He at

the doctrine of the existence and agency of Evil Spirits. tempts to portray the absurdity of this doctrine, and declares a book containing such irrational sentiments is unworthy to be credited.

How precisely do these objections to the Bible resemble those which Unitarians adduce against the Evangelical system. They are the same, even in their exageration and caricature. How can the Unitarian refuse to acknowledge Paine as a fellow-laborer, endeavoring with him to destroy one system of faith, and build up another? It seems that they not only believe the same truths, but they disbelieve the same. It would be much more proper for Unitarians to hold fellowship and reciprocate ministerial exchanges with such as Paine, than it would be for an Orthodox minister to hold fellowship and reciprocate exchanges with Unitarians.

I have further noticed a few miscellaneous topics in which there appears a singular coincidence.

1. Revelation. Paine says the Bible can be nothing but the record of a Revelation, and therefore he is not bound to believe it.— "Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-after this it is only an account of something, which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it is not incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me." To these views of Revelation, do we not find a response in a late number of the Christian Examiner?

2. The Character of Christ. Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind."

"Jesus Christ founded no new system. He called men to the practice of moral virtues, and the belief of one God. The great trait in his character was philanthropy."-It is not for me to reconcile the inconsistencies either of Infidels or Unitarians. But such are Paine's declared sentiments of the character of Jesus.

3. The moral influence of this scheme. "Let him believe this, and he will live more consistently and morally than by any other system. It is by his being taught to contemplate himself as an outlaw-at an immense distance from his Creator-that he concieves either a contemptuous disregard for every thing, under the name of Religion, or becomes indifferent, or turns what he calls devout."

Surely, the Infidel and the Unitarian are brought into very close alliance. They believe the same doctrines. They discard the same. The chief labor of Unitarians now seems to be, to advocate the religious system of Paine, and endeavor to prove that it is taught by Jesus and bis apostles.*

A.

*Mr. Yates, the celebrated vindicator of Unitarianism, has the following remarks, as containing the distinguishing principles of the Unitarian faith."If therefore Unitarians maintain, as one of their distinguishing principles, that the Father is the only proper object of religious worship, let them be careful that they devoutly worship the rather. If they believe that one

For the Hopkinsian Magazine.

MODERATE CALVINISTS BECOMING CONSISTENT.

There is, and has long been, a large class of the nominally Orthodox, who have chosen to style themselves Calvinists, in distinction from Hopkinsians. They have sometimes been known by the name of Modern, or Moderate Calvinists. Divines of this description, have taken the liberty, in years past, to give a very different interpretation to classes of passages of scripture, which bear a very near resemblance to each other. These passages are such as teach the agency of God in the production of the free moral exercises of men. In explaining these passages, the Moderate Calvinists have, heretofore, given a literal interpretation to that class which teaches the agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners and the sanctification of saints; while to that class which teaches as plainly and expressly the agency of God in hardening and turning the hearts of the wicked, they have applied a figurative sense, and have insisted that they mean no more than that God takes off restraints from the wicked, and permits them to act as they will, under the influence of such motives as are set before them in his providence.

Such a latitude of interpretation, for which no good reason has ever been assigned, has been viewed by strict Calvinists, as altogether arbitrary, unwarrantable and inconsistent. Its inconsistency was thus exposed by DR. HOPKINS, in his System of Divinity, Vol. 1. p. 163.

* "If the scriptures which have been mentioned, where hardening the hearts of men, blinding and shutting their eyes, and inclining and turning their hearts, when they practice moral evil, &c.-if these scriptures are to be understood, as meaning no more than that God orders their situation and external circumstances to be such, that, considering their disposition, and the evil bias of their minds, they will, without any other influence, be blinded and hardened, &c.-then all those scriptures, which speak of God's changing and softening the heart, taking away the hard heart, and giving a heart of flesh, opening the eyes of men, and turning them from darkness to light, and from sin to holiness, working in them to will and to do, and causing them to walk in his way, &c. may and must be understood in the same way, as not intending any special divine

