 Wilberforce would prefer. I call this affec^ 
 tafion, becaufe, after the attachment Mr. W. 
 had profefTed to the articles of the church of 
 England, and to the Calviniflic writers, or 
 even from the exprefTions you quote^ I 
 fhould fuppofe you could have no fufpicion 
 of his leaning to Arminianifm -, much lefs tq 
 the more novel hypothefis of Dr. Taylor. 
 Yet, as writing a praEiical difcourfe, and 
 mentioning points of do<5trine only inciden- 
 tally, Mr. W. might not think it necelTary 
 to flate his principles fyflematically ; but 
 relied in a general and fcriptural definition 
 of the nature of Chriflianity, as * a fcheme 
 
 * for juilifying the ungodly by Chrifl's dy- 
 
 * ing for them :' a propofition fo unexcep- 
 tionable, that you admit all Chriflians muil: 
 give it a verbal a/Tent, however different may 
 be their ideas refpcdling it. 
 
 I might here obje(5l to your flatement of 
 the Calviniflic dodtrine of atonement, as inac^ 
 curate and defecftive^ being founded rather 
 on the principles of commercial, than of le- 
 giflative jullice — upon the idea cf fin being 
 
 rather 
 
( 9t ) 
 
 rather a debt in a literal fenfe than a crirne * 
 which idea is oppofed by the moft judicious 
 Calvinills,* and favoured by the Socinians, 
 who derive therefrom fome of their moft 
 confiderable objections to our hypothefis. 
 
 It is true, that fins are called debts ia 
 fcripture, as well as trefpafies ; but it is fuf- 
 ficiently evident that the term is figurative -, 
 for debts, literally fuch, may be paid in 
 kind : But as the man whofe life is forfeited 
 by crimes, is faid to owe it to his country, 
 and to the laws ; fo we, by our tranfgreffions, 
 become indebted to the divine juflice ; and, 
 if pardoned, owe our falvation to the blood 
 of ChrilT:, as the price of our redemption. — 
 Your statement of the Arminian hypothefis 
 feems equally vague and incorre6l, fince it is 
 by no means peculiar to that, as diflinguifli- 
 ed from the Calviniflic, to exhibit ' the evil 
 * and demerit of fin, and the difpleafure of 
 « God againft it-f-,' On the dodlrine of atone- 
 ment many Arminian writers agree with us> 
 to confider it as a divine expedient, whereby 
 a way is opened for the confident exercife oi: 
 
 * See Owen on Divine Juflice, ch. xi.— StUiing- 
 fleet's Dodrine of Chrift's fatisfadion, cli. xi. fee. 3-6. 
 
 •^- Review, p. 7, 
 
 M 2 mercv, 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 mercy, in all the methods which fovereigiT 
 wifdom and goodnefs fhould fee proper. 
 * The death of Jefus fj'ou fay) is fome- 
 
 * times called a Propitiation, becanfe it put 
 
 * an end to the Mofaic ceconomy, and intro- 
 
 * duced a new and more liberal difpenfa- 
 
 * tlon, under which the Gentiles, who were 
 ' before regarded as enemies, arc admitted 
 ' into a flate of amity and reconciliation; 
 ' that is, into a flate of privilege fimilar to 
 
 * the Jews*.' As you, Sir, profsfs your- 
 felf a friend to critical examination, permit 
 us to analyfe this extraordinary pafflige. 
 
 1. The death of Chrifl: is called a Propi- 
 tiatioji, * becaufe it put an end to the Mofaic 
 ' osconomy ,' the Mofaic ceconomy mufl 
 be then a {late of enmity againffc God, or 
 wherefore fhould its termination be confi- 
 dered as a propitiation, — that which reflores 
 peace and amity? — 2. It is called a pro- 
 pitiation, becaufe thereby the Gentiles were 
 admitted to the i'ume Ifate of amity with 
 the Jews- ; but the Jews, as appears by the 
 laft remark, were not in a Hate of amity, but 
 enmity. — So then this propitiation was la 
 
 * llevievv, p. l'^. 
 
 called 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 called for two contrary rcafons 5 to tho 
 Jews it was a propitiation, becaufe it put an 
 ^/?</ to their privileges, together with their 
 ceconomy ; and to the Gentiles, becaufe it 
 entitled them to fimilar.— But let us pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 * It is alfo occafionally called a Sacrifice, 
 
 * having been the feal of that new covenant 
 
 * into which God is pleafed to enter with 
 ' his human offspring, by which a refurrec- 
 
 * tion to immortal life and happinefs is pro- 
 ' mifed, without diftindlion, to all who are 
 ' truly virtuous.' — Here obferve, i. The 
 death of Chriil is called a facrifice ' occali- 
 ' onally' — on how man.y occafions we fhall 
 fee prefently. 2. It is * called a facrifice (you 
 
 * fay) as having been the feal' of the ' n6\v 
 
 * covenant;' but if the death of Chrift be 
 called a facrifice merely becaufe it is a feal, 
 then may every feal of a covenant be called 
 a f^icrifice ; circumcifion, for inflance, which 
 was ' a fetl of the ris^hteoufnefs of faith.' 
 3. This feal is affixed to a covenant of which 
 I can find nothing in the Bible : God's cove- 
 nant not being made with * the truly virtu- 
 
 * OQs/ as you employ that heathenilli phrafe> 
 but with his redeemed people — thole who 
 
 re- 
 
( H ) 
 
 reverence and obey him. 4 What had JefuS 
 to do with a covenant in w^hich he was 
 no party ? Could he feal a covenant made, 
 and completely fulfilled, with thoufands of 
 thefe virtuous perfons before he exifted? Or 
 with thoufands unborn at his death, and even 
 yet unborn ? If Jefus was but a man, like 
 the other prophets, how did he feal (or con- 
 firm) the covenant ^ more than David, or 
 Ifaiah, or Paul, or a thoufand others ? 
 Lailly, * Believers in Chrifl: are alfo faid 
 
 * to have redemption through his bloodt be- 
 
 * caufe they are releafed by the chriflian co- 
 
 * venant from the yoke of the ceremonial 
 ' law, and from the bondage of idolatry.' — • 
 But if Jefus be only a man, like ourfelves, 
 and his death has no more concern with the 
 falvation of mankind than that of another 
 prophet, in what rational fenfe can his blood 
 be faid to procure a releafe from Jewifh ce- 
 remonies, or Gentile idolatries ? The former 
 continued near forty years after Chrift's de* 
 ceafe ; and the abolition of the latter might, 
 according to your fcheme, with far more 
 propriety, be afcribed to the preaching of 
 Paul than to the death of Jefus. 
 
 * Dan. ix, 24, 27. 
 
 Thefc 
 
{ 95 ) 
 
 Thefe remarks may fhew the abfurdity of 
 your novel interpretations^ but my grand 
 objections are yet behind, and mufl be re~ 
 ferved for fubfequent Letters, when they will 
 appear in the form of arguments in favour 
 of the Atonement — At prefent, I would only 
 add, that another obje<ftion of great weight 
 with me againft thefe interpretations is, that 
 they have no proper reference to the moral 
 ilate of mankind ; nor to that deliverance 
 from guilt and punifhment, which is the 
 grand obje<5t of Chriil's redemption, and the 
 hppe and confidence of your 
 
 Servant for the Truth's fake, &:c. 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 The Origin and Dejign of Sacrijice?, 
 
 Rev. Sir, - 
 
 nPHE origin of facrillces is a fubjc6l of 
 too much extent and difficulty to be 
 fully invefli gated in this place. I may be 
 permitted to remark, however, that the idea 
 of propitiating the Deity by bloody offerings, 
 is fo far from being didlated by mere reafon, 
 that the wifeft heathens generally defpifed 
 and condemned it; as well they might, 
 knowing nothing of their divine appointment 
 and defign : yet the pradice is fo ancient, 
 and obtained to fuch an extent, that it is 
 difficult to account for its origin fatisfadori - 
 ly, in any other way than from divine Reve- 
 lation. Taking the book of Genefis for our 
 ouide, which I hope you will allow me to 
 quote as the mofl: ancient and authentic re- 
 cord, we find the prac^tige not only tolerated, 
 but approved of God, in the imniediate foi; 
 of our firll parents, Abel 5 and if we may 
 
 believe 
 
{ 9? ) 
 
 believe the telllmony of the aiitfior of* the 
 epiftle to the Hebrews, this facrifice was of- 
 fered upinfok^, and on that account chiefly 
 was accepted. This flrongly implies a 
 divine inftitution, fmce true faith muft have 
 for its objedl the revealed will df God -, yet, 
 I cannot conceive thefe fanguinary rites 
 would ever have been adopted by divine wif- 
 dom, or admitted into the Mofaic worlhip, 
 but from their having fome important typi- 
 cal deiign -, efpecially as I find, that when- 
 ever they became mere ceremonies, and 
 were not pradlifed from a principle of obedi- 
 ence to the God of Ifrael, and (as I appre- 
 hend) with a view to their ultimate and ty- 
 pical delign, they were always fpoken of 
 with the utmoil contempt and abhorrence."^ 
 The facrifice of Abel, hov/everj I by no 
 means fuppofe to be the firft, fince it was 
 offered in the fecond ceritury of the world. 
 Soon after the fall, we read of our firft 
 parents being cloathed by God himfelf, or 
 'by his order, with coats of flcins, for 
 which I know but one way of accounting, 
 
 * See Ifa. i, 11—15* Ixvi. S. Amos v. 2.i, &:c. 
 N namelv, 
 
( 98 ) 
 
 namely, that of fuppofing them the fkins of 
 beafls facrificed *. And, as in that early period 
 of fociety more mufl have been exprefled in 
 adtions than in words, 1 cannot help think- 
 ingfomething moral and typical was intend- 
 ed; probably to fliew the infufficiency of 
 their own righteoufnefs, oradts of penitence^ 
 (properly figured, as fome think, by a girdle of 
 rough lig-leaves) ; and point out that robe of 
 righteoufnefs which he fhoiild provide, who 
 was himfelf to be the great facrifice for iin-f*. 
 For, whatever may be thought of fuch cir- 
 cumftances in this cold philofophizing age, 
 
 * Some wife-acres have, I know, fancied that the 
 Ikins here intended were thofe of our iirlt: parents' 
 themfelves ; but whether it is to be fuppofed they 
 now firft ftept into their fkins ; or whether their hides 
 were tanned upon their backs by the fcorching i'uii- 
 bcams, is what I am not informed. 
 
 f From this circumftancc I fuppofe originated, 
 not only the wearing fkins for cloathing, but efpeci- 
 ally the priefls of Hercules being thus arrayed. You 
 know alfo, it was cuftomary for thofe who fought for 
 oracular dreums, or miraculous cures, to llccp on the 
 Ikins of tlieir own facrihccs in the temples of Faunus 
 and iEfculapius : and Lucian, in particular, mentions 
 a remarkable cuftom of the offerer fquatting on the 
 /kin of a facrificed iheep, and placing its head upon 
 his own. 
 
 it 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 it is certain, that in the early ages of man-' 
 kind all their actions were full of import ; 
 though afterward the actions were continued 
 when their defis^n was loft : and to the mul- 
 titude, both of Jews and Gentiles, they might 
 appear unmeaning ceremonies. 
 
 This appears to me, as it has done to many, 
 the original inftitution of facriiices, though 
 it gives us indeed but a glance at the event. 
 For the events of very ancient hiftory pafs 
 rapidly before us, like the fcenes in fome 
 optical exhibitions ; in which only the moft 
 prominent objedls can be diftinguifhed, and 
 of them only the mofh ftriking features. 
 Suppofing this, however, to be the origin of 
 thefe rights we come naturally to the fubfe- 
 quent offerings of Abel, Noah, and the He- 
 brew patriarchs. 
 
 It has indeed been objected with a fhew 
 of reafon, that part of the facrifice being 
 generally defigned for food, and animal food 
 not being permitted before the flood, it may 
 therefore be fuppofed, that animals were not 
 ' flain. But this confequence does not follow ; 
 facrifices might be inftituted at the above 
 period, and the circumftance of feeding on 
 N 2 the 
 
( JOO ) 
 
 the ilefli, might be a rite added in fubfe- 
 quent times. 
 
 I fliall not weary you with tracing the 
 patriarchal facrifices : permit me, however, to 
 mention that of Ifaac, to which I conceive our 
 Lord himfelf alludes, when he fays, * Abra- 
 
 • ham defired to fee my day ; he faw it, 
 
 * and was glad*.' This has been fo ingeni- 
 oufly, and I think fatisfa6lorlly, illuflrated 
 by Bp. Warburton -f*, that I fliall here only 
 pbferve, that the writer of the epiftle to 
 the Hebrews reprefents this likewife as an 
 eminent acfl of faith, in which the Patriarch 
 received again his fon, as one alive from the 
 dead, ' in a figure J', or parabolical repre- 
 fentation of our redemption by the death and 
 refurred:ion of the Son of God ; to whom I 
 conceive the name of the place Jehovah 
 jiREH, was an allufion, for it was on thefe 
 mountains that Jerufalem afterwards was 
 builde^, and the Lord was crucified. 
 
 But I wiili not to lay any undue ftrefs up- 
 on conjectures, however learned or ingeni- 
 
 * John viii. 56. 
 
 f Divine. Legation. Part li. book vi. fee. 5. 
 
 \ Ev 'nct.^oi,%o\vi Ileb. xi, ig. 
 
 ous : 
 
( loi ) 
 
 pus : I therefore pafs on to what is of more, 
 importance to our fubjecft; namely, to en- 
 quire in what light the Jewifh legiflator re- 
 prefented the enjoined facrifices, and how 
 the pious Hebrews themfelves underilood 
 them. 
 
 The Hebrew facrifices were of four kinds. 
 I. The MiNCHA, or oblation of flour, cakes , 
 or new corn, as a thank-offering in acknow- 
 ledgement of the gifts of providence* . 2 . 
 The peace-offerings which was alfo a free-will 
 offering, was accompanied with a facrifice, of 
 which a part only was to be burned, and 
 the reft eateii-l-. 3. T\iQ Jin-offering, which, 
 whether for fms of ignorance, or otherwife, 
 was to be accompanied with the fprinkling 
 of the vidim's bicod before the Lord J. 
 4. The holocaujl, or whole burnt-offering : of 
 thele the chief was that offered on the 
 great day of atonement §. 
 
 Now on thefe facrifices we may remark, 
 I . That the obje<P.; cf all the bloody fa- 
 crifices, and of no other, was to make a- 
 tonement, and that it was the blood efpe- 
 cially that made the atonement. ' For it 
 
 * Lev. vi. 14. -}• Lev. vil. li. 
 
 % Lev. V. 14. vi. 2. § Num. xxix. 8. 
 
 Now 
 
C 102 ) 
 
 * is the blood tliat maketh atonement for the 
 ' foul *.' 
 
 2. That this atonement was made by the 
 
 facrifice hearing the Jin of the offender, and 
 
 Suffering jor him. Of the culprit, it is faid, 
 
 * he fhall put his hand upon the head of the 
 
 * bnrnt-ofFering; and it fhall be acceptedy^r 
 
 * him, to make atonement for him-f*.' J 
 
 * Lev. xvii. II. 
 
 f Lev» i. 2 — 4. See alfo Exod. xxix. throughout— 
 sxx. ditto— Lev. iv. ditto, &c. 
 
 X Surely Dr. Prleftlej could never have read tliis 
 text, or the parallel paflages referred to in the margin, 
 •when he afferted (Familiar Illuftrati'on of certain paf- 
 fages of Scripture, fee. v.) that ' Sacrifices for lln- 
 
 * under the law oi JNCofes are never coulidefed as 
 
 * {landing in the place of the fitiner ; but as the peo- 
 
 * pie were never to approach the divine prefencc upon 
 
 * any occafion without fame off'trtng, agreeable to the 
 
 * (landing and univerfal cullom in the Eail, with re- 
 
 * fped to all fovcreigns ;ind gi:cat men ; To no perfoa 
 
 * after being unqlcan, could be introdaccc| to the Ta- 
 
 * bernacle, or Temple fcrvice, without an offering 
 
 * proper to the occafion.' On the contrarj'", except 
 inthe cafe of the Mincha, or Meat-oft\iring, we never 
 read of facrifices under the idea of prcfentsibut always 
 as atonements, ranfoms (or prices of redemption), 
 and fan-offerings on the head of which the crimes of 
 the people were confeffed, and to which thej- were 
 imputed. 
 
 '3. That 
 
( 103 ) 
 
 3- That, in no inftance did thefe atone- 
 ments fet afide the obligations of morality ; 
 but in cafes of perfonal injury, reftitution 
 notwithflanding was required to the injured 
 party*. The atonement was to God alone. 
 
 4. That no atonement was appointed or 
 admitted in capital cafes, as murder, adultery, 
 &:.c. becaufe thefe crimes, under that difpen- 
 lation, admitted no pardon ; whatever cafes 
 admitted of atonement fuppofed a pardon. 
 
 Such was tl>e primary meaning of the ia- 
 criiicial language employed in the Mofaic 
 law : let us now enquire — Whether thefe 
 rites had any figurative or typical allufion to 
 the death of Chrift, the chriHian facrifice ; 
 and whether the ancient Jews fo underftood 
 them ? 
 
 That the Mofaic facrifices had a defig-ned 
 typical allufion to the facrifice of Chrifl: can- 
 not be doubted, if we admit the divine au- 
 thority of the Epiflle to the Hebrews, great 
 part of which is written to explain thefe al- 
 luiions. The writer of th'ls Epiflle fliews, 
 that whatever was defed^ive in the type was 
 in the antitype complete : and defcribes Chrifl 
 
 * Lev. vi, 4, 5. 
 
 .as 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 as both the prieft'and facrifice who * hath 
 
 * made an end of fin by the facrifice of him- 
 
 * felf.' The epiftles to the Galatians, the 
 Ephefians, and the Corinthians, exprefs th6 
 fame dodlrine, as we (hall have farther 
 occafion to obferve as we proceed* 
 
 Several circumftances concur to render 
 fuch an allufion probable. There is nothing 
 in ceremonies themfelves, much lefs in fan- 
 guinary rites like thefe, which can be fup- 
 pofed acceptable to a wife, holy, and bene- 
 volent Deity : it is therefore, rational to fup- 
 pofe that the God of Ifrael had a farther end 
 than merely the obfervance of thefe rites 
 and ceremonies ; efpecially as fo great ex- 
 aClnefs was required in all the pundlillios of 
 the fervice. 
 
 Farther, it appears in fa(5l, that, from the 
 beginning, pious facrificers had farther views 
 than the mere performance of fuch external 
 fervices. Abel was accepted of Godbecaufe 
 he facrificcd in faith -, Abraham faw the day 
 of the MefFiah and reioiced ; and in later 
 times, the cafe is much more clear. I will 
 inftance in David, in Ifaiah, and in Daniel. 
 
 David defcribes the Meffiah as- a Prieft 
 
 after 
 
( i°5 ) 
 
 after the order of Melchifedcc *, that is, a 
 perpetual pricft. He reprefents God as not 
 pleafed, nor fcitisiied with the Mofaic facri- 
 fices ; but Mefliah as offering himfelf, accord* 
 ing to ancient predidions, in their ftead -f. 
 He reprefents him not only as obeying, but 
 as fuffering alfo from the wickednefs of men, 
 and mentions feveral circumflances of his 
 crucifixion ^. All thefe paiTages are, in the 
 New Teftamcnt, applied to Jefus Chrift; 
 and prove that David was not ignorant of 
 his prieftly charad:er and facrifice. 
 
 Ifaiah is ftill clearer on this fubjedt. He 
 reprefents Meffiah as offering up his own 
 life and foul as an atonement for finners. 
 
 * He was wounded for our tranfgrefTions, h^ 
 
 * was bruifed for our iniquities. The chaf- 
 ' tifement of our peace was upon him, and 
 
 * with his flripes we are healed. All we 
 
 * like flieep have gone aflray . . . and the 
 
 * Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us 
 
 * all When thou flialt make his foul 
 
 * an offering for fin, he fhall fee his feed, he 
 
 * fhall prolong his days, and the pleafure of 
 
 * the Lord fhall profper in his hand. He fhall 
 
 * Pfalm, c-s:. 4. | lb. xl. G, 7- t-Ib. xxli. Ixix. 
 
 O * fee 
 
( io6 ) 
 
 * fee of the travel of his foul and be fatisfi- 
 
 * ed : by his knowledge fhall my righteous 
 ' fervant juftify many : for he fliall bear 
 
 * their iniquities .... He poured out his 
 
 * foul unto the death: and he was numbered 
 
 * with the tranfgreffors, and he bare the 
 ' fins of many, and made interceffion for 
 
 * the tranfgreffors*.* 
 
 Laftly, Daniely referring to the times and 
 work of the Meffiah, faj^s, * Seventy weeks 
 
 * are determined upon thy people, and upon 
 
 * thy holy city, to finifh the tranfgreffions, 
 
 * and to make an end of fins, and to make 
 
 * rcconciUatiQn for miqtdty, and to bring in 
 
 * everlafting righteoufnefs, and to feal up 
 
 * the vifion and prophecy, and to anoint the 
 
 * moll holy . > . . . And after threefcore and 
 
 * two weeks fball Meiliah be cut off, but 
 
 * not for himfelf . . . . And he fhall confirm 
 
 * the covenant with many for one week: and 
 
 * in the midll: of the week he fhall caufe the 
 
 * facrifice and oblation to ceafe,' S^cf* 
 
 I confefs that in our Lord's time, the Jews 
 appear, in general, to have loft thefe princi- 
 ples j and to be, in moll refpedls, completely 
 
 * Ifa. lui. 1—12. t Dan. ix. 24 — 27. 
 
 igjiiorant 
 
( 107 ) 
 
 ignorant of the true charader of the Mefllah. 
 They had evidently no idea of his fufferincr, 
 and rifing from the dead -, yet we know 
 their fcriptures were full of thefe truths. 
 Wherefore our Lord, when he faw the ig- 
 norance of the difciples he met with on the 
 road to Emmaus, exclaimed, ' O fools, and 
 
 * flow of heart to believe all that the pro- 
 
 * phets have fpoken ! Ought not Chrift to 
 
 * have fuffered thefe things, and to enter 
 
 * into his glory? and beginning at Moses 
 ' and t/ie Prophets, he expounded unto them 
 
 * all the fcriptures corjcerning himfelf*.' 
 
 It is, however, fufficiently clear that the 
 Jews had, and perhaps ftill have, a general 
 idea that their ritual contained fome myftical 
 fenfe, though they know not how to explain 
 it, and are fearful of giving advantages to 
 the chriftians. Jofephus, for infiance, makes 
 a kind of philofophical allegory of the Ta- 
 bernacle and its furniture, which, though fuf- 
 ficiently fanciful, clearly proves that all thefe 
 things were fiippofed to contain a myfleryf'. 
 Nor are the more ancient and refpecftable 
 Rabbins hoflile to thefe ideas. R. Mena^ 
 
 % Lukexxiv. 25 — 27. f Antlq. lib. lii. cap. 7. 
 
 ^ Q 2 che?n 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 chem for inflance, fuppofes the Mofaic fa- 
 crifices pointed at * the offering which Mi- 
 
 * chael ofFereth for the fouls of the jufl*'; 
 though at the fame time he confeffes that 
 for farther knowledge they mufl wait until 
 
 * the Spirit from above be poured out upon 
 
 * them-f*.* 
 
 As to the Pagan facrifices, I think it can- 
 not be controverted, that their uniform ob- 
 jedl was to expiate, to make atonement, or 
 to procure reconciliation with their Gods, 
 whom they fuppofed to be offended. For 
 this purpofe their facrifices were accompani- 
 ed by petitions to that effed;, the perfon who 
 brought the facrifices making confeffion of 
 his guilt. -f* 
 
 Nor was the circumflance of one man 
 dying for another, or for a city, or a people, 
 at all unufual amons; the Heathen. The. 
 Maffilians were wont to make expiation for 
 their city, by taking a perfon devoted, im- 
 precating on his head all the evil to which . 
 the city was liable, and caffing him into the 
 fea as a facrifice to Neptune, with thefe 
 
 ♦ Quoted Ainf. In Lev. I. 2. 
 
 f See Danet's Diftionary of Antlq. in Sacrifice'. 
 
 words 
 
( 109 ) 
 
 words — ' Be thou our expiation*/ So 
 the Decii devoted themfelves for the falva- 
 tlon of the Roman army ; and Menoeceus, 
 in obedience to an oracle, devoted himfelf to 
 death for the city of Thebes, then in dan- 
 ger of deftrudtion from the Argives. 
 
 In the heathen facrifices many circum- 
 fiances of fimilitude to thofe of the Jews 
 might eafily be traced ; but I fliall mention 
 one only, which is alfo noticed by Bp. Stll- 
 lingfleet, who obferves, that Herodotus gives 
 this reafon why the Egyptians never eat the 
 head of any living creature, namely * That 
 ' when they offer up a facrifice, they make a 
 ' folemn execration upon it, that if any evil 
 
 * were to fall upon the perfons who facrifi- 
 ' ced, or upon all Egypt, it might be turn- 
 
 * ed upon the head of that beaft :' and Plu- 
 tarch adds, that after this folemn execration, 
 
 * They cut off the head, and of old, threw 
 ' it into the river, but then [in his time] 
 
 * gave it to flrangers *f . — Here I paufe, and 
 remain 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 * Tiifi^niia. r/AWv yiviy tiroj (ra?T«pj« x«j aTroXvTpuia-ig. * Be 
 
 * tlioii our PeripfcmOy i.e. our falvation and redemption.' 
 
 t Herod, lib. ii. cap. 3Q. Plutarch de Ifide: quoted 
 Stillingflcct on ChriiVs Satlsfadion, p. 248. 
 
no 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 The Scripture DoSlrine of Atonement. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 "DEFORE I proceed any farther with this 
 argument, permit me to propofe a few- 
 queries. 
 
 1 . Knowing, as you do, the public pre- 
 judices on the dqdlrine of the atonement. 
 Do you not think it right to avoid any ex- 
 preffions in your writings or difcourfes which 
 would tend to countenance an opinion you 
 fo difap prove ? 
 
 2. Were you to preach, or write to Jews, 
 or heathen, having the fame prejudices, 
 would you not ftill more carefully avoid 
 countenancing fuch prejudices ? 
 