of the principal objects of the mission of Jesus Christ was to deliver his admirable precepts of morality, let them obey those precepts; that another great end of his coming, was to set before mankind an example of perfect virtue, let them imitate that example; that the chief design of his death and resurrection was to establish the doctrine of a future state of retribution, let them prepare for that state of retribution; that a good life is the condition upon which alone God will grant pardon and acceptance and eternal bliss, let them lead a good life." This he calls the "beautiful simplicity" of Unitarianism. 1. The existence of God. 2. Christ came to teach morality and set a good example. 3. He taught the doctrine of a future state. 4. A good life is the only condition of acceptance with God. This is also the "beautiful simplicity" of Infidelity.

influence on the mind, as the origin and cause of virtuous, obedient, holy volitions; but only his using means with them in an external way; putting them under advantages, and setting motives before them; so that if they be well disposed, or will dispose themselves to be obedient, they may be holy, &c. To be sure it cannot be argued from the expressions themselves, that the latter express or intend any more real influence on the minds of men, or divine agency, by which God is the origin and cause of virtuous exercises, than the former do with respect to men's sinful exercises; for the expressions are as unlimited, plain and strong, which speak of the foriner, as those which are used for the latter."

"The Arminian, and all of his cast, understand the latter, as they do the former, as intending no internal, decisive influence on the mind, turning the heart or will, one way or the other; but ordering external circumstances, &c. And are they not herein more consistent, than the professed Calvinist, who insists that the latter cannot be understood as expressing less, than that God, by his agency and influence on the minds of men, does actually produce all virtuous volitions, as their real original and cause; while he as confidently asserts, that the former cannot mean any such thing; but understands them as the Arminian does. Were they consistent, they would give up the cause to the Arminian, and own that the latter expressions may well be understood, as he understands them, and must mean no more, if the former do not. This is mentioned, to convince those professed Calvinists, or whatever they choose to call themselves, that they are really inconsistent."

The Modern Calvinists have long been pressed and greatly embarrassed with this palpable inconsistency, and have tried various expedients, in vain, to rid themselves of the imputation of it. If they said that the divine agency or influence in turning the hearts and moving the wills of the wicked, is not so expressly and frequently mentioned, as the operation of the Holy Spirit in purifying the hearts and producing the holy exercises of saints; it was easy to refute such a suggestion, by numerous quotations from the sacred scriptures. If they said that a divine influence governing the hearts of sinners, would destroy their moral agency, and therefore such a doctrine cannot be taught in scripture; it was replied, that such a divine influence is as consistent with the moral agency of sinners, as with the moral agency of saints-If saints may act freely, when acted upon and moved by divine agency, so may sinners-If saints may be praiseworthy and rewardable for that moral goodness, which God works in them to will and to do;' then sinners may be equally blameworthy and punishable for the moral evil which they commit, while God 'fashions their hearts, and turns them as the rivers of water.'

While these professed Calvinists thus failed in their attempts to show any good reason why they should understand similar classes of texts, so differently, giving to some a literal, and to others a figurative and unnatural, not to say absurd, meaning; and while the writings of Hopkins, West, Emmons, and others, have shed in

ereasing light upon the subject of moral agency, and set the inconsistency of such Semi-Calvinists, in a more glaring light; still, for the space of half a century, they chose rather to lie under the reproach of abusing scripture and contradicting themselves, than to venture to deny the positive and efficient agency of the Divine Spirit upon the hearts of saints, as the producing cause of all their holy affections and virtuous actions.

It is but a few years since any of the Moderate Calvinists had the courage to avow a consistent scheme of human and divine agency. Happy for them and for the Church, if. in order to be consistent, they had come on to the ground of scripture, and acknowledged that God governs the moral, as well as the natural world, working all in all,' having mercy on whom he will, and hardening whom he will.' But they have chosen an opposite course; and rather than admit the activity and dependance of men together, and their accountability, while moving and having their being in God,' who has the same power over them, as the potter has over the clay;' these daring spirits presume to deny the agency of God upon the hearts of men altogether, and maintain that he governs both saints and sinners, so far as he governs them at all, by motives only, or what used to be called "moral suasion."