 3. Suppofing Paul-, Peter, &c. to be men of 
 common fenfe and prudence, would they not 
 have done the fame ? Would they not have 
 been careful to avoid expreflions which 
 have an evident tendency to nurfe people ir^ 
 ignorance or error ? 
 
 Pre fuming 
 
( 111 ) 
 
 Prefuming thefe queries admit of no an- 
 fwer but in the affirmative, let us now ex- 
 amine the language of the New Teftament 
 on this fubjedt, as addrefied both to Jews 
 and Gentiles. 
 
 I. Jefus Chrift ' gave himfelf an offering, 
 
 * and a facrifice to God of a fweet-fmelling 
 ' favour.* — We are fandlified throucrh the 
 
 * offering of the bodycf jefus Chrifl: once. — • 
 
 * For by one offering he hath perfed:ed for 
 
 * ever them that are fancTrified-f-.' On com- 
 paring the laft paffage with the context, it 
 pears obvious ; iirff, that the facrifices and 
 offerin-gs under the old difpenfation were 
 not in themfelves, or on their own account, 
 acceptable to God. * Sacrifice and offering 
 
 * thou wouldft not , for it was not poffible 
 
 * that the blood of bulls and of goats fliould 
 ' take away fins : and farther, that their exprefs 
 defign was to point to another and better 
 facrifice, even that of Chriil himfelf..' Then 
 
 * I faid, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.' 
 He taketh away the firfl, * the offerings of 
 
 * the law,* that he may eilablifh the fe- 
 cond — * the offering of the body of Jefus 
 
 * Eph. V. 2. f Ileb, X..10, 14. 
 
 ' ChnOr 
 
( 112 ) 
 
 * Chrifl: once for all.' * Now once in the end 
 
 * of the world hath he appeared to put 
 
 * away Hn by the facrifice of himfelf */ 
 
 2. His bloody in particular, is called, * the 
 
 * blood of fprinkling -f-,' alluding to the rite 
 of fprinkling the blood of atonement on the 
 altar : and himfelf is faid, as the chriftian 
 Hi^b Prieft, to have prefented his own blood 
 
 * before the prefence of God for us J;' yea, 
 the whole of our redemption is attributed to 
 the efficacy of his blood ; and that, not in a 
 few, but in a great number of palTages.ll 
 
 3. Chrifl is called ' the Lamb of God — 
 
 * a Lamb without fpot — the Lamb flain — 
 
 * the Lamb which taketh away the fins of 
 ' the world, &c. § and he is particularly 
 compared to the pafcal lamb. — * Chriil our 
 pallover is facrificed for us "**.' 
 
 4. Lie is laid to be the * propitiation for 
 < our fins — a propitiation through faith in his 
 
 * blood •f'f,* which cither conveys the idea 
 
 * Hpb. X. I — 10. Ix. 22—23. 
 f Heb. xil. 2i. comp. xl. 28. 
 X Heb. ix. 7— li. 
 
 H Epb. il. 13.1 Pet. I. 19. I John, i. 7.Rev.v.9-&c. 
 § John i. 20. I Pet. i. I9- Rev. v. 12. xiii. 3. 
 »* I Cor. V. 7.—tt Pvom. iii.25. I Joliu ii. 2.iv. 10. 
 
 that 
 
( 113 ) 
 
 that his fiifFenngs were the medium by 
 which the Deity became propitious to guilty 
 treatures, or it has no meaning within the 
 extent of my compreheniion*. There are 
 indeed two Greek words tranflated by this 
 term propitiation^ the one ufed by Paul is 
 admitted to fignify, literally, the mercy -feat, 
 br propitiatory, which was the cover of the 
 ark J and the fame Hebrew word ufed for 
 this cover, being alfo employed metaphd- 
 rically to fignify covering by way of pardon 
 and atonement ; hence the correfponding 
 Greek word is applied to the facrifice of 
 Chrift. The other word, ufed by John-f-, un- 
 queflionably ligniiies propitiation or atone- 
 ment> and is applied by the Septuagint to 
 
 * 'I'^xcr%pm in the LXX, anfwers to the Hebrew 
 n"IJDD Capporeth, the covering of the ark, which was 
 oveilaid with pure gold, whereon was fprinkled the 
 blood of the vl<vtiin on the great day of atonement. 
 
 f 'I?.»a-//o5 from 'lAao/x«i to be propitious. There is no 
 pretence that I know, for rendering this, mercy-feat. 
 Why then are the two paffages of John paffed over 
 without remark, while that in Romans is infifted upon 
 with a fevcre reflection upon Dr. Doddridge and the 
 orthodox? See Mr. B's Review, p. 214. 
 
 the 
 
( 'H ) 
 
 tlid ram of atonement, and the fin-oflfeiing 
 of the Jews*. 
 
 5. Chriil is declared to have been * made 
 
 * fin,' or a fin-offering 'for us-j-.' If this 
 be the fenfe, as Z)r. Priejiley infifls, then 
 he is the anti-type of the Jewifli facrifices, 
 ds already obferved ; and as the fins of the 
 offerers were imputed to the devoted animal, 
 fo were the fins of men * made to meet 
 (as the prophet expreffes it,) on the head of 
 the Mefliah, and he was treated as the vilefl 
 of finners on that account : and the anti- 
 thefis requires us to explain the other part 
 of the fentence in the fame rhanner, as im- 
 plying that the righteoufnefs of Chrifl: is fo 
 imputed to usj that we are treated as righte- 
 ous perfons on his account. I do not mean, 
 however, that his righteoufnefs is imputed 
 to fupply the defeats of ours ; becaufe I 
 have no idea of our own righteoufnefs being 
 brought into the account at all. But let 
 the pafliige, anfwer for itfelf. ' God was in 
 
 * Chrifl reconciling the world unto himfelf, 
 
 * not imputing their trefpaffes unto thetn ; 
 
 * Nimib. V. 8'. Ezek. xliv. 27. xlv. I9. See alfa 
 2 Mucc. iii. 33." t I Cor v. 19. -21. 
 
 and 
 
( "5 ) 
 
 ' and hath committed unto us the word of 
 « reconciliation. — For he hath made him 
 « who knew no fin to be fin for us, that we 
 
 * might be made the righteoufnefs of God 
 ' in him.* 
 
 6. Chriil is farther faid to * bear thejins 
 
 * ^many — to bear our fins in his own body 
 
 * on the tree*,' &c. It is objected, that to 
 bear our fms, is ftridtly to bear away^ or re- 
 move them-f- ', and your learned prcdeceflbr. 
 Dr. Priejlley, who agrees with yon in this, 
 infifts farther f , that the phrafe bearing Jin 
 is never applied in the Old Teftament but 
 to the Scape-goat : another inftance, that 
 great critics are not always the befl textua- 
 ries. This inftance, however, may furnifli 
 us with a moft exadl and beautiful illuftrati- 
 on of the fcripture do6lrines of imputation 
 and fubftitution -, for the fcape-goat -j- was 
 to have all the fins of the congregation laid 
 upon it, and then to be let go that he * might 
 
 * bear upon him all their iniquities into a 
 
 * land not inhabited,' that is, a wildernefs 11. 
 It is true, this type was defective, becaufe it 
 
 * Heb. jx. 23. I Pet, iii. i3. 
 
 t Review, p. 68, 
 
 X Pricftley's Famili^ Illuftrations, § v, 
 
 II Lev. xvi. 21,22. 
 
 P z was 
 
( ii6 ) 
 
 was not flain ; whence the introducSlion of 
 two goats in the inftitution, one of which 
 was flain to reprefent the death of Jefus, and 
 the other fent away, to figure the removal 
 of the people's fins, into a ilate of perpe- 
 tual obUvion j it being impoffible to reprefent 
 both thefe circumftances fully by the fame 
 animal. You infift, indeed, that this means 
 
 * no more than that God, by Jefus Chrift, 
 
 * communicates the bleffings of the gofpel 
 ' with equal freedom both to Jews and Gen- 
 
 * tiles ;' fo ' that the errors and vices of a 
 
 * heathen flate are no longer a bar to the 
 
 * exercife of mercy*.' This is admitting 
 the myftical defign of the Jewifh facnhces, 
 though it gives a very lame account of them; 
 viz. a goat was to be fent into the w^iider- 
 nefs with the fins of the yews, in order to 
 fhew God meant to forgive the fins of the 
 Gentiles ! 
 
 That, however, the term bearing fins 
 under the Old Teflament is not confined to 
 their removal, as Dr. P. pretends, is ex- 
 tremely clear from its being ufed in a con- 
 nexion, in which that fenfe cannot be at 
 
 * Review, p. 69, 
 
 all 
 
( 117 ) 
 
 all admitted. I allude to the cafe of a per- 
 fon bearing his ow?i iniquity *, where it can 
 mean nothing lefs than being chargeable 
 with its guilt, and expofed to its punifh- 
 ment. When, therefore, the Meffiah is faid 
 to bear the fms of his people, and that in 
 connedtion with his fufferings, is it not natu- 
 ral, and even neceffary, to underftand it in the 
 fenfe of his bearing their guilt, and fufTering 
 the penalty ? not, indeed, that he was guilty, 
 any otherwife than by imputation. 
 
 The only material objection T can recoiled: 
 to this, is the mannef in which Matthew ap- 
 pHes this expreihon of the prophet (himfelf 
 took our infirmities -f-, &c.) But this will 
 only fhew that Chrifl: bore our fins in more 
 
 * See Lev. v. i. xix. 8. 3cx. i7. where, for a 
 man to bear his iniquity, is evidently to be liable to its 
 confequences ; and when fuch an one became fenfibic 
 of his guilt, and repented, it is provided that he 
 Ihould bring a facrifice (if the cafe admitted one), 
 confefs his guilt over it, (which was accompanied bj 
 the Impolition of his hands; See Exod. xxix. I5. 
 Lev. i. 4. iii. 2. Iv. 4,29, 33, &c.) and with thi* 
 facritice an atonement was to be made, and the finner 
 no more bare his iniquity, nor was expofed to punifli- 
 ment ; — but wherefore ? Becaufe the facrifice had borne 
 and fuffered for it. f Matt. viii. 7. 
 
 refpedls 
 
■^> 
 
 ( ii8 ) 
 
 refpeds than one — He bore them hyjympa- 
 thy and kindnefs, and from tliat principle re- 
 moved their painful confequences by his 
 miraculous power. He bore them alfo by 
 Jubjiitution, fuffering their defert — He bore 
 
 * our fins in his own body on the tree *,* 
 and thus removed them away for ever. 
 
 Let us, however, advert again to the 
 prophet Ifaiah, and allow him to be his 
 own expofitor. * Surely he hath born our 
 
 * griefs and carried our fbrrows; yet we 
 
 * did efleem him flriken, fmitten of God, 
 ' and afflicted. But he was wounded for 
 
 * our tranfgreffions, he was bruil'ed for our 
 
 * iniquities; the chaftifement of our peace 
 [or as Bp. Lowth renders it — the chaftife- 
 
 * ment by which our peace was affected] 
 
 * was LAID UPON him, and with [or by] 
 
 * his flripes we are healed. All we like 
 
 * fheep have gone aflray : we have turned 
 
 * every one to his own away ; and the Lord 
 
 * hath LAID UPON him the iniquity of us 
 
 * all-)-.* — Again, in ver. lo. 'Yet it plcafed 
 
 * the Lord to bruife him, he hath put him 
 ' to grief: when thou fhalt make his foul 
 
 * I Pet; ili. I3: Ifa. liii, 4, &c. 
 
 " • an 
 
( 119 ) 
 
 * an offering for fin ;' [Bp. Lowth reads. If 
 
 * his foul iTiall make (or be made) a propi- 
 
 * tiatory facrifice ;] He fliall fee his feed, 
 
 * he fhall prolong his days, and the plea- 
 
 * fare of the Lord fliall profper in his 
 
 * hand. He fliall fee of the travel of his 
 
 * foul and fhall be fatisfied : by his know- 
 
 * ledge fhall my righteous fervant juftify 
 
 * many, for he fhall bear their iniqui- 
 
 * ties. — And again, in the laft verfe — He 
 
 * BARE the fin of many, and made inter- 
 
 * celTion for the tranfgreflbrs */ 
 
 Let an impartial enquirer, after weighing 
 the evidence here produced, fee if he can 
 fatisfy his confcience in luppofing the pro- 
 phet meant atiy thing fhort of this — that 
 the IVIelliah Ihould fuffer in the ftead of iin- 
 ners, and bear the punifliment of their fins. 
 
 7. Chrift is laid to have ' redeemed us from 
 
 * the curfe of the law, being made a curfe 
 
 * In the original, (ver. 4. ii, i2.) the prophet lias 
 ufcd t\vo verbs as nearly fynouynious j {^^^ unci '^^D ; 
 if there be any diil'erence, it iliould fcem (as Mr Park- 
 huril oblerves), the latter is the moil: eniphatlcal. Sec 
 Ilaiuh xlvi. 4, Both arc urually applied to T^earini^ 
 b'H'den'^, and to bearing punifhment, efpeclaliy the 
 farmer : See pavticularly, Prov. xix. ly, 
 
 ' for 
 
( 120 ) 
 
 * for us,** by having fufFered the curfed 
 death of the crofs on our account; for * he 
 
 * was deUvered for our offences, and raifedj 
 
 * for our juftification-f-.' The connexion 
 in which the firfl: of thefe pafTages is found 
 affords the cle?ireft evidence of the do<flrine 
 for which I plead. The apoftle ftates, that 
 no man can be juftified by the works of the 
 law, infomuch as no man had pcrfeflly oh- 
 ferved it, but all are obnoxious to the curfe: 
 thofe, however, who live by faith, he af- 
 fures us, are redeemed from the curfe by 
 Chrift himfelf being made a curfe for them. 
 If this language does not convey the idea, 
 that Chrifl endured that curfe to which 
 tranfgrelTors of the law, as fuch, are 
 expofed, we may for ever defpair of know- 
 ing a writer's meaning from his words. 
 
 * Gal. ill. 13. A clergyman, who feeiris fond (if writ- 
 ing ag-aiaft the doulrinc of his own church, and the 
 articles he has folemtily and repeatedly fubfcribed, 
 teils us, that the curfe of a law is not Its penalty, but 
 \i^ fever'iiy . ' Jull as, from their feverity, Draco's laws 
 ' * are fald to be v/ritten in blood.-' L\ullam's Six 
 Efliiys, Effay 3. A prett}^ reflexion this for a chrifti- 
 an divine — to defcrlbc the laws of heaven as fau- 
 gnlnary, and their Author as a tyrant I 
 •f Rom. iv. -?:.. 
 
 As 
 
i 121 ) 
 
 As Chrift is called onr Redeemer and our 
 Rattfom, (o his blood is faid to be the price of 
 our redemption *. For we are not * re- 
 
 * deemed with corruptible things, as filver 
 
 * and gold i but with the precious blood of 
 
 * Chrift, as of a lamb without fpot or ble- 
 
 * mifh. — Ye are not your own ; but bought 
 
 * with a price/ &c. It is true, indeed. Moles 
 is called a redeemer in one inilance-f-, but it js 
 merely in the fenfe of a deliverer to the 
 Jews ; for neither Mofes, nor any other, is 
 ever faid to have given himfelf a ranfom 
 for them, or as the price of their redempti- 
 on, as Chrifl is, in the pafTages above cited, 
 and in many others. 
 
 9. Jefus is exprefsly faid to fuftain the 
 characters of a Mediator, and a furety for 
 us. He is the * Mediator of the new co- 
 venant' — ' the Mediator between God and 
 
 * men J.' Now a mediator is a middle pcr- 
 fon, who makes peace between parties which 
 are at variance.- Such is * the man Chrifl 
 
 * Jefus,' and if it be enquired, how he 
 
 * Job xix. 25. 1 Tim. ii. 6. 1 Pet. i. 13, 19. 
 1 Cor. vi. 19, 2O4 
 
 t Afts vii. 3 5. in the Greek. 
 
 X Heb. viii. 6. ix. 15. xii. 24. 1 Tim. Ii. 5. 
 
 Q_ made 
 
( 122 ) 
 
 made peace, the anfwer is ready, from di« 
 vine authority — it was ' through the blood 
 
 * of his crofs*.' — He is the surety alfo 
 of this covenant -f". which, whatever be the 
 exadt import of the term, imphes that he 
 was to acl: on the partof fmners, for he could 
 not be a furety on the part of Deity. 
 
 Laftly, None of thefe particulars were re- 
 finements of the apoflles, or the efFecls of 
 Jewifh prejudices ; fince Chrifl himfelf, from 
 the commencement of his- public miniflry, 
 uniformly declared, that the one great end 
 of his coming into the world was to lay 
 down his life * for his fheep' — to * give his 
 
 * life a ranfom for many' — to give his hdh 
 and his blood for the life of men J. 
 
 Now, Sir, after reading the above quota- 
 tions, what mufl I, what muft any impartial 
 reader think of the following aflertions re- 
 fped:ing the New Teftament ? viz. * Thai 
 ' [therein] the death of Jefus is never re- 
 
 * prcfentcd as an atonement for fin — that 
 
 * we are never exhorted to aik any thing of 
 
 * Gody^r the Jake cf Chriji — nor is any blef- 
 
 * ling ever faid to be granted to us upon 
 
 * Col. i. ^'0. t III b. vil. 22. 
 
 X Matt. XX. 2S. .John X. lo, 11. vi. 51, &:c. 
 
 * that 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 < that confideration*.' The mofl charitable 
 fuppoiition would be that you had not read 
 the New Teftament : the fa<^ appears to be, 
 that you have read it, but under the influ- 
 ence of a fyftem which entirely veils its 
 natural and true meaning. Taking this brief 
 abilra(5l for the vv hole of what thefe writers 
 have faid in favour of the docftrine of Chrift's 
 atonement, though in truth it is but a fmall 
 part, permit me to afk, what would you 
 have thought of a teacher in your focieties, 
 who fhould have thus incautioufly expreiied 
 himfelf in conformity to the prejudices of 
 Jews and Heathens ? Are there in fa<^t any 
 writers or preachers of your fentiments w4io 
 thus exprefs themfelves ? Or would you in 
 reading an author abounding in fuch forms 
 of expreffions, fuppofe him to be a Socinian 
 or a Unitarian? I fhould think it were im- 
 polTible. 
 
 Let me. Sir, on this point be plain ^ and 
 permit me to call upon you to be frank, and 
 avow your fentiments. Do not you, and 
 other Gentlemen of your fentiments, fufped", 
 ^fter all the pains you have taken to make 
 
 * Review, p. ii2. 
 
 0^2 thefe 
 
( 124 ) 
 
 thefe writers fpeak like Unitarians, that they 
 were really fanatic Calvinifls ? That you do, I 
 cannot help inferring, as well from your con- 
 du(5t in the management of this controverfy, 
 as from my own views of fcripture. While 
 any expreffions appear to you favourable to 
 Unitarian principles, it is well ; but when 
 you perceive the current of their writings 
 tuns the other way, then you recur to fo- 
 reign and forced criticifnij* I mean, to feek 
 among claflic authors for new and uncom- 
 mon fenfes to words and prepofitions, of 
 which probably the writers never heard. In 
 the next place, various readings and verfions 
 are referred to : and when thefe agnin fail, 
 as they often will, your laft refort is, to 
 qiieftion their infpiration and authority. I 
 am now prepared to hear upon the prefent 
 fubje(51:, provided you find, as I think you 
 mufl:, that the evidence runs ftrong againfl 
 you ; — I am prepared to hear that thefe good 
 
 * I beg not to be underftood as obje(5ling to crit'i- 
 cifm itfelf, but to its abufe, wKen emplojed to ftrain 
 pafTages clearly on the oppofite fide ; or when made 
 the foundation of a fyftem ; for I muft (ky with Mr. 
 Robinfon, and fome others, * Woe be to the fyflen^ 
 '^ which re/?s upon it.' 
 
 men 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 men were not at all times infallible 5 that 
 Peter and John certainly were illiterate, and 
 Paul a man of ftrong educational prejudices ; 
 that it is difficult to diftinguifli their genuine 
 writings, and more fb, what parts of them 
 were infpired ; that certainly they were poor 
 critics and philofophers j and that our own 
 reafon, and the light of nature, are the fafefl 
 guides. And here I confefs I fhall be com- 
 pletely filenced : for I do not mean to plead 
 for fcripture truths, independent of the au^ 
 thority of fcripture. 
 
 I am, Your's, &e. 
 
{ 126 ) 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 The Intercejfwn of Chrifi^ 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 T SHOULD not have thought it necefTary 
 to introduce this fubjedt, but for the fol- 
 lowing extraordinary paffages. — ' Jefus is in- 
 
 * deed now ahve, and, without doubt, em- 
 
 * ployed in offices the moft honourable and 
 
 * benevolent : but as w^ are totally ignorant 
 
 * of the place where he relides, and of the 
 
 * occupations in which he is engaged, there 
 
 * can be no proper foundation for religious 
 
 * addrelTes to him, nor of gratitude for fa- 
 
 * vours now received, nor yet of confidence 
 
 * in his future interpolition in our behalf. 
 
 * AU affections and addrelfes of this nature 
 
 * are unauthorized by the Chrifllan revcla- 
 
 * tion, and are infringments on the preroga- 
 < tive of God */ 
 
 Had I met with this pafHige in fome un- 
 known author, I fhould have regretted his 
 ignorance of the New Teflament, and have 
 
 * Review, p. 85. 
 
 fuppofcd 
 
fuppofed he had feen only fome fragments 
 of the gofpelsi little fhould I have fup- 
 that fuch a pailage could have been v/iittea 
 hy a teacher of chriftianity. Such how- 
 ever appears to be the facft, and may 
 cure us of wondering at any thing from ra' 
 tional divines ! 
 
 As you make no pretence to infpiration, 
 permit us to examine, i. The truth of your 
 premifes, and 2. The juflnefs of your con- 
 clufions. 
 
 I . You know not where Jefus is ; you 
 fcem in as much fufpenfe as Mary was, yet 
 without her anxiety, when flie faid, * They 
 
 * have taken away my Lord, and I know 
 
 * not where they have laid him.* The 
 Apoflie.s and Evangelills employ a very dif- 
 ferent language when they fpeak of their 
 Lord's glory iince his relurreclion. — They 
 tell us, he has * afcended into heaven — has 
 
 * entered into the prefence of God for us — 
 
 * is fat down on the rioht-hand of the Ma- 
 
 o 
 
 * jefiy on high.' 
 
 Should you reply, you admit the refi- 
 dence of Chrift in heaven, only that you 
 know not where heaven is — what then ? Y>ot^ 
 it foUov/ from thence that there can be no 
 
 com- 
 
( 128 ) 
 
 communications with it ? I fuppofe you ar^ 
 as much acquainted with the heaven where 
 Clirift relides, as with heaven the abode of 
 God and angels. It was the glory of the 
 primitive chriftians to hold communion with 
 the celeftial world, their converfation was in 
 heaven, their affedtions were fet on things 
 above, their communion was with the Fa- 
 ther, and the Son. And if you. Sir, are a 
 total flranger to the like experience, I much 
 fear that you are not only ignorant where 
 heaven is, but not in the way to find it. 
 You know not where Jefus is, and have no 
 expectations from him ! You remind me> 
 Sir, of feme whofe fentiments and language 
 appear to have greatly corresponded with 
 yours — ' As for this Mofes (faid they) we 
 
 * wot not what is become of him ; up, make 
 
 * us gods that fliall go before us.' 
 
 But you are equally ignorant of Chrift's 
 prefent employment. An Apoftle fays, * He 
 
 * is now at the right-hand of God, making 
 
 * intercefTion for us *.' But God, you fay, 
 ^ has no ng/jt-h^ind,' Literally, as a pure 
 fpirit, God indeed has f20 hand-, but the 
 
 * Col. iil. I. Hcb. vll. '23. viii. I. 
 
 right- 
 
( 129 ) 
 
 ri»ht-hani you know is the place of autho-* 
 rity and power, Jefus is exalted to the throne 
 of God. So weak an objeclloii was unwor- 
 thy of Thomas Paine, what fhall we thuik 
 of it from the learned Profeflbr of Hackney 
 College ? — —Bat you proceed — 
 
 This office of interceffion is alfo afcrib- 
 ed to the Lord Jefus in another text "*. * He 
 
 * ever liveth to make interceffion for them/ 
 The exad import of the phrafe, you think, 
 it is very difficult to afcertain. ' Probably 
 
 * indeed (you fay) t/je writers themf elves an- 
 
 * nexedno verydljlinB idea to it.' True ; they 
 were not philofophers, nor rational divines ; 
 and therefore, it is no wonder they had no 
 diffincT: ideas ; nor is it of much confequence 
 either what were their ideas, or what their 
 language, ij they deferve no more refpedl 
 than you pay them. 
 
 As you, however, appear more enlightncd 
 by philofophy, perhaps you may be able to 
 affix fome diftin6l ideas. The v/ord in the 
 original, rendered interceffion "f*, you inform 
 us, * exprefles any interference of one perfcn 
 
 * for, or againjl another ;' fo that for ouglir 
 
 * Hch. vll. 25. t Tivrvyx'^vsiv. 
 
 R appeal^, 
 
( 130 ) 
 
 appears, it may be uncertain from the text 
 whether Jefus interferes eithery^^r or againji 
 us — this to be fure is a very diftind: idea ! 
 ■ — ' Any interference,' — this certainly is a 
 hicid criticifm ! — I beheve it is pretty Well 
 agreed, that the term Paracletosy fignifies a 
 pleader in a public court ; and this I fuppofe 
 is the general idea here intended 3 but 
 what opinion would you form of a Lexico- 
 grapher, who ihould define pleading to be 
 
 * any interference* of one perfon either * for 
 
 * or againfl: another?* — A definition equally 
 applicable to a foldier^ and many other pro- 
 feffions, as to a lawyer. 
 
 You are indeed willing to take the fair 
 fide of the queftion, and to believe that the 
 interceflion of Jefus is in our favour ; yet you 
 are confident, that all * we can certainly learn 
 
 * from the Apoftle's declaration la, that Je- 
 
 * fus, having been advanced to great dignity 
 
 * and felicity, is, by the appointment of God, 
 ' continually employing his renovated and 
 ' improved pow ers in fome unknomon way for 
 ' the benefit of his church.* This is the 
 nrt by which rational Gentlemen get rid 
 of the plain docftrines of fcripturc, reduce 
 the faitli of the gofpel to fcepticifm, and tra- 
 velling 
 
( «3i ) 
 
 veiling * from. Dan to Beerfheba,' find all 
 barren ground ! 
 
 It is an unhappy circumftance in your in- 
 veftigation of fcripture, that your philofophy 
 always interferes with your theology. Chrift 
 is in heaven, you muft admit -, but then the 
 new fyftem of aftronomy comes in your way. 
 If he dwell in fome other planet dr fixed ftar, 
 fuppofmg him to be a man, as you do, what 
 connecflion can he have with our world ? If 
 indeed, as Dr. Prieflley feems to think, he 
 refides fomewhere in our atmofphere, there 
 may be hopes of reaching him by a balloon — 
 the beft hope that many have of being where 
 Jefus is ! 
 
 As to myfelf, I feel it an objedl of little 
 intereft where may be the immediate refl^ 
 dence of Chrifl's human naturc, while it is 
 united to divinity. Whether the Man Jefus 
 fit on the circle (or orbit) of the earth, or 
 dwell in the fplendour of the fun, or tile 
 glory of the milky way, I believe he is in 
 the immediate prefence of God — * ever living 
 * to make intercelTion for us,' 
 
 The beft idea that I can form of the inter- 
 
 cefTion of Chrifi:, is from the office of the 
 
 bigh-prieft, who, when he entered into the 
 
 R 2 holv 
 
( 132 ) 
 
 holy place, fprinkled the blood of atoiiemenf 
 before the throne. No form of v/ords was 
 prefcribed upon this occaflon (as in bleffing 
 the people), and it is not certain that any 
 words were made ufe of; it was * the blood 
 ' of fprinkling* that interceded. 
 
 * Blood has a voice to pierce tlie ikies, 
 
 * Revenge! the blood of Abel cries : 
 
 * But the dear llream when Chrift was flaih, 
 
 * Speaks ^^^f^ as loud from cv'rj' vein.' 
 
 The reprefentation of Chrift in the Reve- 
 lation of St. John, feem to intimate that the 
 interceiTion of jefus is of this nature ; for 
 there we find him as a lamb that had been 
 flain *; that is> with the mark of his wounds 
 upon him; and it is very obfervable, that 
 when Jefus appeared to Thomas after his re- 
 furredtion, it was with the marks of all his 
 wounds "f-. 
 
 2. From not knowing precifcly where 
 Jefus is, or how he is employed, you deny 
 the propriety of any religious addrefles tO 
 him. You feem to fear that, like Baal of 
 old, he may be on a journey — or afleep, 
 •aild cannot eafily be a^^'aked, and therefore 
 
 * Rev. V. G. ^'C. t John xx. 27. 
 
 it 
 
( ^33 ) 
 
 it can be of little ufe to worfhip him. Yout 
 inference, however, does not necelTarily re-* 
 fult from your premifes, becaufe the wor- 
 fhip of Jefus is founded on his union with 
 Deity. If he be a divine perfon, the local 
 refidence of his human nature is, in this re - 
 lpe6t, of little confequence. If he be nof, 
 then indeed his worfliip mufl: be, as you re- 
 prefent it, ' diflionourable to God, injurious 
 * to rational religion, and, in a ftridl fenfe, 
 *^ idolatrous *.' 
 
 I am not difpofed to enter into new dif- 
 cuflions on the Trinitarian controverfv, on 
 which indeed little novelty can be expedled ; 
 but as you have fo repeatedly adverted to the 
 fubjedt of chriftian idolatry, I beg leave to 
 lay before yon, as an individual, my apology 
 for a prad:ice which you fo pointedly con- 
 demn. 
 
 My' reafons then for worfhipping Jefus are 
 grounded on his union with the Father ; a 
 union whereby he is one with him, filling 
 the fime throne, bearing the lame titles, 
 participating the fame perfedions, doing the 
 iame works, and receiving the fame incom- 
 municable honours. But it is of the lafl par- 
 
 * Review, p. 13 0. 
 
 ticular 
 
( 134 ) 
 
 ticular only that I fliall here offer evidence, 
 and that in the briefefl manner poffible*. 
 
 I . It is generally admitted by Arian, as 
 well as Trinitarian writers, that Jefus Chrift 
 appeared under an angelic form to feveral of 
 the patriarchs ; now in fome, at leaft, of 
 thefe inftances, I obferve that he received 
 divine honours-f*. 
 
 Many writers attempt to account for the 
 adoration here fpoken of from the eaflern 
 cuftom of proftration to fuperiors : but this 
 argument is not founded on proftration only. 
 He to whom Abraham bowed is ftiled Je- 
 hovah, and fpeaks under that character. 
 Joihua is commanded to put off his flioes ; 
 and Gideon offered facrilice (as it fhould 
 feem J,) to the angel that appeared to him. 
 Are thefe inftances of civil refpedl only ? — • 
 Equally vain is it to recur to the idea of re- 
 prefentation. Ambafladors never fpeak of 
 
 * To prevent the charge of plaglarlfm, it may be 
 neceffary to obferve, that the following remarks are 
 copied, with fome additions, from two letters I wrote 
 in the Protellant Dilfcnters Mag. for Auguft 1 TQb', 
 and Jan. I797. 
 
 t See Gen. xvili. Jofliua v. iG — 15. Judges vi, 
 11 — 24. X Judges vl. ir, Sec 
 
 their 
 
( ^3S ) 
 their mafter in the firft perfon. What would 
 you. Sir, think of our minifter at Vienna, 
 if he were to tell the Emperor of Germany, 
 ♦ I am the king of Great Britain ?* Or of the 
 Turkifh Ambafl'ador at our court, were he to 
 fay, * I am the Grand Signior ?* 
 
 2. At his incarnation, Jefus was worfliipped 
 in the manger (among others) by the philo- 
 fophlc Magi ■*, and (according to divine in- 
 jundion), by the holy angels, ' Let all the 
 angels of God worfhip him -f-.' 
 
 3. During the courfe of his miniflry, he 
 was not only adored by the multitudes he 
 cured J, but alfo by his dilciples § ; and never 
 refufed fuch honours, nor reproved the wor- 
 fliippers ; but on the contrary, commended 
 their faith and condudt, as in the inffance of 
 the woman of Canaan ||. 
 
 4. At, and after his refurred;ion, he was 
 vvorfhipped by his apoftles and difciples**, 
 and particularly by incredulous Thomas, 
 who confefTed him as his Lord and his 
 God '\"f, 
 
 * Matt. ii. II. f Heb. i. 6. 
 
 X Matt.vUi.2; k. 18,&c. § Luke v. 3. 
 II Mutt. XV. 22—3, ** Matt, xxvili, 9-17. 
 
 Luke xxiv. 52. f f John xx. 23. 
 
 5. Paul 
 
( 136 ) 
 
 5. Paul repeatedly, and without Icruple, 
 prayed to him in the mofl clear and indifput- 
 able terms *. John worfhipped him in his 
 divine vifions -f- ; and Stephen died in the 
 very 2.6i of adoration, at the fame time being 
 filled with the Holy Ghoft J. 
 
 6. In the book of the Revelation, we have 
 the whole company of heaven, and univerfal 
 nature, in the moft humble and fervent man- 
 ner, adorhig him in the fame terms and man^^ 
 ner as his heavenly Father ||. 
 
 7. We have the exprefs command of the 
 Father to worfliip Jefus, and we are alfo 
 told, that no honours paid to himfelf will be 
 accepted, which are not, in like manner, 
 paid to the Son alfo ; and thus our very fal- 
 vation is made dependent on it. ' He that 
 honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 
 Father §/ 
 
 8. It was not only the prac'ticc of the pri- 
 mitive chriflians to worlhip their divine 
 Mafter, but this was their peculiar charac- 
 teriftic. They were fuch as * called upon 
 
 * 2 Cor. xli. 8, o. f Rev. I. I7. 
 
 X x^dlsvii. 5:»— (JO. II Rev. V. S — It. 
 
 § John V. 2'?, "25. 
 
 the 
 
( ^37 ) 
 
 * the name df the Lord Jefus *;* and Plmy^ 
 defcribing them to the emperor Trajanj 
 fays, they met oil a certain ftated day, before 
 it was light, and * fung hymns to Chrift as to 
 
 * a God-f-.' Juflin Martyr declares,* The true 
 
 * God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, 
 
 * we worfliip and adore %.' Mr. R. Robin- 
 fon fays, * However the ancients defcribed the 
 
 * nature of Jefus Chrift in their creeds, 
 
 * worfhip him they certainly did^ .' 
 
 9. The great mafs of limple and pious 
 chriftians, of learned and ufeful minifters, 
 in all ages (our opponents themfelves being 
 judges), have been worfhippers of Jefus 
 Chrift, and many of them have even quit- 
 ted the world happily and triumphantly in 
 calling upon his name. 
 
 10. And laftly, I will add, that the con- 
 trary fuppolition, that Chrifl: ought not to 
 be woilliipped, charges the whole chriftian 
 church with idolatry, and makes void the 
 promife of the Spirit to lead believers into 
 all truth. 
 
 * Ads ix. 14. 21. Rom. X. 9. I3. 
 
 t Pliny's Epillles, b. x. epift. 97. 
 
 X 2d.Apologj* 
 
 I Plea for Chrifl's Dlvmlty, p. AC. 
 
 S After 
 
( 138 ) 
 
 After the above proofs, I confefs myfelf at 
 a lofs to know what reafon you can have for 
 aflerting, that ' the holy and humble Jefus 
 
 * would doubtlefs have rejedled with abhor- 
 
 * rence thofe divine honours, which his mif- 
 
 * taken followers in latter a2;es have afcrib- 
 
 * ed to him, had they been addrefled to 
 
 * him previous to his departure from the 
 
 * world*.' One thing, however, flrikes me 
 very forcibly ; namely, that it is impoflible 
 to reconcile the condud: of Jefus, in receiv- 
 ing divine honours, with his ' holy and 
 ' humble' chara6ler, upon the fuppofition 
 of his being a man only like ourfelves'. 
 When the heathen mi{l-ook Paul and Barna- 
 bas for deities, with what earneftnefs did they 
 reftrain them from idolatry? when John pof- 
 trated himfelf before the angel that appear- 
 ed to him, he immediately forbade liim : * See 
 
 * thou do it not, for I am thy fellow- fcr- 
 
 * vant.' But Jefus, as we have feen, did 
 not reprove his worfhippers, but commended 
 them. And when we hear him call himfelf 
 the Son of God — declare God to be in a pe- 
 culiar fenfe his Father, and himfelf one with 
 him J — that he doth the lame works, and is 
 
 * Review, p. i(j8. 
 
 entitled 
 
( 139 ) 
 
 entitled to the fame honours with the Fa- 
 ther ; it is impofTible to believe, but that he 
 muil truly be a divine perfon, or a vain- 
 glorious impoftor. So effential is the doc- 
 trine of our Lord's divinity, even to the vin- 
 dication of his moral charadier ! Before, 
 therefore, you. Sir, oppofe farther this im- 
 portant truth, it might be well to conlider, 
 whether you do not thereby virtually give 
 up chriftianity itfelf. 
 
 I remain yours, &c. 
 
{140) 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Terms of Acceptance with God. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 T Perfedlly agree with you, that ' there is 
 ' nothing in the whole compafs of reUgion 
 
 * and morals, of greater importance to be 
 ' diftindtly known than the terms of accept- 
 
 * ance with God 5 or in other words, the 
 
 * means which God has appointed for the 
 
 * attainment of our ultimate happinefs. 
 
 * And thefe are fo explicitly revealed in the 
 
 * fcriptures both of the Old and New Tef- 
 
 * tament, that no perfon of common under- 
 
 * ftanding, who reads them attentively, and 
 ' without prejudice, can fall into any mate- 
 *■ rial error upon this fubjed: *.' Thus far 
 we coincide, but when you add, * the prac- 
 
 * tice of virtue is always reprefented as the 
 
 * only fiieans of attaining happinefs, both here 
 ^ and hereafter -f- / we divide immediately. 
 
 * Review I04. + lb. 
 
 Let 
 
( HI ) 
 
 Let me firft attend to your arguments, and 
 then propofe mine. 
 
 You quote fevcral pafTages which en- 
 join men ' to fear God, to do juftly, to 
 
 * love mercy,' &c. and then triumphantly 
 add, * Thefe are the clear and unequivocal 
 
 * terms of falvation hoth under the old dif- 
 
 * penfation and the new*.* But, in order 
 to make your conclulion valid, you know 
 it ought to arife naturally from your pre- 
 mifes. It is true enough, and we all admit, 
 that tl^e fcriptures enforce the principles of 
 morality and good works ; but it does not 
 follow that they make thefe * the terms 
 
 * of falvation/ And I cannot help think- 
 ing it a little remarkable, that you fhould 
 bring fo many texts to prove what nobody 
 will difpute, and not one to prove the point 
 at iffue, i. e. whether thefe be the terms of 
 falvation. There is, however, perhaps a 
 better reafon for this than for moft parts of 
 your work — there are no fuch texts to be 
 produced : for, whenever * the terms of fal- 
 
 * Review, p. 10 J. The laft fentence is marked with 
 inverted commas, as if a quotation from fcripture alfo; 
 but this, I fuppofe, to be an error of the prcfs, and 
 not defigned. 
 
 * vation/ 
 
( 142 ) 
 
 * vatlon,' as you call them, are named, they 
 appear to be very different, as I fliall fhew 
 immediately ; only I miift here premife, that 
 I ufe this exprefTion, * terms of falvation,' 
 not for any meritorious caufe, as it has 
 been fometimes taken ; but, as you have 
 explained it, for * the means which God 
 
 * has appointed for the attainment of our 
 
 * ultimate happinefs.* 
 
 Here you anticipate what I fhould natu- 
 rally remark, that the apoflles ' infift much 
 
 * on faith in Chrifl:,' and you admit that 
 they do this * with great propriety ;' — but 
 wherefore ? * becaufe their exhortations were 
 ' ufually addrefied to unbelieving Jews, or 
 
 * to heathen idolaters.' But vou add, * thofe 
 
 * who already profelled chriflianity are en- 
 
 * joined, ?iot to believe^ but to adt confiflent- 
 ' ly with their profeffion, and to be " care- 
 " ful to maintain good works*." If this 
 remark mean only that believers are not 
 called upon to commence anew the life of 
 faith after it is once begun, it may be true ^ 
 but it is trifling, and nothing to the pur- 
 pofe : if it mean that the chriftian has no 
 
 * Review, p. 103. 
 
 farther 
 
( H3 ) 
 
 farther ufe for faith after he has once be- 
 heved, it is clearly a great and dangerous 
 miftake -, for the infpired writers conflantly 
 reprefent faith as the grand principle of ho- 
 linefs, obedience, and eternal life. ' I am 
 
 * crucified with Chrifl: (faith Paul), never- 
 
 * thelefs I live -, yet not I, but Chrifl liveth 
 
 * in me : and the life which I now live in 
 
 * the fleili, I live by the faith of the Son 
 
 * of God, who loved me, and gave himfelf 
 
 * for me*.' — He prays for the converted 
 Ephefians, that Chrift might * dwell in 
 
 * their hearts hy Jkith -fi' .^nd he exhorts 
 Timothy to * fight the good fight o^faithX' 
 And you know that both Tellaments repre- 
 fent the chriiHan life as a life of faith 1| ; 
 and afcribe to this principle all the virtues 
 and good works of chrifiians. John fays 
 exprefsly, ' This is his command, that we 
 
 * [who do thofe things that are pleafing in 
 
 * his fight] fhould believe on the name of 
 
 * his Son Jefus Chrifi; :' and again, * Thefe 
 
 * thins-s have I written to vou that believe 
 ' on the name of the Son of God ; that ye 
 
 * Gal. li. 20. t Eph. ill. 17. 
 
 X 1 Tim. vi. il. \ Heb. x. 3S. 
 
 ' mar 
 
( 144 ) 
 
 * may know that ye have eternal life, and 
 
 * that ye may believe on the name of the 
 
 * Son of God*.' So that the apoftles * in- 
 
 * fift much on faith ;' not only to unbelievers, 
 but to believers more efpecially, to whom 
 all the Epiftles are addrelTed. 
 
 But our inquiry leads dired;ly to the fub- 
 jedl of juftification, and the grand queftion 
 is. Whether by works or faith a man is 
 juftified ? And here, if Paul may be ad^ 
 mitted to give the anfwer, this cannot re- 
 main long undecided 5 for upon a full con^ 
 iideration of the fubjed:, in his epiftle to the 
 Romans, he concludes ' That a man is juf< 
 
 * tified by faith, without the deeds of the 
 
 * law "f-.' He farther fhews that this was 
 not peculiar to the new difpeniation ; but 
 that Abraham himfelf was thus juftified, as 
 it is written, ' Abraham believed God, and 
 
 * it was imputed unto him for righteouf- 
 
 * nefs.' The like is to be inferred of David, 
 who * defcribeth the blefl'ednefs of the man 
 
 * unto whom God imputeth righteoufnefs 
 
 * without works.' 
 
 We have been told indeed by fome, that 
 the works here intended are ceremonial, 
 
 * I John iii. 23, and v. i3. f Roni. iii. 23. 
 
 and 
 
( 145 ) 
 
 ^nd not moral, and that this dodrlne re- 
 fpedts the Jews only. But nothing can be 
 more oppofite than this to the whole tenor 
 of the apoftle's argument 3 who proves, ia 
 the firft inftance, that all men^ both Jews 
 and Gentiles, are finners and ahke under con- 
 demnation. It is equally contrary to his 
 r.eafon, that no flefli might glory before God ; 
 fmce moral righteoufnefs certainly gives 
 more room to boaft than that which is mere- 
 ly ceremonial. Beiides, if his argument re- 
 fpedted the Jews only, why addrefs this fub- 
 je<51 to the Romans ? 
 
 James declares, that * by works a man is 
 
 * jufbfied) and not by faith only,' which, at 
 firft fight, feems oppolite to Paul's dodtrine ; 
 but is fo only in exprefTion, a little confi- 
 dcration being fufficient to reconcile them : 
 James's delign being fnnply and evidently to 
 fliew that the faith by which men are jufti- 
 fied mufl be a living, operative faith — * faith 
 
 * working by love ;' becaufe * faith v^irhout 
 ' works is dead' and ufelefs. In ihort, we are 
 juftified by faith only 3 but it mufi be a faith 
 accompanied and evidenced by good works. 
 Both thefe apoftles bring the cafe of x'\bra- 
 ham in illuftration of their principles; but 
 
 T thea 
 
( 146 ) 
 
 then it is to be obferved they refer to diffe- 
 rent periods and circumflances. Paul fays, 
 that Abraham, in the fir ft inftancc, was jufti- 
 fied by fliith, while yet * uncircnmcifed ;' this 
 was his juftification in the fight of God, and 
 was without any confideration of his v/orks. 
 James refers to a period fome years fubfe- 
 quent to this, when, in the offering up his 
 fon, he was juftified by works alfo; that is, 
 his faith was ihewn to be genuine by its 
 fruits *. Paul therefore refers to the accep- 
 tance of a finner ; James, to the approbation 
 of a faint-f*. 
 
 There is another error afirainft which wc 
 
 o 
 
 muft be guarded, namely, that of confound- 
 ing faith with works, or the maintaining 
 juftification by faith itfelf as a work, operat- 
 ing in a way of merit, (which totally ener- 
 vates and contradicfls the whole tenor of the 
 apoftle's argument ;) and faith as a medium 
 by which we are united to Chrift, and (xi 
 become interefted in his righteoufnefs. This 
 however is not your miftake : for, though 
 
 * Rom. ill. 28. James il. 24. 
 f The word ' juftification' is ufcd in this fcnfe. 
 Matt. xii. 3 7. I Cor. iv. 4. 
 
 you 
 
( '47 ) 
 
 you afcrlbe a fufficient efficacy to moral du- 
 ties, conridered as ' the equitable terms of 
 
 * falvation;' yet you difcover no inclination 
 to magnify the efficacy of faith. 
 
 But in what refpe6l are we juftified by 
 faith ? This perhaps may be better explained 
 by a familiar illuflration than by the ufe of 
 metaphyfical definitions and diftindions. I 
 have already obferved our Lord make^ the 
 brazen ferpent a type of himfelf, and of the 
 Gofpel method of falvation. Behold the 
 rnyfhic fymbol elevated in the view of all the 
 consfreo:ation! The difeafed Ifraelites direct 
 their eyes with hope and confidence toward 
 it, and believing, receive life thereby 5 but 
 would any from thence conclude that there 
 was a merit in the a6t of looking, or afcribe 
 the glory of their falvation to themfelves on 
 that account? Equally unreafonable would 
 it be to confider faith as a meritorious ad, or 
 caufe of our falvation. — A judicious writer 
 gives the following apt and familiar iiluftra- 
 tion of this fubjed:. 
 
 * It appears (fays he) that free grace is 
 
 * the fource of our juftification^ the righte- 
 
 * oufnefs and atonement of Emmanuel the 
 ^ meritorious caufe of it; and that faith is 
 
 T 2 - 'only 
 
( 14? ) 
 
 ' only the recipient of the bleflnig : and we 
 ' are ju{}:iRzd fy ^is If/ood, becaufe by flied- 
 
 * ding his blood he completed his obedience 
 
 * as our furety. Juftification may therefore 
 
 * be afcribed either to the fource, or to the 
 
 * meritorious caufe, or to the recipient of it ; 
 
 * even as a drowning perfon may be faid to 
 
 * be faved, either by the man on the bank 
 
 * of the river, or by the rope cail out to him, 
 
 * or by his hand apprehending the rope : ac- 
 
 * cording to the different ways in which we 
 ' fpeak on the fubjedt *.' 
 
 That the holy exercifes of God's fervants 
 have always been acceptable in his fight, 15 
 readily admitted. But in what way? They 
 can do nothing towards furnifliing a righte- 
 oiifnefs, that fliall be adequate to the require- 
 ments of the law. Were they ever fo^pure, 
 they could not obliterate pafl tranfgreffions -, 
 and being mixed with finful imperfedtion, 
 they can never be pleafing in his fight, who 
 cannot look upon iniquity -without abhor- 
 rence; nor upon the finner with any fa- 
 vourable acceptance, but thro' the Media- 
 tor. Thus the fcriptures teach us, that fpi- 
 
 * Scott's Eifajs, No. xi, 
 
 ritual 
 
( H9 ) 
 
 ntual facrlfices are no otherwife * acceptable 
 
 * to God,' than ' by Jefas Chrift.f ' And 
 prior to this, it is neceflary that the offerers 
 themfelves flioiild be * accepted in the be- 
 .' loved*'. It was teftified of Enoch that he 
 pleafed God : from whence the apoftle to the 
 Hebrews infers that he was a behever, info- 
 much, as * without faith it is impofTible to 
 ' pleafeGod-j-.' * It does not confift (fays an 
 eminent author), * with the honour of the 
 
 * Majefty of the King of heaven and earth, 
 f to accept of any thing' from a condemned 
 
 * malefiidlor, condemned by the juflice of 
 
 * his own holy law, till that condemnation 
 f be removed :{:.' — * The Lord had refpedl 
 ' unto Abel . . . , and to his offering:.' The 
 fcriptures furnifh no examples of acceptable 
 obedience from perfons in a fiate of un- 
 belief. 
 
 The way in which the fcriptures reprefent 
 
 us as juflified or accepted of God, is con- 
 
 ftantly oppofed to our own works or virtues. 
 
 It is by fomething reckoned, coiintedy or im-- 
 
 puted to us for righteoujnefs , as oppofed to a 
 
 righteoufnefs which is properly our own. If 
 
 / 
 * 1 Pet. li. 5. Eph. i. G. t Heb. xi. G. 
 
 X Pref, Edwardb's Sermon on Juiufoation, p. 33. 
 
 our 
 
( «5° ) 
 
 our own virtue were the ground of our ac- 
 ceptance, that mufl be our righteoufnefs : 
 but if fo, there could be no room for rec^ 
 koning or accounting for righteoufnefs. We 
 fliould not fay of the children of Abraham, 
 their chxumcilion is counted for circumci- 
 fion : but if the Gentiles keep the law, 
 
 * their uncircumcifion is counted for circum- 
 
 * cifion.' It is manifefl that the term count, 
 in this connexion, denotes a reckoning of 
 fomething to a perfon, which* does not pro- 
 perly belong to him. And when the apoftle 
 fays, * To him that worketh not, but be- 
 
 * lieveth on him that juftifieth the ungodly, 
 
 * his faith is counted for righteoufnels *j it 
 is equally evident, that fomething is reckon- 
 ed as belondns: to the believer which does 
 not properly belong to him. In other words, 
 out of regard to his obedience in whom he 
 believes, he is dealt with as though he were 
 pofTclfed of a righteoufnefs adequate to the 
 requirements of the law -, though, in fad:, 
 he is not fo, but ftands condemned by it as 
 imgodly. Thus Paul writing to Philemon, 
 fays, *Ifhe (Onefmius) hath wronged thee, 
 
 * or oweth thee ought, put that on mine 
 
 * Rom. iv. 5. 
 
 « account. 
 
( tjl ) 
 
 * account *, (i. e. impute or reckon it to 
 me ^-)— ' I will repay it/ Here the writet 
 evidently means to place himfelf in the 
 debtor, or offender's place, not as having 
 incurred the debt ; but as being willing to 
 become anfwerable for it. 
 
 In the Moiaic law we have had occafioii 
 to obferve the dodlrine of imputation as it 
 refpedled the Jewifh facrifices. When the 
 perfon who brought the facrifice had confeff-* 
 ed his fins over the bullock, or the goat, 
 they became imputed to it, and the animal 
 fuffered the penalty w^hich tlje finner had 
 deferved. There is a very ftrong illuftration 
 of this in the institution of the free-will 
 peace offerings, in which it was ordained, 
 that if any of the llefli v*^as eaten on the 
 third day, contrary to the law, the facrif ce 
 fl:iould not be accepted, neither imputed unto 
 him that offered it ; but the offerer fliould 
 bear his iniquity, as if he had not offered J. 
 From this we clearly afcertain, as indeed [ 
 have already proved, that the facrifice was 
 to bear the iniquity of the offerer, and to be 
 imputed to his account ^ but when the facri- 
 
 * PliUemon, is, 19. T^o ii^oi in.oyu. 
 X Lev. vii. iS. 
 
 iice 
 
( J 52 ) 
 ficc was not offered according to the law/ 
 then the finner bare his own iniquity — the 
 atonement was not iniputed or- reckoned to 
 him. 
 