This is the ground taken by Dr. Taylor, professor of Divinity, at New Haven, unless his writings are misunderstood by his most intelligent readers. The sentiments of Dr. Taylor are vindicated in the Christian Spectator, from quarter to quarter, and are probably imbibed by most of the students of the Divinity-school in which he teaches, and who have gone out, or are going out as preachers of the gospel, and expounders of the word of God. The same scheme bas been recently advanced in other parts of New England, by men, too, who have made high pretensions to Calvinism and Orthodoxy. The substance of Dr. Taylor's scheme, may be seen, in Rev. Edward Beecher's "Address" before the Young Men's Ed. Soc. Boston, 1827. It is not long since the writer of this article, heard Dr. Beecher say, in his own pulpit, that 'God never touches the heart, either of a saint or a sinner; for if he did he would destroy his moral agency.'

We are in a land of liberty; and have great reason to be thankful that here any one may avow and defend what religious opinions he pleases. I admit the right of those who choose to explain away the obvious meaning of both the classes of texts above mentioned, and to teach and preach, that there is no direct, positive divine agency upon the hearts of men; but I must protest against their calling themselves Calvinists. They deny the first principle of Calvinism, and maintain the first principle of Arminianism. Their scheme is the reverse of genuine Orthodoxy, and subversive of all the doctrines of grace. That such a scheme should be popular, is not surprising; for it is grateful to the feelings of those who choose to be out of the hand of God, and will not have him to reign over them. Under the preaching of sentiments which promise success to the 'doings of the unregenerate,' and virtually represent the new

birth as the effect of self-determination, converts may be multiplied; but it is to be feared that they will be tenfold more opposed to the government and character of God than they were before. J. C.

From the N. Y. Evangelist.

THOUGHTS ON PRAYER.

Mr. Editor-There are some who are convinced, that an assurance of receiving unpromised blessings cannot precede our first petitions for them; and yet they think we may acquire such an assurance, as soon as we perceive that we have holy desires for these blessings; and especially when we perceive that our desires rise to a high pitch. They reason thus: "The Spirit of God is the author of these desires; and God will deny himself, should he fail to fulfil the desires which his own: Spirit has excited?" Hence they conclude, that as soon as we can obtain evidence that our desires are the fruit of the Spirit, we have equal evidence that they will be granted. But is this opinion correct? Can God excite no desires in our hearts by his Spirit, without being thereby laid under obligation to gratify them in the very way in which we had anticipated? Who then gave David his desires to build the Lord a house? those desires were highly approved by God himself; must they not then have been the fruit of his Spirit? And if David did well that it was in his heart, did not the Spirit of God do well to put it into his heart? Did not those holy women do a thing which was pleasing to God, who on the day of Christ's crucifixion, prepared spices and ointments, with a view to anoint his boby a soon as the end of the Sabbath should make room for it? And was it not consistent for God to incline their hearts to make this preparation, though he knew that a previous resurrection of the body of their Saviour would render it, as to its specific object, entirely useless?

Who will pretend, that all the prayers of God's people, which have not been answered according to the letter of their requests, are by this very thing proved to have been made without the Spirit's influence? Must we suppose that all the supplications which David made for the recovery of his child, were not spiritual but carnal; and for this single reason, viz. that the child did not recover? Are we to conclude that the Spirit of God never lends his aid in any of those petitions which we make for the removal of diseases from such as are carried off by them? And must we believe concerning such holy men as Eli and David, that they never put up one spiritual petition for the salvation of those children of theirs, who died in a state of impenitence?

I would now ask, is it possible for the renovated character in the Christian to be maintained, without his exercising a thousand fervent desires for such blessings as will never be realized?-Christianity could not have existed in the heart of Paul, and left him indifferent to the salvation of his brethren according to the flesh. And is it not