 Nor is God's fo deahng with Ghrift,' dr i>s 
 in him, a capricious, though it be an-extra- 
 ordinary, proceedingc Im.putatlon is accom- 
 panied with rel-ation ; fuch a relation as con- 
 ftitutes a fitnefs in the transfer, and renders 
 its delign fufficiently apparent. In the fuf- 
 ferings of the Saviour we may read the divine 
 difpleafure againft the tranfgreffion of the 
 finner ', and in the juftification of the finner 
 the divine approbation of the obedience of 
 the Saviour. Without relation, and a rela- 
 tion fufficiently manifeft, imputation would 
 not anfwer the end deiigned ; but * God 
 * fending his own Son in the likenefs of iin- 
 ' ful fleOi,' owv/m is publicly condemiied in 
 his fufferings ; and his righteoufnefs re- 
 Warded in our falvation *. 
 
 Whatever is the ground of our acceptance 
 with God, that is it which we ought to 
 plead in our addreffes to him. If Chrift's 
 obedience and fufferings have nothing to do 
 
 * Rom. viii. 3. Uli. lili. lO 12. See alfo Heb. 
 
 ii. 15 — 1". 
 
 in 
 
( 153 ) 
 
 in that important aifair, it cannot be expe(5l- 
 ed that we fhould be told to approach the 
 Father in his name, or to afk any blelTing 
 out of refpe(5t to his mediation. The only 
 name which we can ufe with propriety in 
 this cafe is our own. You feem to be fully 
 prepared. Sir, for this confequence; and 
 make no fcruple to affirm, that ' we are 
 
 * never exhorted to afk any thing of God for 
 
 * the fake of Chrill ; nor is any bleffing ever 
 
 * faid to be granted to us upon that confi- 
 ' deration *.' 
 
 One might almoft be tempted to think. 
 Sir, that you wrote with a view to ftun and 
 confound your readers ; or that you had for- 
 gotten that you live in a country where 
 every perfon has accefs to the fcriptures. 
 
 * Never exhorted toaik any thing for the fake 
 
 * of Chrift ; nor is any bleffing ever laid to be 
 
 * granted to us upon that conlideration !' 
 Plain Chriftian ! who converfefl daily with 
 the fcriptures, (not to model them to a fyf- 
 temj but to learn the will of God, and do 
 it ;) How readeft thou ? How haft thou read 
 the Epiftle to the Ephefians, with the Gofpel 
 
 * Review, p. 112. 
 
 U and 
 
( 154 ) 
 
 and Epiftles of John ? * Be ye kind one to 
 
 * another, tender hearted, forgiving one a- 
 
 * nother, as God, for Christ's sake, 
 ' hath forgiven you *. — Your fins are for- 
 ' given you for his name's sake. — BlefTed 
 « be the God and Father of our Lord Jefus 
 
 * Chrift, who hath blefied us v^^ith all fpiri- 
 
 * tual bleflings in heavenly places in ChriJ}. 
 ' — In his name fhall the Gentiles truft. — 
 
 * Believing we have life through his name. — 
 
 * Whofoever believeth in him fliall receive 
 
 * remiffion of fiiis.^ — Neither is there fal- 
 
 * vation in any other name under heaven, 
 ' given among men, &c "f*.' 
 
 The expreffioii of granting blcfTmgs 
 
 * Eph. i. 3. ]^^r. Bclfham, after Dr. Prleftley, ob- 
 ferves, that this text fliould be rendered * even as God 
 
 * in (or by) Chriil (ev Xf»r«) has freel}'- forgiven you.' 
 Thus, indeed, the text literally runs; but that God in 
 Chrlil means no more than * in the gofpel of Chril^,' 
 as Dr. P. fays — or, that God * has declared by Chrilt 
 the forgivenefs' of Uns,* requires more evidence than 
 bare aiiertions. The expreffion of Paul appears to 
 nie clearly parrdlel to that of John ; and the pardon 
 of fin (fv) in Chrlft, is evidently the fame as [Six) by, 
 or through his name ; or as our tranilators in one 
 place exprefs it, ' for his name's fake.' 
 
 t I John ii, i2. Eph. i. 3. Matt. xii. 21. John 
 KX. 31. Ads X. A-Z. iv. 12. 
 
 in 
 
( '55 ) 
 
 in Chri/l's name is too clear and fami- 
 liar, (one would think) to admit diipute or 
 doubt*. When Jehovah, under the Old 
 
 * Dr. Priejiky, indeed, tells us (Familiar Illuftra- 
 tions, p. 55.) that, * in the name of Cht'ifi ^ meaiis ^j, 
 or ' in the place of Chrift.— Thus our Lord fays, 
 
 * many {hall come in my name, that Is, pretending 
 
 * to be what I am, the Meffiah ; and again, the 
 
 * Comforter, whom the Father ihall fend in ray 
 
 * name, that is, in my />A7r^.— Praying, therefore^ 
 
 * in the name of Chrill, may mean— with the temper 
 
 * and dlfpofition of Chriil.— So alfo, being juftified 
 
 * in the name of Chrlft, may figuify our being juftified 
 
 * —-in confequencc of our having the fame mind that 
 
 * was alfo in Chrilh' So it may among rational di- 
 vines, who can make any thing fignify any thing, or 
 nothing, as they pleafe j but let us compare a few of 
 the texts with this interpretation, and with each 
 other. If in Chrlft's name,' be in the texts I have 
 cited, in Chrift's ftead, then the meaning is — Afk 
 the Father ' in my place, pretending to be what I 
 
 * am, the Mefliah.' Or if it mean, ' with the tcm- 
 
 * per and difpofition of Chrift,* then it is— Afk the 
 Father ' in my temper and difpofition — Hitherto ye 
 
 * have afked nothing in my temper and difpofition ! Your 
 
 * fins are forgiven you for Chrift's temper and difpo- 
 
 * fition.' — So, by parity of interpretation, when 
 under the Old Teftament difpenfatlon, Jehovah 
 promifes to forgive or blefs ' for his name's fake,' 
 ' it means, • in, or with, his own temper and dif- 
 
 * polition.'— So much for * Familiar Illuftrations !' 
 
 U 2 Teflament 
 
( 156 ) 
 
 Teftament promifed various bleflings for his 
 own name's fake, did not this mean, on bis 
 own account, without any reference to their 
 merits ? and was not this the fame as for his 
 own glory, for the honour of his divine 
 perfections *? When under the new difpen- 
 fation he promifes bleflings in his Sons 
 name, does it not certainly mean, on his 
 Sons account, for his fake ? What then can 
 be clearer than this promife, ' Whatfoever 
 
 * ye fhall afk the Father in my name, he 
 ' will give you -f-?' — Once more, when our 
 bleffed Lord requires children and difci- 
 pies to be received in bis name — houfes and 
 friends, &c. to be forfaken, and fufFerings 
 to be endured for his name's fake, is not the 
 fame idea to be prefer ved ;{; ? 
 
 If it be alleged, that though blefTings 
 were allowed to be beftowed for Chrift's 
 fake, the fame is true alfo of fome other 
 eminent characfters. Many bleffings were 
 beftowed on Ifrael, for the fake of Abraham 
 and the fathers; and even on other nations 
 who defcended from eminently pious ancel- 
 
 * See Ifa. xlviji. g — ii, Ezelw xxxvi, £1—2,1, 
 
 t John xvi. 23—26, See alfo chap. xiv. iC, it. xv. KJ. 
 I Mark ix. 37' Malt. xlx. 29. Luke xxi. 12. 
 
 tors : 
 
( ^n ) 
 
 tors. To this I reply, if no facriiice, or fer- 
 vice, be acceptable to God but thro' Jefus 
 Chrift, Abraham himfelf miift have been 
 accepted, and his faith rewarded on account 
 of him in whom he believed. There is, 
 moreover, an important diftin^lion to be 
 made; for though the Jews received, as we 
 have admitted, many benefits on Abraham's 
 account, yet they are never faid to be juf- 
 tified in his name ; much lefs to have re^ 
 demptlon through any thing which he did cr 
 fuffered on their account. 
 
 Inftead of this fa(5t, however, making a- 
 gainft the do(flrine in queftion, it makes 
 for it. For it is clear from hence, that it is 
 not accounted an improper, or unfuitable 
 thing in the divine adminiftration, to confer 
 favours on individuals, and even nations, out 
 of rejpe^i to the piety of another to whom they 
 Jlood related. But if this principle be ad- 
 mitted, the falvation of iinners, out of ref- 
 pe(ft to the obedience and fufferings of Chrilt, 
 cannot be objeded to as unreafonable. To 
 this may be added, that every degree of divine 
 refped: to the obedience of the patriarchs, 
 was in fac?!: no other than refpecf to the obe- 
 dience of Chrifl, in whom they believed, 
 
 and 
 
( 158 ) 
 
 and through whom their obedience, like 
 ours, became acceptable. The light of the 
 moon, which is derived from its looking (as 
 it were) on the face of the fun, is no other 
 than the light of the fun itfcif reflected. But 
 if it be becoming the wifdom of God to re- 
 ward the righteoufnefs of his fervants, and 
 that many ages after their deceafe, fo highly 
 (which was only borrowed luftre) much 
 more may he reward the righteoufnefs of 
 his Son from whence it originated, in the 
 eternal falvation of thofe that believe in 
 him. 
 
 From thefe texts I would now adduce a 
 few pertinent obfervations. 
 
 I . That the dodlrine of tjnpiited fin and 
 righteoufnefs implies no fallacy or miftake 
 on the part of God. He fees all things as 
 they are, and cannot be deceived. He does 
 not confider us as having per'/oiially eaten the 
 forbidden fruit ; nor as having perfonally of- 
 fered an atonement. 
 
 2. That God does not impute fin or righte- 
 oufnefs without a foundation for it in the 
 nature of things. If Adam's fin be impu- 
 ted to us, it is on account of our relation to 
 him, as his children and poflcrity; branches 
 
 from 
 
( IS9 ) 
 
 from the fame flock, fuckers from the fame 
 root. Indeed this do6}rhie is fo clofely 
 connecfted with that of human depravity, 
 that it appears to me they muft ftand or fall 
 together. Without admitting Adam to have 
 been a federal head to his poflerity, I cannot 
 account for the latter: and admittin?- this, it 
 feems neceffu-ily to follow from that relati- 
 on, that we muft be involved in his guilt and 
 punifhment. — It is in like manner ws ac- 
 count for the imputation of Chrifl's atone- 
 ment. According to our hypothecs, Chriil: 
 becam.e our federal head and voluntary fub- 
 flitute. In that chara(51er he fuffered as 
 our facrificeand fabftitute: ' the Lord cauf- 
 ' ed to meet upon him the iniquities of us 
 * all.' — In confequence he made atonement 
 for the tranfgrefibrs, and brought in an ever- 
 lafting righteoufnefs, whereby ' the many* 
 (for whom he fuffered) fhall be juHified. 
 
 3. From all thefe inftances in which the 
 fin and righteoufnefs is imputed, the expref- 
 fion evidently means that the party is con- 
 lidcred as guilty or innocent on their ac- 
 count, and confequently condem.ned or juf- 
 tified. 
 
 4. The 
 
( i6o ) 
 
 4. The mofl accurate idea of the dodtrine 
 of imputed righteoufnefs is perhaps to be 
 drawn from the Jewifli facriiices, wherein, 
 as above fhevvn, the guilt of the offerer was 
 imputed to the facrifices, and the atone- 
 ment made imputed to the offerer : and 
 from this it appears to me, that the Old 
 Teftament believers formed their ideas of 
 imputation: and from thence fuch of the 
 New Teftament believers as were Jews, na- 
 turally derived theirs. 
 
 As to the technical terms fometimes em- 
 ployed by divines on this fubje6t, I am not 
 concerned to juffify what I have not ufedj 
 and I have endeavoured to conform as clofe- 
 ly as pofTible to the language, as well as doc- 
 trine of fcripture ; but I muft confefs, the 
 complaint fometimes urged againfl Calvinifts 
 for their theological terms comes with a 
 very ill grace from Socinian writers, who, on 
 this, and feveral other fubjedis, ufe language 
 , entirely of their own — or rather borrow that 
 of pagan philofophers and moralifts. 
 
 Should you. Sir, after all the evidence 
 .adduced, tell me that the language of fcrip- 
 ture is fo highly figurative as to warrant 
 none of my do(flrinal conclufions, I fhould 
 
 feel 
 
( i65 ) 
 
 feel myfelf reduced to the fame fituatlon as 
 if I were difputing with an enthufiafl or a 
 myftic, who, by the arbitary afBxion of new 
 ideas to the words of the infpired writers, 
 gets as completely rid of their force ai. you 
 do by taking all the eflablifhed ideas from 
 them. You might as well tell me the whole 
 of religion is a fable, and that we are lofl or 
 faved only metaphorically. 
 
 Your's, &c. 
 
( i62 ) 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 Of the Do5lrine of Divine Infuences, and 
 Experimental Keligion, 
 
 "R. WILBERFORCE * had flated that 
 ' the doctrine of the fandlifying opera- 
 
 * tions of the Holy Sph'it appears to have 
 
 * met with ftill worfe treatment than that 
 
 * of love to Chrift.* 
 
 Upon this you think proper to obferve, 
 that Mr. W. himfelf * appears to be under 
 
 * a confiderable error upon this fubje6l, for 
 ' want of fufficient attention to the true 
 
 * fenfe of the fcripture language/ — You pro- 
 ceed : * It is evident to every perfon com- 
 ' petently acquainted with facred phrafeolo- 
 
 * -^'y that the Spirit of Gad feme times iig- 
 ' niiies God himfelf; and fometimes divine 
 ' infpiration'\ .' So far may be granted. 
 
 You add, * The Holy Spirit ufually means 
 
 * the miraculous powers communicated to 
 
 * View, p. 71. t Review, p. "6. 
 
 ^ the 
 
" ( i63 ) 
 
 * the apoflles, by which the chriftiaii reU- 
 < gion was confirmed at its firfl promulgati- 
 
 * on ; and Jews and heathens having been 
 
 * converted by this impreffive evidence, they 
 
 * are faid to be regenerated, renewed, or 
 ' fandtified by the Holy Spirit 3 that is, re- 
 
 * covered from a flate of heathenifm or Pha- 
 
 * rifaifm, which is, in fcripture language, 
 
 * a ilate of alienation from God, and en- 
 
 * mity to him, into a ftate of infible profef- 
 
 * lion and of privilege. Pvlr. W. and many 
 ' others, underftand that in a moral itwi^, 
 
 * which the writers intend in a ceremonial -^ 
 
 * and apply expreffions indifcriminately to 
 
 * all perfons, which the connexion and 
 
 * fcope of the pafTage limits to the hrft con- 
 
 * verts from Judaifm and heathenifm-f-/ 
 
 That either you or Mr. W. miift have 
 greatly miflakcn the meaning 0I the facred 
 phrafeology is indeed certain ; in examining 
 where the miftake lies, I beg leave to fng- 
 ^^a the folio v/ing obfervations. 
 
 The whole evidence of your aflertlons 
 refis upon your own authority; for, notwith- 
 ftanding you here oppofe M. W. on fcrip- 
 
 * Review, p. 7", comp. p. 16, 17. 
 
 tural 
 
( i64 ) 
 
 tiiral ground, you have brought no texts to 
 fiipport your alFertions : and I am perfuaded 
 you are too much a friend to free enquiry 
 to wifh your word to be taken, although 
 at the fame time it may be unpleafaut to 
 feek for proofs where none are to be found. 
 
 So far as I have been able to underftand 
 the fcriptures, after confiderable attention to 
 this fubjed.', proofs numerous and irrefragi- 
 ble lie directly againfi: you. Having cited 
 them at length elfewhere * ; I fhall here only 
 glance at them. 
 
 In general, it appears to me, that good men 
 in all ages, from the patriarchal to the pre- 
 fent, have believed in the doctrine of divine 
 influences, and afcribed their religious feel- 
 ings to this fource. Now, in a point of per- 
 fonal experience as this is, v*^here patriarchs 
 and prophets, fages and philofophers, apof- 
 ties, martyrs and reformers, all agree, their 
 teftimony appears to me decifive ; and mufl:,. 
 I fhould think, have confiderable weight 
 even with yourfelf. 
 
 Not, however, to reft in generals, our 
 Lord himfelf flrongly and repeatedly incul- 
 
 * Hiftoric Defence of Experimental Religion. 
 2 vols. 12ino, 1795. 
 
 cates 
 
( i6s ) 
 
 cates this truth, as one of the firfl: and moll 
 important in the chriflian fyftem ; and that 
 he chiefly refers not to the miraculous, but 
 moral influences of the Spirit, is evident in 
 his converfation with Nicodemus and the 
 woman of Samaria ; in his exhortation to liis 
 difciples to pray for the Holy Spirit, and in 
 his aflurance, thdt his heavenly Father would 
 grant this divine blefTrng to all who aflc it. 
 
 It were endlefs to qii,ote all the palTages 
 from the apoftolic writings which confirm 
 this important dod:rine : and to refer all thefe 
 to miraculous powers,would be not only con- 
 cluding without evidence, but againfl: it ; be- 
 caufe it appears, that miraculous pov^>ers were 
 no evidence of a fliate of grace or acceptance 
 with God, fince hypocrites and bad men, 
 as Judas, and other * v/orkers of iniquity** 
 pofl^efled them: and, on the other hand, I 
 fuppofe you v/ill hardly contend that the 
 gift of miracles' was elTential to prad:ical 
 chriftianity; yet this certainly is the cafe as 
 to the Holy Spirit ; for, ' if any man have not 
 * the Spirit of Chrift he is none of his-f-.' 
 
 * Matt. vil. 22, 23. 
 
 t Pvom. viii. .9. See alfo John iii. 5—3. vi. 4-i— 46. 
 Otli. 32, 39s 40. 
 
 Again, 
 
( 166 ) 
 
 Again, It is far from certain that the Jews 
 and heathens who were converted, were con- 
 verted generally by the *■ imprellu^e evidence 
 of miracles/ Certainly many faw them, 
 who were not converted, and many were 
 converted without (as far as we know) fuch 
 evidences. Yea, fome were reproved for in- 
 fifting on the evidence of miracles ;* and a 
 blefllng is pronounced on thofe * who have 
 
 * not feen, and have yet believed. -f*' In fac^t, 
 the minijdry of the gofpel was the great inflru- 
 ment of converlion in the iirft ages, as in 
 all fucceeding ones; and our own eyes have 
 witnefled the like eiFe61:s, although the gift 
 of miracles hath long fince ceafed. Indeed, 
 our Lord himfelf has taught us that little is 
 to be expelled from the force of miracles 
 where the fcriptures are not believed. * If 
 
 * they believe not Mofes and the Prophets, 
 
 * neither will they be perfuaded though one 
 
 * fhould arife from the dead.' 
 
 Scriptural converlion is not a m^ere re- 
 covery from heathcnifm, or pharifaifm to * a 
 
 * ftate of vifible profeffion, and of privilege/ 
 but, in many inflances, a converfion fiom a 
 
 * Matt. xii. 39, t John xx. 29. 
 
 mcTc 
 
( 16/ ) 
 
 mere vlfible profeflion, which is common to 
 hypocrites and bad men, to a ftate of vital 
 union and communion with God. Thus 
 our Lord taught his difciples, who were 
 neither heathens nor pharifees, the neceffi- 
 ty of their being converted and becoming 
 little children, in order to their admiffion in- 
 to his kingdom*; and this converlion is uni- 
 formly afcribed to the grace of God. 
 
 I am aware that it has been faid, this 
 phrafe, * the grace of God,' in fcripture 
 never intends divine injluences ; but only the 
 divine favor. That it often bears the latter 
 fenfe, is freely admitted; but that in many 
 inftances it alfo intends the former, is equal- 
 ly certain. See, for example, the following 
 palTages: ' By the grace of God I am 
 ' what I am: and his grace which was 
 
 * beflowed upon me was not in vain ; but I 
 
 * laboured more abundantly than they all : 
 ' yet not I, but the grace of God which 
 
 * was with me.' — * By the grace of God 
 
 * we have had our converfation in the world, 
 
 * and more abundantly to you- ward.' — • We 
 
 * do you to wit of the grace of God be- 
 
 * Matt, xvili. 3. 
 
 * flowed 
 
C "68 ) 
 
 • ftowed en the churches of Macedonia.*— 
 
 • We defired Tims, thr.t as he had begun, 
 
 • {o he would alfo fmifh in you the fame 
 
 • GRACE nlfo, &c.' — * My grace is fuf- 
 
 • iicient for thcc' — * Grow in grace, &c.*' 
 
 I do not comprehend what palTages you 
 particularly refer to, Avhen you charge Mr. 
 W. and others, with taking thofe fcripturea 
 in * a ?77oraI fenfe which the writers intend 
 ' in a ceremonial.* Are we to go back then. 
 to the carnal ordinances of the Jewifh ritu- 
 al ? Or is chrillianity to be refolved into a 
 
 fyflem of religious ccrernonles ?- As to 
 
 what you fiy, of our applying to all indif- 
 criminately what the contexts of the paifages 
 limit to a few, we plead generally, m( gui/ty; 
 but the inilances mufl be pointed out before 
 we can anfwer them particularly. 
 
 But you will perhaps ftill plead, that all 
 fuch divine influences are iinneceJJ'ary . * It has 
 
 • never yet been ^proved, you f\y, that any 
 
 • fupernatural influence upon the mind is 
 
 • }iece[iary under the divine government ; or 
 
 • that it has ever exidcd, except in a few 
 
 * I Cor. XV. 10. 2 Cor. 1. 19. vHi. i, G, 7.— ■>al. 9. 
 2 Pet. iii. 18 See alio EpU. iv. 2p. Ilfcb. iv. 16. 
 
 * very 
 
( i69 ) 
 
 * Very extraordinary cafes.' If the evidence 
 of fcriptiire might be admitted on the quef- 
 tion, this would not be a tafk of any difficul- 
 ty. Our Lord has taught the neceflity of 
 being born again — of being born of the Spi* 
 rit; ' for that which is born of the flefh 15 
 
 * flefh, and that which is born of the Spirit 
 ' is fpirit *.' Which words are evidently 
 fynonymous with thofe of the great apoftle 
 of the Gentiles — * They that are after the 
 
 * flefli do mind the things of the flefli, and 
 ' they that are after the Spirit the things of 
 
 * the Spirit. For to be carnally minded,' cr 
 to mind the things of the flefh ' is death ; 
 
 * but to be fpiritually minded;' or to mind 
 the things of the Spirit ' is life and peace.* 
 
 * For the carnal mind is enmity againft God; 
 
 * for it is not fubjed: to the law of God, 
 
 * neither indeed can be. So then, they that 
 
 * are in the flefh cannot please god. 
 
 * But ye are not in the flefh but in the Spi- 
 
 * rit, if fo be that the Spirit of God dwell 
 
 * in you. Now if any man have not the 
 
 * Spirit of Chrifl he is none of his. -1^' — Again, 
 
 * The natural man receiveth not the things 
 
 * John iii. Q. -j- Rom. viii. 5. — ;-). 
 
 Y " ' of 
 
( 1/0 ) 
 
 * of the Spirit of God, for they are foohlli- 
 
 * nefs unto him: neither can he know them, 
 
 * beeaufe they are fpiritually difcerned*.' 
 If this be true. Sir, I can expe6l the fcrip- 
 
 tiires, (clear and decifive as they appear to 
 me,) will have little authority with ' philo- 
 
 * fophic theifts,* among whom you evi- 
 dently rank yourfelf : for you fubjoin imme- 
 diately, * Every philofophic theift will all o\^ 
 
 * that all events are brought to pafs agree- 
 
 * ably to the divine foreknowledge, and ac- 
 
 * cording to the wife and benevolent coun- 
 
 * fels of God. Alfo, that' a divine energy 
 
 * is adlually exerted in every event, accord- 
 
 * ing to certain rules which God has pre- 
 
 * fcribed to himfelf, few will deny. True 
 ^ philofophy, and true religion, lead us to 
 
 * fee God in every thing. But that he ever, 
 
 * much more that he frequently deviates 
 
 * from his ufual courfe to produce eflfecls 
 
 * upon the human mind, \A'hich would not 
 ' have refulted from the natural opera- 
 
 * tion of general laws, is a fact improbable 
 
 * in itfelf, and of which we have no fatis- 
 
 * factory ev^idence, either from experience 
 ' o: revelation *.' From this paragraph, I 
 
 * I Cor. 11. It. - t ^cvie',v, p. 7S- 
 
 fear, 
 
C i/i ) 
 
 fear, Sir, we have been miftaken in confi- 
 dering your fyftem as a fort of half-way 
 houfc between chriftlanity and infidelity ; for 
 it leems to bear hard even on the confines of 
 tJie latter. Nay, fome ' few' of thefe philo- 
 fophers, it appears, are virtually atheifts, for 
 they deny the exertion of ' a divine energy* 
 in providence ; and for the reft, though 
 they admit this, according to the eftablillied 
 laws of nature, yet that God ever deviates 
 therefrom, appears to them, as it does to 
 you, * a fad; improbable in itfelf, and of 
 ^ which we have no fatisia(5lorv evidence/ 
 
 This, Sir, may be philofophical theifm^ 
 but I hope you will not call it chriflianity. 
 For if all fupernatural influence on the hu* 
 man mind be improbable, and without evi- 
 dence, we have no room for a divine re* 
 Velation ; and confequently, none for chrif- 
 tianity. 
 
 It is therefore a very awkward falvo 
 which you offer for the chriftian v/riters, and 
 a very irrange attempt to bend their evidence 
 againft themfelves in the paragraph which 
 follows. In popular language, you remark, 
 « The virtuous affections of virtuous men, 
 * are \vith great propriety afcribed to God ; 
 Y 2 and 
 
( 172 ) 
 
 * and the pious writers of the fcriptures hav 
 
 * often adopted this form of expreffion. 
 ^ Whether they themfelves beheved in the 
 ' exiftence of frequent fupernatural opera- 
 "' tions upon the mind does not clearly ap- 
 
 * pear ; and it is certain, that they no where 
 ' affirm that it conflituted any part of their 
 
 * commiffion, to teach this extraordinary 
 ^ and improbable docftrine */ So then, after 
 all, it is in vain that I have quoted thefe 
 authorities — the fcripture writers were only 
 popular writers at the heft -, it it uncertain 
 whether they believed what they taught — 
 it is certain, we have no evidence that they 
 were empowered to preach this dodrine, 
 therefore, to fpeak in the mildefl: terms, in 
 teaching it they muft haye exceeded their 
 commiffion ! ! ! 
 
 Bat the * Agency which they admitted,* 
 you fay, * extends to evil as well as to 
 ' good; " it hardens the heart of Pharoah," 
 
 * as well as '* opens that of Lydia ;" and 
 
 * therefore, it is a general, and not a parti- 
 
 * cular influence ; ccnfequently the popular 
 ^ language of the facred writings by no 
 
 * Review, p. 78, 79. 
 
 ^ means 
 
( ^7Z ) 
 
 * means aiithorlfes the conclufion, that God 
 
 * ever interpofes fupernatn rally to produce 
 
 * moral effedis upon the mind.*' How re- 
 iterated. Sir, are your attempts to reduce 
 chriftianity to a level with paganifm ! but 
 here you go below it; for, though they 
 afcribed the virtuous a6tions of good men 
 to the Deity, I believe they knew better 
 than to afcribe the vicious adlions of bad 
 men to the fame fource. This is to make 
 the fame fountain fend forth both fweet 
 water and bitter. It is true, that the Lord 
 hardened Pharoah's heart ; but it is never 
 faid that he did this by his Spirit, by his 
 grace, or by any poiitive agency. No, it 
 was merely m the courfe of providence — by 
 permitting his magicians to perform thofe 
 wonders which flrengthened his infidelity, 
 while others probably prefled him with 
 motives of a political confideration. In this 
 fenfe only does the Lord harden men's 
 hearts ; and that, not till they have, as in 
 the prefent inftance, repeatedly hardened 
 themfelves againil: him. He fealeth down 
 the eye that ihutteth itfelf againfl the light. 
 
 f Keview, p. 79, ' 
 
 But 
 
( 17+ ) 
 
 But it is otherwife with refped: to good, 
 God is light : and like his fairefl material 
 reprefentative, the fun, caufes darknels only 
 by his abfence i but they are his beami 
 wliich create the day. 
 
 But after idl, your grahd obje<aion againfl: 
 this doctrine is, that it is * unphilofophical.*' 
 On the modern fyftem of materialifm, there 
 may be force in this objedlion; for, if we 
 have no immaterial fpirits, certainly they 
 cannot be the fubje6:s of the Spirit's influ- 
 ence. Still, I Ihould fappofe, that human 
 nature, of whatever it confiil, may be ex- 
 pofed to foreign influence j and if fo, efpe- 
 
 cially tp that of the Creator. The hy- 
 
 pothefis of an immaterial and immortal 
 fpirit, I grant, harmonizes better with this, 
 as well as with the other doclrines of reve- 
 lation : and there can be no difliculty in 
 conceiving of the fupreme Spirit as having 
 accefs to all created intelligences. 
 
 This dodrine, " though a prominent and 
 elTential feature in chriilianity, is by no 
 means peculiar to it j but has been ufually 
 5:onfidered as equally effential to what is 
 
 * Review, 193, 
 
 called 
 
^ ^7S ) 
 called natural religion ; and fo far from being 
 thought unphilofophical, until within thefe 
 few years, it will be difficult to find a philo- 
 fopher of any eminence who totally rejedled 
 it." Even in the prefent century, Boyle, 
 Locke, Clarke, Addifon, &c. have been 
 among its illuftrious advocates. 
 
 Nor can 1 fee any thing in it unworthy 
 of philofophy, or inconfiftent with reafon. 
 Is it abfurd to fuppofe the Supreme Being 
 has an accefs to the human mind ? Or that 
 he influences the mind to piety and virtue ? 
 Is it irrational to believe this influence oper- 
 ates upon the underflanding, in giving a 
 clearer view of divine truth ? Or upon the 
 afFe(ftions, enkindling love to God and ho- 
 linefs, and exciting hatred and avcrfion to 
 immorality ? — But it has been ridiculed : fo 
 has every thing facred. * It is liable to great 
 * abufe, and has been produdtive of very 
 'pernicious confequences *.' So has the 
 dodtrine of infpiration itfelf, and almoft 
 every docflrine of religion, natural and re- 
 vealed. 
 
 Neither is there any ground for pretenJ- 
 
 * Revi-jw, p. 79, 
 
 in* 
 
( 176 ) 
 
 ing that this doc1:nne introduces confurioii 
 in the divine government, or perpetuates 
 the age of miracles -, becaufe the Spirit of 
 God operates as much according to his eila- 
 bhflied laws in the moral world as in the 
 natural ; though both may often be infcru- 
 table to us. ' The wind bloweth where it 
 
 * lifleth, and thou heareft the found thereof, 
 
 * but canfl not tell whence it cometh, nor 
 
 * whither it goeth : fo is every one that is 
 
 * born of the Spirit *.* 
 
 It i?, however, fimply upon the autho- 
 rity of fcripture that this dodtrine muft be 
 fupportcd i and whatever you might do 
 with the philofophers, you would find it 
 impoflible to deprive us of the fanclion of 
 patriarchs, prophets, and apoftles, and efpe- 
 cially that of Jcfus Chrifl: himfclf, to whofe 
 divine inftrudtion and compairion I cordially 
 commend you, remaining, 
 
 » 
 Yours, &:c. 
 
 * John 11! . 8, 
 
( ^11 ) 
 
 LETTER XIV, 
 
 EJdSfs and Confequences of the Cahimjlk 
 
 Sypm, 
 
 R£v. Sir, 
 
 TT AVING thus far attended to the evi- 
 dences of divine truth, we muft not 
 conclude thefe Letters without fome atten- 
 tion to its effects and confequences, efpe- 
 cially as you lay particular flrefs on this ar- 
 argument. ' It is from the abfurd and in- 
 *jurious confequences which refult from 
 
 * Mr. Wilberforce's principles that' you ' in- 
 
 * fer their falfehood and impiety ;' and you 
 very juftly obferve, that * the natural and. 
 
 * neceifary confequences of principles are the 
 
 * fimc, whether the advocates of fuch prin- 
 
 * ciples are apprifed of them or not, and 
 
 * whether they do or do not ciiufe to con- 
 
 * template and avow them*".' 
 
 Of all confequences, thofe of a pradlical 
 
 * Review, p. ii. 
 
 Z liature 
 
( '78 ) 
 
 nature are the moll important, and it is a 
 very ferious conlideration indeed, if the prac- 
 tical confequences or tendencies of Calvinifm 
 be as you reprefent them -, ' fo odious and 
 
 * difgufting*,' that it fhould feem, the only 
 thing which preferves Calvinifts from being 
 altogether monfters is, that they are inat- 
 tentive to their own principles, and blind to 
 their moft neceffary confequences. * The 
 ' truth is,' you fay ' that Mr. Wilberforce, 
 
 * and others, who agree with him, feldom 
 
 * regard their fyftem in a comprehenlive 
 
 * view, or purfue their principles to their 
 *jufl: and necefiary confequences. Satis- 
 
 * fled with being themfelves in the number 
 
 * of the ele(fl and regenerate, they fee no 
 
 * caufe to complain on their own account, 
 
 * and giving themfelves up to joy and grati- 
 
 * tude for their perfonal intereft in the pro- 
 
 * mifes of the gofpel, theyjee/ little concern 
 
 * for the non-ekB ?nafs of mankhid, doomed 
 
 * by the neceffity of their circumftances, to 
 'eternal mifery ; and feldom allow them- 
 
 * felves to enquire how far fuch a ftate of 
 ' things is reconcilable to wifdom, benevo- 
 ' lence, or jufticc -f, 
 
 * Review, p. 10. f Ibid. p. ir. 
 
 Not 
 
( 179 ) 
 
 Not to notice the mirreprefentation here 
 given of the Calviniftic fyftem, the iirft re- 
 mark I would offer on this paffage will re- 
 fped: the compliment you have paid to the 
 intelligence and penetration of the Calvinifts 
 — who are, it feems, men of fuch narrow 
 minds and contracted views, that * they lel- 
 
 * dom regard their fyflem in a comprehend 
 
 * iive view — feldom allow themlelves to en- 
 ' quire how far fuch a ftate of things is re- 
 ' concilable to wifdom, benevolence, or 
 
 * juftice/ — If this remark be intended to ap- 
 ply only to the mafs of profeffing Calvinifts j 
 it may, we preiume, be equally applied to 
 the majority of Unitarians ; for there are in 
 every fe61 few, comparatively, capable of 
 taking a com.prehenfive view of their own 
 principles. But if it be intended to apply 
 to Calvinifts univerfally, and excluiively, it 
 may be confidered as a fpecimen of Unita- 
 rian candour and liberality, of which many 
 fimilar inflances are not wanting in the work 
 before us. 
 
 A fecond natural and neceflary effedl qf 
 
 Calviniftic principles is, it iliould appear, 
 
 that they fo abforb men in their own in- 
 
 tereft, as to render them infenfible to the 
 
 Z 2 ftate 
 
( i8o ) 
 
 ftate of others. * Satisfied with being them-? 
 f felves in the number of the eled: and re- 
 ' generate .... they feel httle concern for 
 ^ the non^ elecfl mafs of mankind.' Affertions 
 are eaiy, and when deUvered with confi- 
 dence, we haye often leen them obtain credit, 
 even though totally unfupported with evi- 
 dence. But in the prefent inflance, fa<2:5 
 run fo diredlly and notorioufly contrary to 
 this ftatement, that I cannot but wonder 
 even that you. Sir, have ventured to rifk 
 it ; efpecially if you have, as from fome 
 (circumftances I fliould fuppofe, looked into 
 Mr. Fuller's Letters on the comparative 
 tendency of * The Calviniflic and Sociniari 
 ^ Syftems*.* It is true, Calvinifts do not 
 feek the falvation of the non- ehd: as fuch ; 
 but as non-elecftion is utterly unknown tQ 
 them, it has no influence in retarding the 
 progrefs of their labours. It is tqwards men 
 as finners that their efforts are dire(5ted. No]: 
 to enter at large upon this topic, fufifice it 
 to fay, Pref. Edwards was a CalviniH:, and 
 great and Vv^earied were his exertions for the 
 fouls of men — David Brainard was a Cal- 
 
 * Letter III, 
 
 yinifl. 
 
{ i8i ) 
 
 vinlft, and he devoted lils life for the falva* 
 tion of a ^tv/ barbarous heathens — JVbkefield 
 was a Calvinifl:, and he flew backward and 
 forward from kingdom to kingdom, and 
 from clime to clime, like * an angel through 
 ■' the midft of heaven,' to preach the ever- 
 lafting golpel. Thouiands more might be 
 enumerated to prove, if necellary, that Cal- 
 yinilm does not render, ^even the moft zeal- 
 ous of its profeflbrs, indifferent to the falva- 
 tion of the mafs of mankind. Let Mr. B. 
 produce only om folitary injiance of like zeal 
 and companion among the whole body of 
 intelligent and benevolent Unitarians ; and 
 then it may be time enough to reproach the 
 Galvinifts with their want of zeal and ten- 
 dernefs to the fouls of men. 
 
 Left I fliould be accufed of mifreprefenta- 
 tionit mufl: beconfeffed, that all this felfilli- 
 nefs and indifference to others is fuppofed 
 to arife from an excefs of virtue, namely, of 
 gratitude on our own account. Like a con- 
 demned criminal who h^s received a pardon 
 from his fovereign, the Calvinift fo gives up 
 himfeif ' to joy and gratitude' on his own 
 account as ' fel4om to allow himfeif to ar- 
 raign 
 
( l82 ) 
 
 raign the conclucfl of his judge, either as it 
 refpeCts himfelf or his fellow-priioners. But 
 then, lell: vve (hould be vain of this virtue, 
 you take care in your fubfequent pages, to 
 rcprefent even this gratitude as no better 
 than fulfome adulation to the Son of God, 
 and grofs idolatary. 
 
 3. You reprefent us farther as enemies to 
 reifon, rational interpretation, and found 
 criticifm. * Popular writers telHfy their re- 
 
 * gard for the fcriptures by allerting or affu- 
 
 * ming their plenary infpiration — by calling 
 
 * them indifcriminately the v/ord of God 3 by 
 ' quoting text upon text, Vvithout regard to 
 
 * connexion, without proper explanation, 
 
 * without any allowance for figurative lan- 
 
 * guage, or Jewilli phrafeology ; and with- 
 
 * out any attempt to afcejtain the genuine- 
 ' nefs of difputed pallages; citing detached 
 ' fentencesas infpired apophthegms; relying 
 « with full confidence on the received text, 
 
 * as though the authority of its editors were 
 ' equal to that of the apoftles, and apparent- 
 
 * Iv ig^norant of all that has been accom- 
 
 * plhlied by the indefatigable induflry, and 
 
 * penetrating fagacity of modern critics, tq 
 
 ^ correcl: 
 
( 'Sj ) 
 
 * corre<^ the text and to bring it nearer to the 
 
 * original flandard ; equally confiding in the 
 « authority of the Englilh tranflation -, and an- 
 
 * nexing, without hefitation or enquiry, thole 
 
 * fenfes to difputed phrafes which have been 
 
 * learned from obfolete articles and creeds*.* 
 
 It would be tedious and unintereflinc: to 
 analyfe this loofe declamatory charge, but 
 there is one thing Iniinuated that efpecialiy 
 merits animadverlion ; namely, that rational 
 criticlilii is inimical to the orthodox fyflcm, 
 which is here fuppofed to reft upon corrupt 
 editions and verfions of the fcripture; or 
 why complain of our placing implicit con- 
 fidence on editors and tranflators ? But if 
 this were true, it mull he fuppofed that thofe 
 who have paid the mod particular attention 
 to thefe fiudies, would neceiTarily prove 
 Unitarians or Socinlans ; whereas, how con- 
 trary this is to the evidence of fads is fuffi- 
 ciently evident from the inftances of Ken- 
 nicott and Louth, of Doddricige and of 
 Gill, and many other critics indefatigable in 
 their enquiries; bat iailead of quoting thefe, 
 
 * Review, p. 27. 
 
 I fllAll 
 
( i84 ) 
 
 1 fliall offer a fingle extracft from a foreigil 
 ProfefTor, whofe name ranks in the higheft 
 clals of fcripture critics ; I mean the great 
 Michaelis, who, fpeaking of the labours of 
 modern critics, fays, * It is true, that the 
 
 * number of proof pallagcs in fupport of cer- 
 
 * tain doctrines, has been diminifhed by our 
 
 * knowledge of the various readings. We 
 
 * are certain, for inflance, that i John v. 7. 
 
 * is a fpurious,paffage3 but the doctrine con- 
 
 * tained in it is not therefore changed, lince 
 
 * it is deUvered in other parts of the New 
 
 * Teftament. After the moft dihgent enqui- 
 
 * ry, efpecially by thofe who would banifli 
 
 * the divinity of Chrift from the articles of 
 
 * our religion, not a fingle va7'ious reading 
 ' has been difcovered in the two principal 
 
 * paffages, John i. i. and Rom. ix. 5. ; and 
 
 * this very dodrrine, inftead of being fliaken 
 
 * by the colle6fions of Mill and Wetflein, 
 
 * has been rendered more certain than ever. 
 
 * This is (o ftrongly felt by the modern re- 
 
 * formers in Germany, that they begin to 
 
 * think lefs favourably of that fpecies of cri- 
 « ticifm which they at firft fo highly re- 
 
 * commended, in hopes of its leading to dif- 
 
 coveries 
 
( iS5 ) 
 
 ' coveries more fuitable to their maxims, 
 
 * than the ancient fyftem *.' 
 
 As to the general declamation, it will 
 Weigh light with candid critical enquirers; 
 if the texts above produced arc quoted only 
 in a detached, popular, or erroneous {eni'c, 
 have the goodncfs not only to fay, but to 
 Jjrove itj at leafl, produce fome plaufible 
 arguments in favour of your novel interpre- 
 tations ; for, notwithftanding what you boafl 
 of the wifdom and judgment of Unitarians, 
 as * rational critics, — men of learning and 
 
 * enquiry, — eniightned and confiftent chrifti- 
 
 * ans,* — I have riot found in your Letters one 
 critical examination of Icripturej but the 
 whole of your work is a clofe imitation of 
 
 * Marfh's Michaelis, vol. i. p, 226. In a note on 
 this paffage, Mr; Marfh obferves, that the author's af- 
 fertions are not peffcillj correct : ' fcr John i< l. In- 
 » ftead of0£©^ the Cod. Stcph. n. and Gregory of Njffa 
 
 * have O @e(^ ; on the other hand, Rom. ix. 5. fome 
 
 * of the fathers have quoted without ©j©^.' Thefc va- 
 riations, however, are too flight to Ihdke the authority 
 of thefe texts ; nor do I conceive thefe to be the * two 
 principal texts' upon which this dodtrine refts: there 
 are many others, at Icafl equally declfive iu in its 
 favour. \ 
 
 A a that 
 
( '86 ) 
 
 that popular ftyle which you fo pointedly 
 condemn. 
 
 4. The moft curious, if riot the moft cri- 
 minal part of your charge againft us is, that 
 of difhonouring xh&fcriptures with our be- 
 lief and confidence, while the wife men of 
 your hypothe£s ihew their veneration for 
 them by their fufpicions and doubts — que- 
 rying, altering, or rejedling texts, chapters, 
 and whole books of fcripture, as may fuit 
 their purpofe. 
 
 It would be impertinent to defcend here 
 to particulars, but there is one paflage which 
 I cannot help citing as fufficiently decilive 
 of your attachment to the fcriptures. * The 
 
 * fcriptures* you tell us * contain a £uthful 
 
 * and credible account of the chriftian doBrijie^ 
 ' which is the true word of Godi but they 
 
 * are not themfehes the word of God, nor do 
 
 * they ever affume that title: and it is highly 
 
 * improper to fpeak of them as fuch ; as it 
 
 * leads inattentive readers to fuppofe they 
 ' were written under a plenary injpiration, to 
 
 * which they make no preteniion ; and as 
 
 * fuch expreffions expofe chriftianity unne- 
 
 * ceflariiy to the cavils of unbelievers.*' 
 
 * Review, p. ly. 
 
 Here 
 
( i87 ) 
 
 Here is, firft, a difiindion which I con- 
 fefs I do not perfcdlly imderrtand : To fay, 
 the fcriptures are not the word of God, but 
 pnlj contain an account of it, feems to me 
 like faying, an a6f of ParUament is not the 
 law of the land, but only contains an account 
 of the law of the land: for fuch parts, at 
 leaft, of the fcriptiire as contain the chril- 
 tian doctrine are certainly th.e word of God. 
 But the fcriptures, we are told, never * aflume 
 ^ that title,' No! Ictus exarnine for our- 
 felves, for I much fear the Gentlemen that 
 fay this are not, with all their criticihii, well 
 acquainted with their Eible. I will cite 
 a few paflages from both Tellaments, and 
 Jet the candid reader compare the contexts. 
 When David, addreffing Jehovah, lays, 
 
 • Thy word \^ a lamp unto my feet, and a 
 
 * light unto my path -f- / did he not refer 
 to the facred writinos of Mofes, which he 
 had in the preceeding vcrfes called, the law^ 
 the precepts, the commandments, the tefiii- 
 monies o^ Jehovah ? — * How fweet are thy 
 \ words unto my tafle ! — Through thy pre- 
 f cepts I get undcrflanding-p.' 
 
 * Pr. cxix. 103. 
 
 \ Ibid, vcr. 07 to i05. Sec the whole Pfalm 
 
 In 
 
( i88 ) 
 
 In the New Teilainent, the fcrlptures are 
 called * the Hvely oracles,* and * the oracles 
 
 * of God*/ exprelTions at leaft equally 
 ftrong, and there are leveral palTages where 
 the verv term * Word of God' is not oniv 
 moft ufjally, but moft naturally underitood 
 as referring to them; though perhaps the 
 expreiTion may ftridly intend, or at lead in- 
 clude the idea of divine Revelation, whether 
 by the v/ord preached or written. 
 
 What you fay of the plenary infpiration 
 of the fcriptures, might afford fcope to a 
 more extenfive enquiry than I can here in- 
 flitute; but there is one queftion which I 
 beg leave to urge upon you with fome le- 
 rioufnefs — Are the Icriptures, particularly 
 thofe of the New Teftament, to be conlider- 
 ed as a certain and infallible guide to divine 
 truth, or are they not r If they are — be fo 
 kind as to inform us what books and chap- 
 ters are to be received as fuch, and in what 
 edition or tranflation. For I have obferved, 
 that there is no one book or chapter but 
 fome or other Unitarian writer has rejecfked -, 
 one admitting only the gofpel of T^Iatthew, 
 
 * Acrsvi:. 28. PwCm. ii:. 5 Heb.v.iC. iPct.lv.ii. 
 
 and 
 
( i89 ) 
 
 s.n3 another only that of Luke ; and thofe 
 o;entlemen who are liberal enouo-h to admit 
 the four goipels, generally dedud: fuch chap- 
 ters, and parts of chapters as are moft ob- 
 noxious to their fcheme. As to the Kpifto- 
 lary parts, I believe you generally conlider 
 them as the private opinions only of ths 
 writers, and of little conlequence to us: but 
 if fo, thofe writers muit have been guilty 
 of impof.tion -, particularly Peter, who clafTes 
 the writintrs of his brother Paul amon^ 
 the other fcriptures^ , On the ether hand, if 
 the fcriptures do not contain any certain and 
 infallible guide to truth, it is of little con- 
 fequence what they do contain : for if the 
 facred writers were the fuhjedts of Jewifh 
 or heathen prejudices, and if they were lia- 
 ble to errors and mifconceptions, your own 
 favourite {ludy of criticifm is indeed of lit- 
 tle value; and it is of no more importance 
 to afcertain the true reading and accurate 
 Tranflation of Peter, John, or Paul, than 
 to iix the text and veriion of any of the 
 Greek or Latin ClalHcs. If we are only to 
 receive fuch parts of the Bible as appear to 
 
 * Eph. vi. 17. Heb. iv. 12. Src. Sec 
 
 VS 
 
( 19° ) 
 us probable or juu, tlicn is this to make 
 tthe word of God' of no efTdd. To fubmit 
 the divine oracles to the corrccTtions of rea- 
 fon and philofophy is an abfurdity equal to 
 any that can be found, even in the creed of 
 popery: — It is to exclude the funlliinc, and 
 'rejoice in fparks of our own kindling' — to 
 forfake the fountain of living waters, and to 
 hew out unto ourlelves broken ciftenis that 
 can hold no water. — A fault and a mifery. 
 Sir, from which I pray God to prefervc or 
 deliver you, and yours for the 
 
 Truth's fake, ucc 
 
( 159 ) 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 Uffedls. and Conjequences of the Cahlntjltc 
 Syfiem continued. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 A Single Letter was much too fliort to 
 coniider your various obiec^iions under 
 this head. I proceed therefore in tiie prefeat 
 Letter to obierve, 
 
 5. Calvinifls are reprefented as fuperili- 
 tious Sabbatarians — returning to JudaicaL 
 cuftoms, and running counter to the exprefs 
 injunctions of Paul — and to the very fpirit 
 of chriftianity, which, you tell us*, exprefs- 
 * ly aboliflies all diftindion of days, and 
 ' confequently the Sabbath' On the con- 
 trary, it appears to me, that the Sabbath is 
 not -a Jewifh inftitution, nor is it cenfured 
 by the apofile. 
 
 That it was not merely a Jewiili inftitu- 
 tion, apDgars from its appointment immedi- 
 ately on the creation. * On the feventh day 
 
 •* PvCview, p. 20. 
 
 ' God 
 
( t92 ) 
 
 * God ended [or had ended*] his work 
 
 * which he had made : and he refted on the 
 
 * feventh day/ The Sabbath therefore was 
 a patriarchal inftitution, and in the book of 
 Genefis, there are feme pretty clear intima- 
 tions of its obfervation by Abel, by Noah, 
 and by the other patriarchs, from whom it 
 doubtlefs fpread over moll ancient nations-f*. 
 
 We obferve a Sabbath therefore, not be- 
 caufe it was enjoined by Mofes, or obferved 
 by the Ifraelites ; but becaufe it was a pre- 
 cept of the Creator from, the beginning, and 
 never has been repealed, though the day it« 
 felf has been changed, (and perhaps more 
 than once) as not belonging to the mora* 
 lity of the inftitution. I know that it has 
 been pretended, that Mofes mentions the Sab- 
 bath in this place by way of anticipation, 
 and that it was not obferved by the patri- 
 archs. 
 
 * So the beft tranilators render it ; but the Sama- 
 ritan (probably to avoid the apparent abfurditj of God 
 finiiliiiig his work on the feventh day) reads, • On 
 
 * the lixth day God ended his work, and he refted on 
 
 * the feventh.* 
 
 t See Kennicott'.'i fecond Differtation, p. 130. — 
 Parkhurit'b Lex. in 'J2\l^> Doddridge's Led. prop. cxI. 
 
 This 
 
( ^93 } 
 
 This, however, I confider as an arbitrary 
 unfounded luppofitlon ; becaufe, it is certain 
 that the IfraeHtes obferved a Sabbath before 
 the giving of the law at Sinai, for on occa- 
 lion of the manna being rained from heaven^ 
 on the fixth day of the week, Mofes thus 
 addrelTcd them, * To-morrow is the reft of 
 
 * the holy Sabbath unto the Lord *.^ 
 
 But' this queftion may be drawn into H 
 narrower comp^.fs, and fairly be decided 
 by yoiir own fufFrage. * Of public worfhip 
 
 * (you fay) I ain a fmcere advocate -, ind it 
 
 * hav^ing been the uniform pradlice of the 
 
 * chriftian church to affemble for this pur- 
 
 * pofe on the firft day of the week, I highly 
 
 * appro've of the Continuance of this laudable 
 
 * and ujefid cuftom. But that under the 
 
 * chriftian difpenfation one day is more holy 
 
 * than another, or that any employment or 
 ' amufement, which is lawful on other days, 
 
 * is unlawful on the Sunday, can never be 
 
 * proved either from the fcrip.tures, or from, 
 
 * ecclefiaftical antiquity ^.' As you admit 
 the early afTembly of chriftians on the iirft 
 day of the week, which it fhould feem, was 
 
 * Exod. xvi, 23- &c. t Rtrv-iew, p. 109. 
 
 ♦ B b called 
 
( 194 ') 
 
 Galled the L^r/s-day*, as peculiarly devotei 
 to his fervice ; permit me to appeal to yoii^ 
 whether Confiftency and Commoii-lenfe 
 do not require, that a day appointed for 
 pubUc worfliip fliould bs preferved from fe-> 
 cular buiinefs and amiifeinent ? Or whether 
 any valuable purpofe is likely to be anfwerei 
 by the religious inib-u6lions mingled with 
 our public worfliip, if the bufy return im- 
 mediately to their fliops, and the gay and 
 idle to their diverfions ? — You, Sir, are an 
 advocate fur the Theatre (with what fuccefs 
 we fliall enquire prefently), but will you 
 plead for the decency, propriety, or confiil:- 
 cncy, of adjourning thither from the houfe 
 of God ? Or would you have our Sundays 
 clofe, as did the laffe Thankfgiving day -f-^ 
 (furely to the fcandal of a chriflian country) 
 — with the Lyar and the Beggar's Opera ? 
 »2vlnfinite wifdom has hov/ever decided this 
 point, by ordaining, in the firfl inftance, the 
 Sabbath as a day of reft ; well knowing the 
 importance of fecluding from fecular con- 
 ^enis the feafon devoted to religious worlhip 
 
 * Rev. i. to.. 
 
 f Nov. 29j 17.03. At Dru'-y -lane Theatre. 
 
 and 
 
( '95 ) , 
 
 and improvement : at the ilime time, allow- 
 ance is made tor works of ablblute necetlity, 
 and the utmoft latitude given for acSls of be- 
 nevolence and charity. 
 
 As to the authority of Paul, permit me to 
 obierve, you have quoted him in exa(ftiy the 
 manner for which you have cenfured Mr, 
 Wilberforce and others ; by exhibiting only 
 detached paiTages, without examining their 
 tendency or dependence, from an inveftiga- 
 tion of which, it appears to me, that the 
 apofiile had no reference to the quelHon of 
 obferving the^ChrillLm Sabbath ; for, in both 
 the epiftles you refer to, he is evidently 
 ipeaking of inftitutions properly Jew ifli. To 
 the Coloffians?^, he fays, * Let no man judge 
 
 * you in m^-ats or iii drinks, or in refpecH: of 
 
 * a holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the 
 
 * Sabbath-days,' or rather Sabbaths, (for the 
 word days is fupplementary), all which he 
 declares were typical inftitutions, and there- 
 fore ceafed at Chrift's coming, to be obliga- 
 tory. So in the pafHige of Romans ^-, the 
 obferving days is ranked with the obferving 
 (^f meats j both therefore are equally parts ot 
 
 * Chap, ;:. IC. t Cliap. xlv< 
 
 B b 2 the 
 
[ 196 ] 
 
 the Mofaic ritual ; whereas, the Chriiftia^ 
 Sabbath ftands upon higher ground, and 
 claims obfervance as a law given to our firfl 
 parent, and in him, to all mankind. It is 
 true, that it was afterwards incorporated in 
 the Jewifh code ; but there* it occupies the 
 fame refpedable place as the other precepts 
 confeiTedly moral, and the obfervation of the 
 Sabbath is ranked widi abftaining from ido- 
 latry and profanenefs. And this may ac-^ 
 count for the New Teftament not being 
 more particular and exprefs upon the fub- 
 jecS. The keeping of a fabbath was not a 
 fubjed of difpute ; nor could it be confid- 
 ently, where public worlhip was enjoined,,. 
 If there were any difpute upon the fubjedt, 
 I fhould fuppofe it muft relate to the parti- 
 cular day to be obferved, which being of 
 little confequence, this * authorifed Teacher 
 < permits every man to enjoy his own lenti- 
 f ments.' 
 
 But, before we difmifs this fubjeft, per- 
 mit me to remonflrate a little with you on 
 the tendency of this fentiment, as it refpe(5ts 
 ^he prefent condition of mankind. There 
 are many who will thank you for your no- 
 tions of morality, in permitting them to go 
 
 from 
 
[ 197 1 
 ffom places of worfl-up to places of dlverfion^ 
 without impeachment of their chriftianity^ 
 ^nd numbers will admire your plan of mix-? 
 ipg diversions with religion ; but are you 
 aware what an injury you are offering to tha 
 lower claffes of mankind ? How often has 
 the labourer hailed with bleffmgs the return 
 of this day I — a day which takes the yoke 
 from off his flioulders, and gives a refpjte to 
 thofe exertions which, if not intermitted, 
 would foon exceed his ilrength and over-^ 
 whelm his fpirits : a day which allows hin\ 
 to attend the worfhip of the Supreme, and 
 implore a blefTmg on the labour of the other 
 lix : a day which permits him to enjoy, an4 
 to injflrudl: his family : and which, in iine, 
 enables him with new vigour, and recruited 
 fpirits, to recommence the bufmefs of the 
 fucceeding week. 
 
 But you will repl}^, perhaps the bulk of 
 fnankind do not thus enjoy this day. Th^ 
 more is it to be lamented if they abufe the 
 privilege, and that you fliould encourage 
 them fo to do ! But what would be the con- 
 fequence if all men thought vi'ithyou? The 
 avaricious mafler would demand the labour 
 of his fervants without intermilTioa ; and 
 
 deprive 
 
[ 198 ] 
 
 deprive them not only of the opportunities 
 of ferving God, but of enjoying the chief 
 comforts of private and of focial life. The 
 apprentice and the menial fervant would be 
 the flave of the covetuous and hard-hearted ; 
 and many individuals vv'ould lacrifice their 
 own health and even life, to the inordinate 
 defire of amaffing wealth; for you, Sir, are 
 too well acquainted with human nature not 
 to know, that if no Sabbath was enjoined, 
 none could be obferved, but by a few con- 
 fcientious individuals to their own nianifeil 
 difadvantage, as is now the cafe in France. 
 As to the particular degree of ftriclnefs 
 upon this day which fome perfons have en- 
 joined, it is poiTible it may have been car- 
 ried to excefs. Piety may degenerate to lu- 
 perftition, and devotion to idolatry: butmuil 
 therefore piety and devotion be excluded 
 from chriftianity? All extremes are to be 
 avoided, but the danger of the prefent times 
 is not of too much rehgion, but of too little: 
 ■ — not of keeping the Sabbath too flridl, 
 but of rejecfling it altogether. Mr. Wilber- 
 force is therefore to be juflified in rcprefent-- 
 ing the indifference and contempt of pro^ 
 fefTing chnfliaas in g;gieral, aud efpecially 
 
 among 
 
( 199 ) 
 
 among the higher claffes, as a proof of the 
 low ftate of religion at prefent in this 
 country. 
 
 6. A farther objedion is taken againft tho 
 rigid morality of Mr. Wilberforce, and the 
 Calvinifls, from their rejed:ion and cenfure 
 of theatrical amufements, * No amufement/ 
 you think, * is more innocent, or more rati- 
 * onal than that of a well-regulated theatre/ 
 It is ufelefs to talk of what exifts not. The 
 queilion is not whether theatrical amufe- 
 ments might not poffibly be conflruc^ed oa 
 an unexceptionable plan -, but whether fach 
 amufernents actually do exift ? and coniider- 
 ing the prefent flate of mankind, whether it 
 be not morally impofTible that they fliould ? 
 I am not about to pollute thefe pages with ex- 
 tracts from our theatrical writers. It is enough 
 to afk one queflion ; — Suppofe a feries of 
 dialogues to be written on the plan of our 
 modern plays — fuppofe thcfe dialogues to 
 exhibit fccnes of villainy and debauchery 
 — fuppofe the converlation of the diftcrent 
 fpeakers to be interlarded, one with profane- 
 nefs, and another with double entendre — 
 \Vould you, .Sir, recommend thefe as afford- 
 ing innocent amufement? or would you 
 
 think 
 
( 200 ) 
 
 ihlnk tlidm calculated fd improve the morals 
 bf ouf youth ? 
 
 I ev^en believe it impofiible to reform the 
 theatre without taking away every thing 
 which now interefts the generality of fpec- 
 tators, who are always beil entertained with 
 ^l-\c exhibition of excentric, profane, and 
 feven bafe characters. Farther, the perforrri- 
 ance itfelf liiuft have a bad effed: upon the 
 jhnorals of the acftors as well as upon the au- 
 dience. From the performance of vicious 
 characflers at the playhoufe to that of bafe 
 and immortal a6lions in real life, is an eaf}% 
 dangerous tranfitioh: and thofe accuflomcd 
 to applaud the former, will hardly be taught 
 thereby, to avoid and to abhor the latter. 
 This appears to me an objection which can- 
 not be obviated^ without the public tafte 
 could be directed to the love of virtue only, 
 and be taught to abhor vice in all its ap- 
 pearances, fictitious as well as Teal. 
 
 It has been often faid that theatres tend to 
 reform the morals of a people, but an inftance 
 of that nature has never, to my knowledge, 
 been produced : while of rhe contrary effedt 
 the examples are many and notorious. But 
 inflead of grave arg.iment I will quote 
 
 autho- 
 
( 201 ) 
 
 a.uthority — ^n authority the mod unexcep- 
 tionable. The late celebrated and facetious 
 Ned Shuter, (as he was familiarly called) it 
 is well known was, at times, under ferious 
 impreflions, and occafionally a hearer of Mr. 
 Whitefield and Mr. Kinfman. Meeting <vith 
 the latter once at Plymouth, after the lives 
 both of Mr. K. and himfelf had been en- 
 dangered by exertions in their relpe(flive pro- 
 feflions, Mr. S. thus addrelled him. ' Had 
 « you died, it would have been in ferving 
 « the beft of mailers \ but had J, it would 
 
 * have been in the fervice of the devil.' In 
 farther converfation, Mr. S. added — * My 
 
 * Lord E. fent for me to-day, and I was glad 
 
 * I could not go. — Poor things ! they are 
 
 * unhappy, and they want Shuter to make 
 
 * them laugh. But, O Sir ! — fuch a life as 
 « yours ! As foon as I leave you 1 fhall be 
 « Kine Richard. This is what they call a 
 
 * good play ; as good as feme fermons. I 
 
 * acknowledge there are fome ftriking and 
 
 * moral things in it. But after it, I fhall 
 « come in again with my farce o^ A d'ljli of 
 
 * all forts, and knock all that on the head. 
 
 * Fine reformers are we*!' — Such is the 
 
 * Evangelical Mag. vol. i. p- 5-' 
 
 C c chara(fter 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 charadler of the theatre even from a per^ 
 former. 
 
 Once more under this article, permit me 
 to tranfcribe a paflage from your own work 
 in fpcaking of the Sabbath. * The chriftian 
 
 * law,' you fay, * expielsly requires, not 
 
 * that a feventh part only, but that the whole 
 
 * of our time, and every a<flion of life, fhould 
 
 * be devoted to the fervice of God ; and that 
 ** whether we eat or drink, or wdiatever 
 ** w^e do, we fhould do all to his glory." So 
 
 * that to a true chrillian every day is a Sab- 
 
 * bath ; and every employment is an adt of 
 
 * devotion *.' — So then. Sir, we muft attend 
 the theatre for the glory of God — perform 
 our devotions at a farce, and call this rational 
 religion ! ! ! 
 
 But the mod * grofs and pernicious error* 
 charged upon us is, that of * chrijlian tdola- 
 
 * try^ or the worfhip of the Son and Spirit, 
 
 * together wdth the Father ;' a crime which, 
 though not of equal magnitude with heathett 
 idolatry, as * not productive of fimilar im- 
 
 * moralities,' is yet ' much to be cenhired 
 
 * and lamented, and carefully to be avoid- 
 
 * edf.' 
 
 * Review, p. 140. t IbU. p. 129. 
 
 You 
 
( 203 > 
 
 You admit, indeed, a degree of * rational 
 
 * regard' may be due to Jefus, and is by 
 
 * himielf required :' — you * revere his me- 
 
 * mory as the mofl excellent of human char- 
 
 * alters, and the moft eminent of all the pro- 
 
 * phets :' — you profefs joyfully to * embrace 
 *. his dod:rine, confide in his promife, and 
 ' bow to his authority.' Yet you are con- 
 fident that there ' can be no proper founda- 
 
 * tion for religious addrejfes to him, nor of 
 
 * gratitude for favours now received, nor yet 
 
 * of confidence in his future interpofition in 
 
 * our behalf. All aifedions and addrelTes of 
 
 * this nature,' you therefore * conlider as un- 
 
 * authorized by the chriftian revelation, and 
 
 * infringements on the prerogative of God *.' 
 
 It would not be eafy, perhaps, to find any 
 where a more pointed contradiction than this 
 pafiage affords to tl\e alfertions of the New 
 Teftament writers, in three important par- 
 ticulars. (i.)You fay, there can be * no foun- 
 
 * dation for religious addrejes' to Chrift ; 
 Paul fays, he be/ought the Lord thrice, evi- 
 dently referring to Chrift, in whofe ftrength 
 he triumphed -f*. (2.) You add, * nor of grati- 
 
 * Review, p. 84, 85. t 1 Cqr. xll. 8, g. 
 
 C c 2 ftidf 
 
( 204 ) 
 
 * tude for favours now received.* Paul faid, 
 
 * I thank Chrift Jefus our Lord, who hath 
 
 * enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, 
 
 * putting me into the miniftry*.' (3.)' Nor 
 
 * of confidence in his future interpolitions :' 
 the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fays, 
 
 * Jefus is able to fave to the uttermoft all 
 
 * that come unto God by him, feeing he 
 *■■ ever liveth to make inter cejjion for them. "I** 
 Such is the harmony between the fcriptures 
 and your enlightned and philofophic fyflem: 
 and fuch is the refined love you profefs to 
 the Saviour ; a Jove divefted both of grati- 
 tude and conjidencey and which forbids all 
 communion with him ! 
 
 But the Chrift we worfhip you confider as 
 a creature of our own imagination, as * fuch 
 
 * a being as' has * in fa6l no real exiftence -, 
 confequently, all the afFe(51ions founded on 
 thefe ideas, as ' vain and illufory, varying ac- 
 
 * cording to the variable fancies of men, and 
 ? incapable of conftituting wife and perma- 
 ^ pent principles of action J.* The wifdom 
 of this principle muft certainly be referred to 
 the better judgment of rational critics, and 
 
 f I Tim. i. 12. t Ileb.vn. 25. % Review. 86. 
 
 mea 
 
( 205 ) 
 
 men of philofophic minds ; but that thq 
 principle is capable of real, great, and per- 
 manent effe^s, it is fufficient that I appeal to 
 that * noble army of martyrs and confeflbrs/ 
 who, a(fluated thereby, have forfaken all 
 things, not counting their own lives dear 
 unto them for the fake of this * ideal, this 
 f imaginary Chrift.' If you, Sir, will con- 
 defcend to inform us, what fuperior effecfls 
 have refulted from your view of the fubje^l, 
 then fliall we be able to judge how far this 
 miflaken devotion falls fhort of * that digni- 
 
 * fied and manly piety, which is the natural 
 
 * refult of proper attention to* your * more 
 
 * jufl and rational principles.' Until then, 
 however, we muft be permitted flill to a^t 
 upon a principle that has been the common 
 flimulus of apoftles, faints, and martyrs. 
 
 Having thiis, Sir, gone through the vari- 
 ous charges you have exhibited againft the 
 popular, orthodox, or Calviniflic writers, as 
 you indlfierently call them — let me con- 
 clude with a recapitulation of your charges 
 againft them, or rather againft us — for I con- 
 fefs myfelf ambitious for a fhare in the ho- 
 nours of your cenfure, and the glorious ftigma 
 of the crofs. 
 
 Firft, 
 
{ 206 ) 
 
 FJrft, it feems we have too mean, humble 
 and unworthy thoughts of ourfelves. Inftead. 
 of boaftino; that we are as our Creator made 
 "US* — we confefs that we are finners of great 
 magiiitude, and abhor ourfelves in duft and 
 afhes. Inftead of trufting hi ourfelves that 
 we are righteous, we account ^ all things 
 
 * but lofs for Chrift's lake, that we may 
 
 * be found in him, not having our ov/n 
 
 * righteoufnef^ v^^hich is of the law, but that 
 
 * which is throus^h the faith of Chrift, the 
 
 * righteoufnefs which is of God by faith/ 
 Inftead of mixing in the fafliionable di-, 
 verfions of the age, and conforming our 
 tempers and n^anners to the world — Inftead 
 of accounting all days alike, and mingling 
 buiinefs, amufements, and devotion' — we 
 ftudy non-conformity to the world ; arc 
 fearful of liftening to its maxims, and drink- 
 ing in its fpirit; and are, in fhort, fo Jewifti 
 and antiquated in our notions, that wc do 
 not frequent the theatres, and we keep holy 
 the fabbath-day. 
 
 Inftead of arraigning the goodnefs, and 
 even jaftice of our Maker, becaufe his ways 
 
 ♦ Review, p iff, 57. 
 
 arc 
 
( 207 ) 
 
 are often infcrutible to our weak underfland- 
 ings, we lie proftrate in the diift, and con- 
 feis that * (liame and confufion of face be- 
 
 * longeth unto us, and mercy and forglve- 
 
 * nefs unto the Lord our God.' 
 
 Inftead of coniidering the Lord our Savi- 
 our as altogether fuch an one as ourfelves, 
 and regarding him ^vith the cold philofophi- 
 cal efteem of rational chriflians, we love, we 
 reverence, we adore him. We honour the 
 Son, even as we honour the Father -, and with 
 ..the whole company of faints and angels, 
 afcribe ' Bleflino; and honour and g:lorv and 
 
 * power, unto him that fitteth upon the throne, 
 
 * and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.' 
 
 Thefe, Sir, are, as Calvinifts, our follies, 
 and our crimes ; and having nothing better 
 to offer in our defence, than you have al- 
 ready feen, I leave them with all their force 
 upon the minds of our Readers. — As to you. 
 Sir, permit me to form one wlfh — that in a 
 dying hour you may enjoy all the confidence, 
 and comfort which thefe fentiments, and a 
 correfpondcnt conduil: have infpired in the 
 breads of believers, in all ages and in all coun- 
 tries. 
 
 I remain flualJy yours, &c- 
 
 T. W. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE AUTHOR OF 
 LETTERS Oli 
 
 HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY, 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 Additional Remarks 071 the Authority of Scrips 
 tiire in this CoJitroverfy, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 JUST as the above MS. was prepared for 
 prefs, I faw your Letters advertifed to 
 hind up with Mr. Belfham's, and it imme- 
 diately occured to me, as proper to examine 
 them> before I obtruded my obfervations on 
 the public ; fince it might prove that you had 
 elucidated fome of his paradoxes, or obviat- 
 ed feme of his miftakes. And though, in 
 this refpe(5l I am difappointed, I confefs my- 
 felf perfectly fatisfied that, whatever be- 
 comes of your caufe, your friends have, rea- 
 
 foa 
 
( 209 ) 
 
 fon to congratulate themfelves, that it is iii 
 no danger of fufFering from the want of zeal 
 Or talents, while it is in the hands of fuch 
 able advocates as yourfelf and Mr. B. ; efpe- 
 cially in contending with Calvinifts, who, as 
 you very modeftly infinuate, muft, to be 
 fure, be too much depraved in intelled: to 
 contend with Unitarians, or even to merit 
 their attention*. Under all thefe difad van- 
 tages, however, we are not dejedied nor 
 difcouraged : we neither afk for quarter, 
 nor retreat. We know that great is the truth, 
 a?jd f?mji ultimately prevail -y and therefore, 
 if you would have the courtefy to permit a 
 brother Layman to whifpcr in your ear, he 
 would fuggeft the falutary hint of Ahab to 
 Benhadad — ' Let not him that putteth on 
 * his armour boafl himfelf as he that putteth 
 Mtofff.' 
 
 Were vi61ory my objed:, and were it to 
 depend upon a difplay of fuperior ability, I 
 could have no hope in contending with a 
 philofopher ofyour fize. Should I, however, 
 be defeated and put to lilence, I fliould not 
 have the mortification to reflecft that it were 
 
 * Letters on Hereditary Depravity, p. I6'9. 
 t I. Kings, XX. 1 1 . 
 
 D d by 
 
( 210 ) 
 
 by a Writef of defedlive intelledl. No, Sir, the 
 difeafe of human nature is feared rather in 
 the heart than in theJiead: and the judg- 
 ment is depraved, not by a derangement of 
 the faculties, as you infinuate wc maintain*, 
 but by the afcendency of carnal appetites and 
 corrupt affedtions. 
 
 But truth, and not vidlory, is the objed of 
 thefe Letters. Were I convinced that the 
 principles here defended are not the doctrines 
 of the Bible, or that they tend to fully the 
 glory of the divine perfed:ions, I hope I fhould 
 poiTefs honefty and honour enough to pro- 
 nounce thofe hard words — 1 was inijiaken. 
 This at prefent, indeed, appears impofTible ; 
 and while my views remain the fame, and 
 feeling the great comfort and importance of 
 the Calviniflic do(flrines, may I not be per- 
 mitted to be their humble apologift, and plead 
 even with you, Sir, who, by the fuperior 
 lights of reafon and philofophy, have been 
 tempted to renounce them? 
 
 So far as you tread in the fleps of Mr B. 
 it cannot be neceflary for me to trace you. 
 Where your arguments or objections are the 
 
 * LettGiP, p. 16'9. 
 
 iame 
 
( 211 ) 
 
 fame, the fame anfwers may apply. But 
 when you tread new ground, and advance 
 new arguments either from fcripture or 
 from reafon, I fhall venture to follow you 
 with animadverfions and remarks. The pre- 
 fent Letter will be confined to what you fay 
 on the authority of fcripture, and its evidence- 
 on the fubjedl of human, or (as you term 
 it) Hereditary Depravity. 
 
 On the authority of fcripture as a teft of 
 truth, I have already addreffed a Letter to 
 Mr. B. : but as this is the hing-e on which 
 the controverly chiefly turns, I fhall take 
 the liberty of fubjoining a farther remark on 
 this fubjed". 
 
 I obferve, that both you and Mr. B. ref- 
 pedl the fcriptures fo far as you think they 
 countenance your opinions j but wherever 
 they appear adverfe, you reduce their autho- 
 rity to a mere nullity. 
 
 Chriftians of your defcription indeed ac- 
 knowledge, that the ivord of God ou^at to be 
 implicitly received ; but then you admit no- 
 thing to be the word of God but what agrees 
 perfectly with your pre-conceived opinions. 
 It is in vain to plead the authority of pro- 
 phets or apofdes, or. of Jefus Chrift himfelf ; 
 D d 2 fince 
 
( 212 ) 
 
 flnce with you, reaforiy and reafon alone muft 
 be the guide. * When a docl:rine is pro- 
 
 * pofed which evidently contradidls' in your 
 view of it, * iirft principles univerfally ad- 
 
 * mitted', you ' rejed: it*,' without enquiring 
 from what authority it comes. — Here, Sir, 
 permit me to fay, language of this kind would 
 not be tolerated in a Calvinift. Suppofnigthe 
 dodlrines of Calvinifm to contradi6l * firft 
 
 * principles univerlally admitted', which is 
 the pomt you fhould have proved -, you fuper- 
 cede all evidence from revelation, by dired:- 
 ing.your enquiries, not into the validity of 
 fcripture proofs, but limply into the agree- 
 ment of the propofed doctrine with your 
 firft principles previoufly alfumed. 
 
 But let us hear your argument ; you think 
 ' It is infinitely more natural to fufpect that 
 
 * a wrong interpretation is given by weak 
 
 * and fallible men, to thofe fcriptural ex- 
 
 * preffions which are thought to contain the 
 
 * fentiment enforced, than that it fhould be 
 
 * in reality the word o( God. Since fcrip- 
 
 * ture phrafeology is fo extremely various, 
 
 * that every rafh and inconfiderate mortal 
 
 ♦ Letters, page 35, 36. 
 
 * may 
 
( 213 ) 
 
 ^ may find out fome expreflions that (hall 
 
 * feem to countenance his favourite dog- 
 
 * mata:' you therefore ' think it highly ne- 
 
 * ceiTary to lay down for' yonrfelves, ' fomc 
 
 * indubitable portions, which may fafely 
 
 * conduct' you * through the labyrinths of 
 
 * error and contrarieties *.* 
 
 As you have done us the honour to com- 
 pare the dodtrines of Calvinifm with thofe 
 of Popery, and even with its moft abfurd 
 tenet, Traniubftantiation -f -, you cannot 
 juftly be offended, if I return the compli- 
 ment, by obferving the perfe(5t correfpond- 
 ence between your argument in favour of 
 reafon, with that of the Catholics in favour 
 of the authority of the church. They fpeak 
 with the lame contempt as you do of the 
 facred writings, and the danger of miftak- 
 ing fcriptural expreflions ; only, in/lead of re- 
 curring to your * liril principles,' they ap- 
 peal to a living head, and certainly have the 
 advantage in this refped:. However, the par- 
 allel may fhew, as was my defign in ftating 
 it, that Popery and Unitarianifm are alike 
 enemies to the Bible ; and treat it as the Sa- 
 
 * P. SQ, t P. 23. 
 
 viour 
 
( 214 ) 
 
 viour of mankind was treated upon Calvary, 
 when he was on both hands derided and 
 blafphemed. For if fcripture has no autho- 
 rity further than it agrees with your * firft 
 
 * principles,' or their ci-devant Oracle at 
 Rome — If either reafon or tradition is alojie 
 to be * the guide,' of what ufe, give me leave 
 to afk, is fcripture ? Might we not do juft 
 as well without it, and fave infinite per- 
 plexity thereby ? 
 
 But, in juftice to your argument, let us 
 attend to its application, and confider the 
 particular infiance in which you try a pro- 
 pofed dodtrine by your ' firft principles uni- 
 < verfally admitted/ You * know, for ex- 
 ' ample, that the God of grace cannot poifefs 
 
 * a character eilentially different from the 
 
 * God of nature, fince he is the fame God :* 
 You * naturally expeB much clearer difpJays 
 « of univerfal benignity under the former 
 
 * character, than thofe which the latter ex- 
 
 * hibits to' your * admiring view -, and 
 ' therefore fufpecl thofe do61:rines which 
 
 * create an oppofition *'.' Now this fup- 
 pofes, in the firfl place, that the charadtex 
 
 * Letters, p.- oG. 
 
 of 
 
( 2'5 ) 
 
 of * the God of nature' is certainly more ob- 
 vious and determinate than the charadler of 
 the * God of grace,' fince you make the 
 former a criterion of the latter ; but this is 
 not a * principle univerfally admitted,' and 
 therefore not one of thofe on which you 
 profefs to argue. You know, Sir, we take 
 the oppofite courfe to harmonize thefe fub- 
 jedls ; and believing the hght of Revelation 
 to be fuperior to that of Nature, explain 
 the character of the God of nature in con- 
 formity to that of the God of grace. 
 
 Again, you ' naturally cxpeB much clearer 
 ' dilplays of nniverfal benignity under the 
 ' charadler of the God of grace', than are 
 exhibited in the other chara6ler. Probably 
 you may ; but do you mean to fet diO\Yn yoiir 
 fiatural expeSlatio7Js for ' firfl: principles uni- 
 * verfally admitted ?* If not, they are nothing 
 to our purpofe. I do not mean, however, to 
 dlfpute the fa6t. I conceive even the Cal- 
 viniflic do(fl:rines, horrid as they feem to you, 
 reprefent the God of grace as infmitely more 
 benignant than the God of nature appears, 
 cither in creation, or in your liberal notions of 
 his chara(5ter ; and no lefs u?ihe?[/ally fo, fince 
 nature does not, any more than fcripture, re- 
 
 pre- 
 
( 2i6 ) 
 
 prefcnt God as indifferent to moral evil, or be- 
 nio-nant to iinners obftinately and finally im- 
 penitent. We deny, therefore, that our doc- 
 trines create an oppofition, or give any jull 
 reafon for fuch fufpicions. Upon the whole 
 then, your demonflration, founded on firfl 
 principles, dwindles into zfujpicion founded 
 upon a miflake ariling from your own pre- 
 judices and mifconceptions. 
 
 But principles, as well as perfons, when 
 they become fufpedled, mufl hope for no 
 very lenient treatment : it is well, however, 
 if they may be brought to trial ; and we 
 have no objection that fair criticifm^ if it 
 may deferve that name, fliould be the judge. 
 It might feem reafonable, that the fcrip- 
 tures fhould be heard in their own defence. 
 But this is too much to be expelled : if ad- 
 mitted at all, it muil: be in fuch parts only as 
 favour, or may be fuppofed to favour, the 
 caufe of our opponents. For thele ' diflin- 
 
 * guifh mojl carefully, the plain and fimple 
 
 * truths exprefsly taught by Chrift himfelf 
 
 * and his apoftles, after they were commif- 
 
 * fioned by their Mafier to preach the gofpel, 
 
 * from thofe ftrong figurative exprefTions, 
 ' and bold reprefentations, occafionally em- 
 ployed 
 
( 217 ) 
 
 ' ployed by the fame apoftles in their epiflo- 
 
 * lary writings; where, it is the invariable 
 ' objed, not to preach another gofpel, nor 
 
 * make an addition to that preached in their 
 
 * perlbnal miniftry \ but to inforce the truths 
 ' already promulgated, upon the hearts and 
 
 * confciences of the new converts to chrif- 
 
 * tianity * .' 
 
 Does not this paiTage, in the firfl: place, 
 imply that the epillolary writings of the New 
 Teftament were written before the apoftles 
 were commiiTioned to preach ? If fo, it would 
 fufficiently account for their being lefs cor- 
 re61: and explicit in their dodtrine ; but, as 
 you know the diredl contrary to be the fad:, 
 it naturally leans in our favour; for it is not 
 ufual for men to leffen in judgment as they 
 encreafe in wifdom and experience. 
 
 But their objedl, you fay, was not to 
 preach * another gofpel.' True, and for this 
 reafon, we conclude they taught the fame 
 doctrines in their fermons as in their Letter?, 
 only, wc have the latter at length, and tne 
 former in abridgment. To which may be 
 added, that the former being addrefled ge- 
 
 * Review, p. '^T ^ 38. 
 
 E e nerally 
 
( 2l8 ) 
 
 nerally to a mixed multitude, were in great 
 meafure confined to iirfl principles, whereas 
 the epiftles were directed to believers, ' going 
 
 * on unto perfeftion,* and confequently, went 
 frather into the peculiar tenets of chrifti- 
 anity. 
 
 You admit, that ' the abettors of the Cal- 
 
 * viniftic docftnnes 2.Si confiftently, in being 
 
 * il:renuous for the fupport of original de- 
 
 * pravity ; for they juftly view it as they^z^;z- 
 ' Nation of a fyftem which they have mif- 
 
 * taken for genuine chriflianity, and which 
 
 * cannot be fubverted without the demoliti- 
 
 * on of the fuperflruiflure* .' This doc- 
 trine is indeed a fundamental principle; but 
 when you infinuate that we difplace Jefus 
 Chrift the true foundation, in order to lay 
 that of Hereditary Depravity-f-, I cannot 
 acquit you of difnigenuity and grofs mifre- 
 prefentation, in taking the advantage of a 
 common ambiguity of language. Human 
 depravity is certainly a fundamental princi- 
 ple in chriftianity, and the knowledge of 
 this may be confidered as a foundation of our 
 tlieology, *in the fame fenfe as a knowledge 
 
 * Letters, p. 42. f Ibid, p. 3S. 
 
 of 
 
( 219 ) 
 
 of difeafes may be confidered as the foun- 
 dation of medical fclence: but does this pre- 
 vent the knowledee of medicine from htinrr 
 equally fundamental ? Chrift is indeed the 
 foundation of our faith, our hope, and our 
 obedience; but how you, v/ho reject his 
 Deity, atonement, and interceiTion, can pre- 
 tend that ' faith in Chrift is the foundation' 
 of your fclieme, I confefs I know not. You 
 feem to admit him to have been a good man, 
 a moral philofopher and a prophet; but if he 
 were no more, I fee not why any other 
 philoiopher might not do as well — perhaps 
 better; for I recolle^l, that Dr. Prieflley, 
 though he admits that Jefus taught the truth 
 in a popular way, yet very much doubts 
 whether, in lome inilances, be accurately 
 and properly underftood it ! ! !* But I turn 
 from fuch impieties with diiguft, to adore 
 the injured Saviour, and to recommend to 
 bis compaflionate regard, thofe that revile 
 and perfecute him, not knowing what they 
 do. That this mercy may extend to you. 
 Sir, is the fnicere and fervent wifh of. 
 
 You ready fervant in the caufe ofTruth- 
 
 T, W. 
 
 # Prleftlcj' on NeceiTity, § xi. 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 Of Mans Original State and Fall. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 A S it is not my objedl: to defend any hu- 
 man fcheme, or fyflematic definitions of 
 this dodlrine, I pafs over your long extracts 
 from proteftant catechifms and confelTions. 
 I wifh to keep as near as polTible to the fim- 
 phcity of the infpired writers, and plead for 
 their literal and obvious fenfe, in oppofition 
 to thofe who would reduce all the dodtrines 
 of the Bible to figurative and poetic forms of 
 fpeech. \U on the other hand, fome good 
 men have carried their creeds and contefiions 
 beyond the fcriptures, I do not confider my- 
 felf bound to follow them : the clofer we 
 keep to the language and dod:rine of infpi- 
 ration, the better. 
 
 It appears evident to me, that the facred 
 writers fpeak of man under the different 
 ftates of innocent and fallen, which you, 
 and other Unitarian writers, confound toge- 
 ther. In the firft inflance, they defcribe the 
 
 whole 
 
( 221 ) 
 
 whole creation as very good, and man In parti- 
 cular as created in the linage of God '^, This 
 expreffion you refer to dominion only, whereas 
 the apoftle exprelsly refers it to kno'uokdge 
 alfo ; and in another place to right coiijhcfs 
 and true hoUnefs. * The new man, renew- 
 
 * ed in knowledge, after him that created 
 
 * him.' — ' The new man after God [ i. e. 
 
 * after the image of God] is renewed in righ- 
 
 * teoufnefs and true hollnefs.-f-' 
 
 To make the image of God confill only 
 in dominion, is to reprefent the Deity rather 
 as an arbitary tyrant than as a being of infi- 
 nite perfecflions. Mr. Eulkeley more judi- 
 ciouily includes the refemblance of his in- 
 telligence, and moral excellence, as well as 
 government J. 
 
 * God made man [men or mankind] up- 
 ' right ; but they have fought out many in- 
 
 * ventions||,' or devices: an expreffion which 
 does not indeed refer fimply and 'exclufive- 
 ly to that adt of our firft parents, which 
 
 * brou2;ht death into the world, and all 
 \ our woe;' but includes the various wicked 
 
 * Gen. i. 2", 31. f Col. iii. 10. Eph. iv. 24. 
 X Apology, p. 2i, &:c. \ Ecclos. viJ. 2.g. 
 
 devices 
 
( 222 ) 
 
 devices of their poflerity, by which the de- 
 pravity originating in their defedion, has 
 encreafed in its propagation; ftill, how- 
 ever, it afTerts the fadt for which it was 
 produced, that man is fallen, degenerated 
 and depraved- 
 It has been common to argue this point 
 alfo from the introdutflion of mortality, efpe- 
 cially the mortality of children. So Paul 
 himfelf; ' Wherefore, as by one man fin 
 ^ entered into the world, and death by fm, fo 
 
 * death palled upon all men, for that all have 
 
 * linned. For, until the law fin was in the 
 f world : but fin is not imputed where there 
 
 * is no law. Neverthelefs death reigned from 
 
 * Adam to Mofes, even over themi that had 
 
 * not hnned, after the hmilitude of Adam's 
 
 * tranfgreffion* — namely, infants, who were 
 not yet chargeable with adual iniquity. 
 He therefore concludes in the fubfequent 
 verfes, that ' by one man's difobedience many 
 < v/ere made finners / and that ' by the offence 
 « of one, judgment came upon all men unto 
 « condemnation.' — That fm reigned unto 
 « death' — and in the next chapter, * that the 
 
 * wacres of fin is death.*' 
 
 * Rom. V. 12. adfinem, vi, ult. 
 
 Moft 
 
( 223 ; 
 
 Moll of the above facls and affeitlons you 
 have controverted — * God made man upright 
 < — ill his own image — very good,' fay the 
 fcriptures. ' We may innocently prefume/ 
 fay you, * that the powers and faculties of 
 
 * Adam and Eve were as limited as our own, 
 
 * and that their propenfAies to good and eijil 
 
 * were perfcBly fjuilar"^' to ours. Either 
 then ive have no propenfities to evil, or they 
 had the fame. The latter I prefume is not 
 your fentiment, and the former has been 
 fhewn irreconcileable either lo fcripture or 
 to facfl-f-. 
 
 * In the infantile fl:ate of the world,' you 
 think, * it was the eafieft thing in nature to 
 
 * be innocent, for fcarcely could a vice be 
 
 * committed:!;/ If fo, how aggravated was 
 their crime to fin, when obedience was fo 
 eafy, and vice fo difficult ! and yet, with a 
 ftrange inconliftency, you attempt to prove 
 their crime was too inconfiderable to merit 
 any thing farther than temporal death ; and 
 that, even this was not fo much introduced 
 as a punifhment, as a convenience and a 
 bleffing. 
 
 * Letters, p. 60. f Sec above. Letters iii. iv. and v. 
 X Letters, p. 61. 
 
 Ycur 
 
( 224 ) 
 
 Your words are, *^ Let us remember, that 
 
 * as life is the free gift of God, the conti- 
 ' nuation of our exigence to a perpetuity 
 
 * cannot be claimed by us as a natural right. 
 
 * We may add, that it would prove 2. perpe- 
 
 * tual curje before the minds of men were 
 
 * fully prepared for fo vaft adefi^:n.*' — Yes! 
 
 * Perpetuity of life,' or immortality, in pa- 
 radifs * a perpetual curie ! 1' Surely, Sir, what- 
 ever your averiion may be to myfteries, 
 you mufl- have a peculiar delight in para- 
 doxes, to rcprefent immortality, the iirffc 
 great bleiring of the gofpel, as a perpetual 
 curie to men. in their mofl innocent and 
 happy ftate ! — But, perhaps the laft claufe 
 was meant to fave your confiftency — * before 
 
 * the minds of men were prepared for fo vail 
 ' a defign !' So then, men are not prepared 
 for immortality by innocence and happinefs, 
 as in the golden age of primeval exigence ; 
 but after they were depraved and wretched ! 
 — This, I fuppole, is one of the lucid prin- 
 ciples of rational divinity. 
 
 It is granted, that ' infinite wifdom is able 
 
 * to convert the greatefl feeming evil into 
 
 ♦ Letters., p. ^z. 
 
 ' the 
 
( 225 ) 
 
 * the moft fubftantial good,' and to the true 
 chriflian, even death itfelf is made a bleffing ; 
 but why you (Hould here introduce an en- 
 comium oh death, and a cenfure on immor- 
 tah'ty, I am at a lofs to conceive ; unlefs it 
 be to offer an apology for fm — to reprefent 
 it as a trifle that could not provoke the Deity 
 to any fevere refentment, nor bring down 
 any real punifhment -, but only a temporary 
 inconvenience, that in the end muft be a 
 great advantag-e. 
 
 But you have elfewhere admitted, that 
 death was threatned as the penalty of tpanf- 
 greffion — that it was an objedl of terror to our 
 firft parents — and afterward denounced as its 
 jufl and final punifhment *. Now, Sir^, 
 would you be underftood to mea:n, that the 
 Deity made * a moft fubftantial good' the 
 penalty of fin ? Surely, if immortality were 
 in itfelf * a perpetual curfe,' that fhouid have 
 been the punifhment of fin; and death, as 
 a ' moft fubftantial good,' the reward of 
 obedience and fideHty. 
 
 But the reference juft made, leads me to 
 notice your decided opinion on the nature of 
 
 • See Letters p. 128, 120, 
 
 Ff the 
 
( 226 ) 
 
 the death threatened to our firfl progenitors, 
 Avhich you are confident could extend no 
 farther than the literal meaning uf that ex- 
 preffion, ' Dufl thou art, and unto duft flialt 
 * thou return.' Permit me, in this place, to 
 afk a few queftions. Do you believe a fiate 
 of future puniHiment ? Is not that punifli- 
 ment a fecond death ? Was it not threatened 
 under the idea of death ? Why might it not 
 then be included in the firft threatening — in 
 the firft fentence ? Indeed the contrary fup- 
 pofition Is attended with difficulties that I am 
 perfuaded you have not confidered. You, 
 doubtlefs, admit the dodtrine of a future life, 
 and that Adam, as well as his pofterity, were 
 fubjecfs of it, confequently, expofed to its 
 penalties, as well as intitled to its rewards. 
 }3o you then fuppofe that God would infli(ff 
 fuch a puniihment without warning fmncrs 
 of it ? Or if he did threaten it, under what 
 term is it cxpreiled befide that of death ? 
 
 To lav, this is recurring; to a iii^r.rative 
 izTiit, is no objed:ion, fince in the iirft ftage 
 of language it is highly figurative. Many 
 Unitarian writers reduce the whole hiilory 
 of the fall to allegory, though I think un« 
 juftly. Why then obje£t to the figurative 
 
 ufe 
 
( 227 ) 
 
 life of a term fo frequently ufed figuratively 
 in fcriptiire ? Might I not add the ftyle of 
 Mofes, and the very genius of the- languac^e 
 evidently require it ? The trees of know- 
 ledge and of life — the feed of the ferpent and 
 of the woman — are evidently metaphorical -, 
 and even the term /i/e frequently includes 
 happinefs : Why then may not the term 
 ^eat^ include mifery and pain ? 
 
 Do vou flill aflc, what concern have we in 
 this tranfad:ion of our firft parent ? Or what 
 part have we either in his crime or punifli- 
 ment ? The anuver to this depends on ano- 
 ther queftion — Was Adam a diftindt ifolated 
 individual like each of us ? Or was he the 
 federal head of his pofterity ? The former 
 appears to be your hypothecs, and the latter 
 mine. 
 
 If we recur to the original hiflory, it is 
 true that Adam is fpoken of throughout as an 
 individual, with little or no exprefs reference 
 to his offspring; but are they not, therefore, 
 to be underflood as equally interefled in the 
 prohibition and the threatning ? Was our 
 tirft parent to be expofed to death alone, and 
 his pofterity to be immortal ? Was Eve only 
 to conceive in forrow ? Or Adam alone to 
 
 F f 2 fweat 
 
< 228 ) 
 
 iVeat, and labour, and return to duft ? You 
 will not fuppofe this, becaufe you tell us, 
 on the authority of an apoflile, that ' in 
 * Adam all die.' — Suppofe, on the other 
 hand, our firfl parents had preferved their 
 innocence, were they to live in paradife 
 alone ? were not their poflerity alfo to be 
 happy and immortal ? But if mankind at 
 large would have reaped bleflings from their 
 obedience — if they have fuffered the multi- 
 form curfe of labour, ficknefs, and death 
 from their difobedience, do not thefe circum- 
 flances prove that we are deeply interefted 
 in the conduct and fate of Adam, and is 
 not this tantamount to what Calviniftic di- 
 vines intend by the covenant between God 
 and him ? 
 
 But if we are involved in the punifhment 
 of Adam's fin, we are involved in the whole 
 of it, for there feems no poflible way of our 
 being involved only in a part. If we are 
 expofed to death thereby, we are expofed to 
 all the evils included in that term, and con- 
 fequently to future punifhment — unlefs you 
 will pretend that the punifhment of fin ex- 
 tends no farther than the prefent life. And 
 if the punifhment of fm be eternal, then are 
 
 we 
 
( 229 ) 
 
 yy^ cxpofed unto eternal punifhment. But 
 on this queflion I haye made fome remarks 
 in a preceding Letter *. 
 
 To return — Had we no facred book but 
 that of Genefis, I think we muft admit 
 that mankind are involved in the whole 
 penalty of Adam's lin, or roundly deny 
 their interefl: in any part of it, and par- 
 ticularly in mortality ; but as we have 
 the New Teftament, if we admit the 
 teftimony of Paul, the point is perfedlly 
 determinate and clear — obferving by the 
 way, that the apoftle repeatedly compares 
 Chrift and Adam as the heads and repre- 
 fentatives of their refpecft^ive offspring. All 
 in Adam died in him — all in Chrifl live in 
 him. As by one man's oflfence many were 
 made finners, {o by the obedience of one 
 {hall many be made righteous. That the 
 latter, Sir, may be your happinefs as well 
 as mine, is the fine ere wilh of 
 
 Your humble fervant. Sec, 
 
 * Letter vli. near tbe dofe; 
 
( ^S'^ ) 
 
 LETTER XVIIl. 
 
 Scripture Proofs of Natural Depravity vindi^ 
 catcd ; and its Confijlency with other Doc- 
 trines of Scripture. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 TTOWEVER rational and philofophical 
 may be the Unitarian fcheme, it muft, 
 I think, be obvious to every impartial obfer- 
 ver that it cannot derive much fupport from 
 the Bible ; and that the forte of its advocates 
 does not confifl in fcripture evidence. In- 
 deed the moft, in general, that thefe Gen- 
 tlemen attempt is, to ward off the arrows 
 aimed againfl them from that quarter ; and 
 even in this, I conceive their fuccefs is far 
 from being proportionate to their zeal. This 
 remark will, I apprehend, apply to your ani- 
 madverfions, and Mr. Behham's, on the 
 evidence produced by Mr. Wilberforce. 
 Part of your objedions, as well as Mr. B.'s 
 have been already corrfidered, and there are 
 but two inftances, as I recollect, which ap- 
 pear to mc to require farther obfervation. 
 
 The 
 
( 231 ) 
 
 The firil, of thefe relates to an exprefTion 
 of David, who acknowledges his being born 
 in fin. You coincide with Mr. Bulkley's 
 idea*; and conceiv'e, that * He adopted a 
 
 * phrafe/TC-u^r^/^?/ among the Jews, by which 
 
 * he intimated that his vicious propenfities 
 
 * were fo great, that had he been born with 
 ' them, they could not have been flrongcr. 
 That this expreflion was proverbial in the 
 time of David you offer no proof within a 
 thou fand years; and, judging from circum- 
 ftances, I fliould be much more inclined to 
 believe that the expreflion became proverbial 
 from David's ufe of it, than that he adopted 
 it becaufe proverbial. The ufe, however, 
 of a fimilar expreflion by two perfons, fiip- 
 pofing them contemporary, will not prove it 
 to be a proverb ; nor will its being prover- 
 bial prove it to have little or no meaning : 
 indeed, the emphafis you have yourfelf given 
 to the words-)-, is fufticient to overturn your 
 own hypothefis : for if David's propenfitit;s 
 to fin could not have been ftronger had he 
 l->een born with them, you fuppofe him as 
 much under the influence of thofe propen- 
 
 * St^c above, p. 21. + I-'^tieri-, p. 72. 
 
 lities 
 
( 232 ) 
 
 fities, and as unable to refill: them, as wc 
 polTibly can do. 
 
 As to the expreflaon ' born in fins' ufed by 
 the Pharifees, I doubt much if it had any 
 allufion or relation to that of the pfalmifl:. 
 The cccafioii of the words will give a better 
 light into their meaning. The Pythagorean 
 notion of the tranfmigration of fouls, it 
 fliould feem obtained pretty early among the 
 Jews. The author of the apocryphal book 
 of Wifdom appears to allude to it, when he 
 fays, * being good, I entered into a body 
 ' undefiled *;' implying both a previous ex- 
 idenpe, and that a refidence in blemifhed 
 or defedlive bodies, was a kind of punifhment 
 for the vices of a former ftate. Such ideas 
 alfo the difciples of our Lord appear to have 
 entertained, when they afked him, faying, 
 
 * Maflier, did this man iin, or his parents, 
 
 * that he was born blind •f'?* ailuming that 
 fo grievous a calamity mufh have been owing, 
 to fome remarkable caufe ; either as a judg- 
 ment on his parents for a heinous crime, or 
 a punifhment on himfelf fur vices committed 
 In a previous flate. But the Pharifees^ not 
 
 * Wifdom vIII, 10. f John ix. $. 
 
 hefitating 
 
( 23^ ) 
 
 liefitating like the difciples, boldly fix the 
 caufe upon the man himilif — * Thou waft 
 
 * altogether born in fins, and doft thou teach 
 
 * us *?' As if they had fiid, * Thou art an 
 
 * old offender — a linner before thy birth 
 
 * here, and fuffering the punifhment of thy 
 
 * fins.' It does not appear that thefe paffages 
 have any reference to original fin, conle- 
 quently, they determine nothing refpe(fting 
 it; but I confefs, I cannot help confidering 
 thefe Pythagorean, or Platonic notions, as 
 corruptions of the fcripture dodtrine of 
 original fm, and an attempt to render it 
 more rational and palatable to philofophic 
 mmds. 
 
 The other paffage on which you have ani- 
 madverted, has been alfo confidered in my 
 Letters to Mr. Belfiiam-f . I have only far- 
 ther to remark upon the terms, ' by nature 
 
 * children of wrath, &c.' that though I can- 
 not here go through the feveral palfages in 
 which the expreflion is ufed in fcripture, I 
 am fully fitisfied, from a careful examination, 
 that it always intends fomething con-natural 
 to us, either originally or adventitioufly : 
 
 * John ix. 34. f Epli. ii- 3. Sec above, p. 29. 
 G "• and 
 
( 234 ) 
 and in the text, which looks moil: favourably 
 toward the fenfe of ciijioiriy I have the 
 authority of Le Clerc himfelf for faying, 
 that it lignifies neither cuflom nor difpofiti- 
 ori ; but is oppofed to inftrudtion *: i. e. it 
 fignifies what is derived from nature previous 
 to inftruclion or example. 
 
 Having, as you fuppofe, warded off the 
 force of fcripture evidence on this queflion, 
 you endeavour, in a few inflances, to fliew, 
 that the doctrine for which we plead is abfo- 
 lutely inconfiflent with other dodrines ad- 
 mitted and owned by us, and efpecially 
 with the following : 
 
 Firft, You think it totally deflroys ' all the 
 
 * fubfequent te7nptations of Satan -f-.' — Juil: 
 the contrary ; the depravity of the heart is 
 what the temptations of the enemy chiefly 
 ad upon : it is the traitor within that opens 
 to him the citadel. Satan could not prevail 
 againft Jefus, becaufe he had nothing in 
 him X 'y he prevails againll us becaufe he has 
 fo much. 
 
 Again, Original Depravity oppofes * the 
 
 * true and proper incarnation of the Son of 
 
 ♦ Le Clerc on Hammond, in i Cor. xi. i4. 
 \ Letters, p. 117. % John xiv. 30. 
 
 ' G6d.* 
 
( 235 ) 
 
 ' God *.' How fo ? Human nature is de- 
 praved, and could not in the courfe of 
 ordinary generation, or without a mircicle^ 
 be propagated pure ; and therefore — what ? 
 It could not be rendered pure by the hmne- 
 diate and miraculous agency of the Holy 
 Spirit. Is not tliis aniwered in the very 
 
 ftatement ? — So much for this boafted artiu- 
 
 p 
 
 ment that could not be evaded ! 
 
 In other parts of your work, you reprefent 
 the fame docftrine as highly incompatible 
 with the divine perfed:ions, as revealed in 
 fcripture, and even underftood by Calviniils 
 themfclves. Thus particularly, you infinu- 
 ate the inconfiftency of ' offers to penitent 
 * finners of pardon, grace, and ftrength,- 
 as- but a mockery and an infult to the non^ 
 ele5f, who have no power to receive them ; 
 and the a6lual beftowment of thefe bleflings 
 on the eledl as an injury and injuflice to the 
 world at large. Such is the tendency (as I 
 fuppofe you will admit) of the reafoniiig in 
 your firll Letter -f-; and this has been more 
 forcibly and explicitly urged by other writers 
 on the fame fide, particularly Dr. Prieftley J. 
 
 ♦ Letters, p. ii8. f See pngc l6, 17, and note. 
 :|: On Neceffitj, § xli. 
 
 My 
 
[ 236 ] 
 
 My limits will not admit of going at 
 length into this inquiry -, but I would beg 
 leave to fuggeft an hint, which, whatever 
 may be its effedt on others, fhould filence 
 gentlemen who adopt the fcheme of Philo- 
 fophical Neceffity, as is now gen&rally the 
 cafe, I believe, with Unitarians. — For every 
 thing that can be urged on this queftion may 
 be reduced to this principle, that creatures 
 of neceflity cannot be the fubjedts of duties 
 pr motives — virtue or vice — praife or blame 
 — reward or punifliment j whereas Dr. 
 Prieflley himfelf has, I think, very fatis- 
 fa(5lorily proved that it is upon this principle 
 alone they can be either*. Now, if a divine 
 predetermination of the prefent circum- 
 flances, and future fate of an individual do 
 not prevent his being the proper fubjedl: of 
 duties and motives, of virtue and vice, &c. 
 where is the inconfiftency of exhorting or 
 enjoining upon him things, not naturally 
 jmpoiTiblc, but only accidentally or morally 
 fo, by the pre-ordination and arrangement 
 of circumftances ? The Neceflarian, who 
 believes the objects of future puniOiment 
 
 * On NeceiTitj, § vll. 
 
 certain 
 
( 237 ) 
 
 certain and determined, adnnlts the very 
 thing which he charges as an inconfiftency 
 upon the Calvinifi; : for whether future pu- 
 nifliment be temporary or final, vindidlive 
 or correcftive, will make no difference on 
 this queflion. ' It is only (as Dr. P. farther 
 
 * obferves) where the neceffity of finning 
 
 * arifes from fome other caufe than a man's 
 
 * own dijpojition of tuindy that we ever fay 
 
 * there is an improprieiy in punifhing a man 
 
 * for his conduct. If the impofTibility of 
 
 * acting well has arifen from a bad dijpof.^ 
 ' tio72 or habity its having been impolliblc 
 
 * with that difpolition or habit to a(5f virtu- 
 ' oufly, is never any rcafon for our forbear- 
 
 * ing punifiiment *.' But if it be confiilent 
 to punifh a man for neceffary evil, or re- 
 ward for neceffary good, it cannot be incon- 
 iiftent to promile or threaten, or propofs 
 other motives to obedience -f-. 
 
 But you are more bold than the above 
 writer, or indeed any other objed:or I have 
 met with ; for you fuppofe that God can- 
 
 * On Neceffity, § vl. 
 
 \ See further coni'deratlons on this fubjedl: In Ful- 
 ler's Sjftems compared, Letter vi. 
 
 not 
 
( 238 ) 
 
 not create * the meanefl: reptile either with 
 
 * a determination to render it miferable, or 
 
 * with a frefcience of its tnifery *.' So then, 
 not the meaneft reptile can be miferable, or 
 the Creator mufl ceafe to be omnifcient ! — 
 Prefumptuous man ! wilt thou prefcribe laws 
 to the Supreme, and tell him he is 6ounJ to 
 make thee happy? Surely, Sir, if made 
 happy, fuch creatures as we are may be 
 content to owe our happinefs to the grace of 
 our Benefador ! at leaft, this is the difpoli- 
 tion of Calvinifls, and in particular of. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 * I obferve in the Analytical Review for June, that 
 you have, on the remonftrance of thefe Reviewers, 
 endeavoured to palliate this bold affertion, by infert- 
 ing the word eternal; God cannot create ' the meanell 
 * reptile — with a prefcience of its eternal mifery;' 
 which is faj'ing, God is abfolutely obliged, bj a necef- 
 fitj of nature, to make, or endeavour to make, all 
 his creatures eventually and eternally happv, however 
 depraved and miferable they may make themfelves. 
 A fuppofition this, which at once annihilates either the 
 infinity of divine Wifdom, or the frcencfs of divine 
 Mercy ; and is therefore little lefs obnoxious than your 
 original affertion. 
 * Letters p. 27. 
 
[ 239 ] 
 
 LETTER XIX. 
 
 Of the Pojfibility of Hereditary Depravity, 
 
 Sir, 
 TN the next place, jou endeavour to prbve 
 
 the doctrine of Hereditary Depravity an 
 impoflibiUty, as utterly inconfiftent with 
 the conftltution of human nature, either 
 phyfically or metaphyfically conlidered. 
 
 Admitting the literal hiftory of the fall, 
 which, however you appear to doubt, you 
 confidently enquire : ' Could the indulgence 
 
 * of this one propenlity produce, by any 
 
 * phy Ileal law of the conftitution, fuch a 
 
 * lingular change in their natures, that they 
 ' fhould be neceffitated by this change to 
 
 * procreate a race of beings diredly oppofite 
 
 * in charad:er to the original nature infufed 
 
 * by the immediate power of the Almighty*/ 
 — To this I reply, that when Adam propa- 
 gated human nature, it m.ufl necefTarily, 
 without a miracle, have been propagated in 
 
 * Letters, p. 101, 
 
 the 
 
{ 240 ) 
 
 the ftate In which it then v/as, and not irt 
 that in which it formerly had been *. Thus 
 yon are compeHed to admit, that Adam was 
 created immortal ; yet having been fubjedled 
 to mortality by fin, he propagated a mortal 
 offspring ; and the contrary would have been 
 agaiiift a fundamental law of nature, that 
 like begets like } and, * Who can bring a 
 
 * clean thing out of an unclean ?' 
 
 You allow indeed, * that a prevailing caft 
 
 * of charad:er may be tranfmitted to the 
 
 * immediate offspring -^'t' and I think you will 
 not deny that this * prevailing call of cha- 
 
 * racier' may fometimes run through two or 
 three fucceffive generations — Where then is 
 the impoffibility of its being tranfmitted 
 further ? As to what you fay of this hypo- 
 theiis, attributing • infinitely greater force 
 
 * to one particular defire, excited and grati- 
 
 * fied in a fingle inftance, in oppofition to the 
 
 * general character, than to the influence of 
 
 * the general ch^ra6l:er itfelf J,' I muft refer 
 you to Mr. Belfnam, who aflures us, * it is 
 
 * an invariable principle, that one vice flamps 
 
 * Sre above, p. 234, 5. \ Letters, p. 101. 
 
 X Ibid. p. 102. 
 
 * a cha- 
 
( 241 ) 
 
 * a charadter vicious' — and that * the uniofl 
 
 * of a lingle vice with a confltllation of vir- 
 
 * tues, will contaminate them all*.' But 
 I hardly need have gone lo far ; you your- 
 felf have given a lufficient anlwer. The 
 firft offence, you admit, * totally obliterated 
 
 * every title to the character of innocence. 
 
 * The unfortunate pair could no longer re- 
 
 * joice in the fimplicity and purity of theix 
 
 * minds. The dreadful penalty was now in- 
 *■ curred. The deed once perpetrated, in- 
 
 * evitably expofed them to the threatned 
 
 * puniihment -f-.' And how is it poflible 
 that this change fhouid have no effed: on 
 their pofterity ? 
 
 It is ufelefs and impertinent to enquire 
 how the firft offence produced effeds fo fatal 
 to Adam and his poflerity. There are but 
 few fadts of which the modus can be fatis- 
 fadlorily explained. But it is certainly as 
 eafy to fhew how a fallen being fliould pro- 
 pagate a fallen nature as a perfed: one. Nor 
 is it neceffary to fhew how the bealls acquired 
 their ferocity, &c. If we cannot account 
 for this fadl, it will not invalidate the other. 
 
 * See above, p. 35, &c. t Letters, p. I04, 5. 
 
 H h ■ Your 
 
( 242 ) 
 
 Youf remark on this point, however, fufH- 
 cientlv filences your objeclion on another j 
 for this * conflitution of things is certainly 
 
 * as contrary to our primary notions of the 
 
 * divine character, as the permiflion of moral 
 < evil in the moral world,' however that evil 
 may have been introduced or propagated. 
 
 ' If we conlider the fubjedt metaphyfically 
 
 * we fhall beprerented,'you conceive, ' with 
 
 * objedions not Icfs formidable :' but if they 
 are not more formidable, we fhall find little 
 occalion to be alarmed. Firft, the doctrine 
 is ' not very confident with the ideas' we 
 
 * entertain of mind*.' A materialift, you 
 think, might do better; he might compare 
 human nature to bread or cheefe, and the 
 corruption of it to leaven or curd-, a fmall 
 quantity of which might corrupt themafs-)-. 
 We are obliged to you for this bread and 
 cheeje argumeiit, but as we are not mate- 
 rialifts, we cannot ufe it , neither are we fuf- 
 ficiently in want of argument to employ it, 
 if we could. Now comes, however, your 
 formidable dilemma, fuppofing the fpiritu- 
 ality of the' human mind, the foul, mufl be 
 
 * Letter?;, p. iiO. f lb. iii. 
 
 either 
 
( 243 ) 
 
 either created and iufufed immediately by 
 God, or it muft be propagated with the 
 body, by ordinary generation. 
 
 * The firll: hypothefis obvioufly renders 
 
 * the dodlrine of hereditary depravity an 
 
 * impoflibility. For the mind of man, the 
 
 * offending part, could not have been in the 
 
 * loins of our firft parents, when they com- 
 
 * mitted the oitence, and therefore could 
 
 * not have been contaminated by it. The 
 
 * fpirit of every individual proceeding imme- 
 
 * diately from the hands of his Maker, muft 
 
 * be as pure, as refined, and as free from fn:, 
 ' as the foul of Adam on the day of his 
 
 * creation . . . According to this hypothefis, 
 
 * therefore, the genuine docftrine of original 
 
 * fin mufl be renounced. For, whatever 
 
 * pollution the foul may contract when com- 
 
 * pelled to inhabit the corporeal frame, this 
 
 * mufl fimply be a fin of infedlion, not he- 
 
 * reditary guilt . . . And fuppofing this to he 
 
 * fo infufierably vile as to pollute and deprave 
 
 * every foul that enters, that Ibul cannot be 
 
 * charged with hereditary guilt, however it 
 
 * may be pitied for being conflrained to ocr. 
 < gupy fo improper a dwelling*.' 
 
 * Letters, p. 112— it. 
 
 The 
 
( 544 ) 
 
 The latter part of this reafonlng Is foreign 
 and irrelevant to the fubje(fl, becaufe we do 
 not piace tlie depravity of human nature in 
 the material fyftem, nor do we refolve it 
 into a mere irifec9:ion or pollution ; and the 
 former part goes upon the liippofition of 
 human depravity being an evil pofitively 
 implanted, whereas the whole is cc mpletely 
 to be accounted for upon another principle, 
 which I {hall explain in the accurate term? 
 of the judicious Pref Edwards. 
 
 ' The cafe with man (he fays) was plain- 
 
 * ly this : when God made man at firil, he 
 
 * implanted in him two kinds of principles, 
 
 * There was an inferior kind, which may be 
 
 * called natural, being the principles of mere 
 
 * human nature 5 fuch as felf-lov^e, with 
 ' thofe natural appetites and pafiions which 
 
 * belong to the nature of man : . . . . Thefe, 
 
 * when alone, and left to themfelves, are 
 ' what the fcriptures fometimes call JieJ/i *. 
 « Belide thefe there were fuperior principles, 
 
 * fpiritual, holy, and divine, . . . which are 
 
 * called the divine iiature ^f*. Thefe principles 
 
 * may, in fome fenle, be called fupernatural, 
 
 # Rom. viii, 6. f 2 Pet. i, 4. 
 
 beino; 
 
( HS ) 
 
 •^ being (however concr^ated or connate, yet) 
 
 * fuch as are above thofe priuciples that are 
 ^ -eflentially .... conneded with mere human 
 
 * nature, and luch as depend on man's nniori 
 
 * and communion with God When 
 
 * man finned, and broke God's covenant, 
 ' and fell under his curfe, thefe fuperior 
 
 * principles left his heart : for indeed God 
 ' then left him : . . . . the Holv Spirit, that 
 
 * divine inhabitant, forfook the houfe .... 
 
 * Therefore immediately the fuperior divine 
 
 * principle wholly ceaied ; fo light ceafes in 
 
 * a room when the candle is withdrawn : 
 
 * and thus man was left in a ftate of dark- 
 ' nefs, woeful corruption, and ruin ; nothing 
 
 * but flefh without Spirit ; [i. e, the fleihly 
 *- principle without the Holy Spirit] and as 
 
 * Adam's nature became corrupt without 
 
 * God's implanting or inflifing any evil thing 
 
 * into his nature ; {q does the nature of 
 
 * his pofterity. God dealhig with Adam as 
 
 * the head of his posterity, and treating them 
 
 * as one, he deals with his pofterity as having 
 ^. alljinned in him. And, therefore, as God 
 
 * withdre-.v Ipiritual communion and his vital 
 ' gracious infiuence from the common head, 
 ? fo he withholds the fame from all the 
 
 * members. 
 
( 246 ) 
 
 * members, as they come into exigence t 
 
 * whereby they come into the world mere 
 ' Jief/i [in the knfe above explained] and 
 
 * entirely under the government of natural 
 
 * and inferior prhiciples i and To become 
 
 * corrupt, as Adam did *.' 
 
 Now if the depravity of human nature 
 arife from a defe<ft only of that in human 
 nature, which was loft and forfeited by the 
 fin of our firft parent, how is it an abfolute 
 impojjibility ? 
 
 As to the other hypothecs of the propa- 
 gation, or traduction of fouls, this you feem 
 to think might account for it ; but then it 
 is itfelf attended with its difficulties, which 
 is alfo true of every theological fyltem or 
 opinion. You will readily admit this to be 
 the cafe in every point connected with the 
 dodrine of fpiiits, and I think you muft 
 admit that the idea of confcious matter is at- 
 tended with its difficulties, and thofe of no 
 fmall confide ration. Muft we therefore deny- 
 that it is poffible to tJjink^ becaufe both the 
 do(51rincs of fpirits, and of materialilm, are 
 attended with their difficulties .^ Yet furely 
 
 * Edwai'ds on Orig. Sin. Part iv, chap. 2. 
 
 this 
 
( 247 ) 
 
 this would be as rational as to pretend that 
 human nature cannot be depraved, becaufc 
 we know not how that depravity is com- 
 municated through the fpecies. 
 
 As to the confequences faftened upon this 
 fyftem, that it fuppofes ' Myriads and my- 
 ' riads of miferable embrios, that never faw 
 
 * the light of the fun will as infallibly be 
 
 * plunged into the flames of hell, as the 
 
 * moft abandoned of our fpecies ; and [that] 
 
 * every germ that poiTeires a phyfical pofTi- 
 ' bility of exifting in this world fhall, with- 
 
 * out doubt, perifh everlaftingly in the 
 
 * next ! ! ! ** This confequence, I fay, is 
 purely and entirely your own ; and the three 
 notes of attention you have added only call 
 our admiration to your talent of disfiguring 
 the fyftem of an opponent, (ince certainly 
 no Calvinift will admit your inference, nor 
 does it belong to our hypothefis. For, 
 
 I . To maintain thiat the human race merrf 
 the divine difpleafure in a future ftate, and 
 that they 2iS:ud.]\y Jtiff'er it, are very different 
 pofitlons. That infants may be expofed to 
 God's righteous judgments, is indeed gene- 
 
 * Letters, p. 115, 
 
 rally 
 
OT-w 
 
 ( 248 ) . 
 
 rally maintained by Calvinifts, and is flron 
 ly lupported by the fad: of their fuffering 
 the agonies of dileafe and death : but I know 
 of very few divines in the prefent age, who 
 maintain or fuppofe that a fmgle child of 
 Adam ever fuffered, or will fuffer, the pu- 
 nifhments of a future ftate, without having 
 confirmed and aggravated his original guilt 
 by adual tranfgrcflion. 
 
 2. Your zeal to blacken Calvinifm carries 
 you into an extreme of abfurdity, of which 
 you do not feem to be aware. For how can 
 unconfcious embryos and unanimated germs 
 of exiftence be plunged into the flames of 
 hell ? or if that were poffible, what would 
 be the utmoft amount of the fufFerings of 
 myriads of unconfcious, unanimated germs 
 of pofTible exigence ? — Is not this multi- 
 plying words without ideas, and attempting 
 to terrify us with a rhetorical flouriflr upon 
 nothing ?— Once more, I remain. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
( 249 ) 
 
 LETTER XX. 
 
 Recapitulation of Evidetice — Cojtchijioiu 
 
 Sir, 
 
 T TAVING gone through what I judged 
 moft important, both in your Letters 
 and Mr. Belflaam's, it may not be improper 
 to conclude with drav/ing into one view the 
 principal proofs and arguments for the truth 
 of Original, or as you term it, * Hereditary 
 * Depravity,' as they lay fcattered in feveral 
 of my Letters, and fubjoin fuch obfervations 
 as may occur in the recapitulation. 
 
 The main queftion feems to divide itfelf 
 into two branches — the extent of human 
 depravity, and the caiife of it. 
 
 On the iirft queftion, we have feen the 
 uniform reprefentation of the fcriptures of 
 both Teftaments, from Mofes to Paul, to be, 
 that human nature is univerfally and totally 
 depraved. The heart is deceitful above all 
 things, and defpcrately wicked — the fountain 
 of all iniquity. The thoughts are evil — only 
 and continually evil — even from our youth 
 
 I 1 up. 
 
( 250 ) 
 
 up. And to this perftd:lj correfponds the 
 condudl: of mankind. Tliey are all gone 
 aftray — every one turned to his own way. 
 There is none righteous, none that doeth 
 good, no not one *. And when the world 
 at large is defcribed, either by our Lord or 
 his apoftles, it is in fuch terms as the follow- 
 ing. y^Jus fays, ' The world cannot hate 
 " you, but me it hateth, becaufe I teflify of 
 
 * it, that its deeds are evil.' ^john declares, 
 
 * The whole w^orld lieth in wickednefs -f-.' 
 
 * See above, p. If; — 22. — Two tilings are objefted 
 to tills ftatement : i. It is like defcribing nature by 
 its ftorms and tempefts. [Letters, p. 79.] Be it fo : 
 if ftorms and tempefts occur in any certain latitude 
 everj day, and tliroughout all the fcafons, muft we 
 not conclude tbcm natural to the climate? — 2. Man- 
 kind arc mixed charafters, good as well as evil. [Let- 
 ters, p. 94.] True; but fcripture afcribes the bad to 
 nature, and the good to grace. As to the cafe of 
 children, [Letters, p. 91, J they are defcribed as good 
 only by comparifon, or in a certain rcfpc6t. * Felly 
 
 * (or iin) is bound up in the heart of a child,' but it Is 
 gradually unfolded. Children are patterns of humility 
 and docility, and with this view were recommended 
 to the difciples. ' Of fuch is the kingdom of heaven,' 
 means, probably, that the fiibjeds of Chrift's king- 
 dom muft be regenerated, or born again, and thus 
 become little children. 
 
 t John vii. 7. — I Joiin v. 1.9. 
 
 2. The 
 
( 251 ) 
 
 The other point to bs confidered is the 
 caufe of this depravity, whether it be the 
 one, uniform, and fimple caufe affigned in 
 fcripture, or whether each individual is fe- 
 parately and diftindly contaminated and de-. 
 praved. That it is the former, I conclude 
 from the following confiderations, moft of 
 which are recapitulatory, 
 
 (i.) Previous to the fall, J obferve, that 
 human nature is defcribed in terms very dif- 
 ferent, and even oppolite to what are em- 
 ployed afterwards. Then every thing created 
 was pronounced very good; and man, in 
 particular, to be created in the image of 
 God, which is elfewhere faid to confift, prin- 
 cipailvj in knowledge and in righteoufnefs*. 
 
 (2.) Sin and death are expreisly faid to 
 have been introduced by our iirlt parents ; 
 for * by one man fin entered into the world, 
 
 * and death by lin : and fo death paffed upon 
 
 * all men, for that [or in w/jom] 'all have 
 
 * iinned -f. 
 
 3. Adam is frequently fpoken of in fgrip- 
 ture, not as a private ifolated individual, but 
 ^s a public perfon, the federal head of his. 
 
 •* Above, p. 49° t P. 222. 
 
 poflerity. 
 
( 252 ) 
 
 pofterity. In this view he is compared to 
 Chrift, the fecond Adam, by whom Hfe and 
 immortahty are communicated to mankind, 
 as death and mifery by the former*. 
 
 4. It is evident, notwithftanding your 
 objections, that Adam's pofterity do partake 
 the confequences of his fin in labour, dif- 
 eafe, and death, and that thefe conftituted, 
 at ieaft, part of his punifhrniCnt -, and if in- 
 volved in part of his punifhment, why not in 
 the v/hole ? Indeed, it feems necefiary to 
 admit that we are fome way implicated in 
 his crime, from our being involved in his 
 punifhment, otherwife we mull fuppofe that 
 the Lord puniflies the innocent with the 
 guilty -f". — and * that be far from thee, O 
 * Lord!' — This argument is particularly for- 
 cible as it refpe61s the cafe of Children J. 
 
 5. The mifery and death fufTered by the 
 poflerity of Adam, are reprefented in fcrip- 
 ture as the proper * wages,' or defert of fin. 
 Whatever therefore may be this demerit, it 
 feems entailed upon us as the proper reward 
 of his tranfgreliion §. 
 
 * Above, p. 229. t P. 227. X P .222. 
 
 6. Wc 
 
( 253 ) 
 
 6. We are reprefented as born in fin — 
 children of wrath by nature — tranfgrelfors 
 from the womb — depraved and defiled from 
 the birth *. 
 
 7. In confequence of this depravity, hu- 
 man nature is reprefented as prone to fin, 
 and with a propenfity to moral evil -, fo muck 
 {o, as without converting grace to be inca- 
 pable of receiving, underflandlng, or loving 
 the things of God -f*. 
 
 8. Good men, under both difpenfitions, 
 confeffed and bewailed the remains of this 
 corruption, which they defcribe as the 
 fource of a continual warfare within them, 
 
 " the flefh lufting againft the fpirit, and the 
 fpirit againft the flefh J. 
 
 9. The defperate condition of human na- 
 ture by the fall, might be farther argued 
 from the extraordinary provifion made for ' 
 its recovery in the incarnation, lufferings, 
 and death of the Son of God : but as thefe 
 articles are contefted and denied by you, as 
 well as the depravity I would infer from 
 them, I cannot here juftly avail myl'elf of 
 Ithis topic. 
 
 •*P. 21, 231, &c. t P. 169. t P- 295 33^ ^'c. 
 
 The 
 
( 254 > 
 
 The principal objecflions urged by you, 
 and by Mr. Belfham, have been alfo "more 
 or lefs confidered and obviated. There is 
 indeed, a certain clafs of objec5lions to which 
 I have judged it neceffary to give the lefs 
 attention, as they he equally flrong againfl 
 the Neceflarian as the Calviniftic Syftem 5 
 and therefore cannot with propriety be urged 
 by Unitarian Writers, who generally, if I 
 miftake not, adopt that hypothclis. Thofe 
 here referred to, are fuch as — the difficulty 
 of fliewing the equity of God in requiring 
 purity unattainable in our depraved flate — ■ 
 in punifliing fin necelfarily committed — or 
 ill inviting finners to mercy which they 
 cannot accept without his grace. Thefe 
 difficulties feem to arife from our prcfent 
 contradled powers and information 3 and are 
 perhaps infurmountable without a new reve- 
 lation, and enlarged capacities. 
 
 But it appears to me highly indecorous 
 for creatures to contend with their Creator, 
 and m.ore fo for finners to difpute with their 
 almighty Jadge, or tlicir compalTionate Sa^ 
 viour. Let me, therefore, intreat you. Sir, 
 and gentlemen of your fentiments, to Ipe- 
 culate with more rev.erence and caution on 
 
 thefc 
 
( ^5S. ) 
 
 thefe mvfterions fubjedts. It is of little con- 
 feqiience in what terms you treat the obfer- 
 vations or remonflrances of a fellow mortal. 
 The potiherd may ftrive with the potfherds 
 of the earth ; but woe unto him * that flriv- 
 • eth with his Maker * ' ' 
 
 As to myfelf. Sir, though I am not inti- 
 midated by the idea of meeting you in the 
 field of controverfy, with the law^ful wea- 
 pons of fcripture and fober reafon, yet, to 
 accompany you as a fellow fupplicant at the 
 throne of grace, Vv'ould give far greater plea- 
 sure and fatisfadlion to 
 
 Your fincere and humble fervant 
 
 for the Truth's fake, 
 
 T. V/. 
 
 * Ifa. -X-W. 9i 
 
jiuguji, I, 1709. 
 Early in December ttexi, ivill be publijhed^ 
 
 IN ONE NEAT VOLUME, OCTAVO, 
 PRICE TO SUBSCRIBERS, 48. IN BOARDS; TO OTHERS, 5$. 
 
 {iVlth an Elegant FRONTISPIECE, iHnJIrative of the Imagery of the Poem-) 
 
 THE 
 
 SONG OF SONGS, 
 
 WHICH IS 
 
 SOLOMON'S; 
 
 A NEW TRANSLATION, 
 
 ATTEMPTED IN THE MANNER OF BP. LOWTH's ISAIAH, 
 WITH SELECT CRITICAL NOTES, 
 
 AND 
 
 JN EVJNGELICAL COMMENTARY-, 
 
 ON A PLAN ENTIRELY NEW. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED, 
 
 INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS: 
 
 I. On the Origin of Language, of Poetry, and of Allegory. 
 II. On the Nature, Defign, and Divine Authority of Solomon's Song. 
 
 By T. WILLIAMS. 
 
 ** Subfcribers' Names will continue to be received where this Work 
 is fold, until the end of September. 
 
 Written by the fame Author, and fold by the fame Bookfelhrs. 
 \. AN HISIORIC DEFHNCE OF EXPERIMENTAL RELIGION: 
 in v.'hich the Docirine of Divine Influences is particularly confidered, 
 and fupported by the Autlioiity of Scripture, and the Expcrisnce of the 
 wifelt and belt Men in all Ages and Countries. 2 vols. izmo. price 6s. 
 boards. N. B. This ^St'ork. is enriched with Anecdotes and Biographi- 
 cal Sketches of more than 250 eminent Perfons. 
 
 II. THE AGE OF INFIDELITY, inTv/o P.arts, anfwering the Two 
 Pans of Paint's ' Age of Reafon.' Part 1. Price is. 6d. — Part il. 2s. Cd. 
 
 III. THE AGE UFCRLDULITY,in anfwer to Mr. Halhed's Defence 
 of Brothers. Price is. 
 
 IV. REASONS FOR FAITH IN REVEALED RELIGION j oppofed 
 to Mr. i/o//»i's ' Reafons for Scepticiim.' Price is. 
 
 V. INFANT SALVATION: an Effay to prove the Salv.ition of all 
 who die in Infancy. Price 6d, 
 
 VL THE MISSIONARY, a Poem, in Blank Verfc : with Hints on 
 the Propagation of the Gofpel. Price 6U. i2mu. 
 

 %