tice and benevolence of the Deity. All, therefore, who hold a tenet only less terrific than the eternity of future torment, must believe that the allmerciful Father of the human race can consistently with his benevolence render the existence of the majority of his creatures a curse instead of a blessing! They must maintain, or, at least, if not inconsistent with themselves, they ought to maintain, that justice is compatible with the inflic tion of a preponderance of evil, and with the persuasion that a Being of boundless compassion may sacrifice the happiness of the many to that of the few. This is surely only one remove from the horrors of Calvinism. -But it is really almost incredible that the same doctrine of final annihilation should be entertained even by some of the defenders of philosophical necessity; and, if I mistake not, this was the case with Dr. Priestley for a considerable period of his life.

To believe that intelligent creatures are placed in a world without their consent, (to adopt an expression of Bishop Newton,) where their volitions, in the crimes which they commit, and the depraved habits which they form, are the necessary result of circumstances over which they have no controul; to believe that, in consequence of this conduct and these habits, they will undergo either eternal punish ment, or temporary punishment with final extinction; and yet to believe that their Creator is a being of irresistible power and infinite goodness, is indeed to embrace a mystery at which human reason "stands aghast," and human faith may justly be "confounded." How can it excite surprise that the Necessarian doctrine, unaccompanied with a belief of the ultimate happiness of the species, should be rejected by so many acute and inquiring men with absolute abhorrence?

Allow me to mention an example which is applicable to no particular party, of the necessity of assenting to what is mysterious in the truest sense of the word. It is evident, from the discussion on the origin of evil, which occupied some of your former pages, but which I have no intention to revive, that we must unavoidably believe -cither that it was not in the power

of the Almighty to exclude evil from his works, or that he designedly made use of it for effecting some ulterior purpose. Of those who embrace the first of these opinions, that the Supreme Being could not possibly prevent the intrusion of moral as well as natural evil, we might reasonably inquire-what utility can result from the prohibition of sin, when its prevalence is foreseen, and its necessity acknowledged? The inability of the Creator to exclude it, is only rendered more conspicuous by the promulgation of ineffectual mandates. Nor does it seem to be altogether compatible with our ordinary ideas of justice, to represent the Moral Governor of the universe as commanding his feeble and short-lived creatures to avoid that which he himself, in all the plenitude of his power, is unable to avoid! Will any one undertake to affirm that this creed is not incomprehensible?

But supposing the second part of the alternative to be adopted-that evil is purposely selected as the instrument of good; then the Deity may be considered as issuing his peremptory commands against what he has expressly ordained, and as declaring his abhorrence of what he knows will be productive of good. In one view, however, this side of the question is attended with less difficulty than the other; for the Divine Being may very consistently prohibit his imperfect creatures from making use of moral evil for the promotion of good, though he himself may adopt that method, because it is impossible that their limited faculties should foresee the remote consequences of their plans, or should provide against the numerous circumstances which may frustrate their benevolent intentions. Still even this hypothesis is surrounded by darkness, which we shall in vain attempt to penetrate. But without repeating any of the remarks that were made on this topic on a former occasion, I will merely ask one question. If the prohibitions against the practice of moral evil were universally obeyed, where would be that portion of happiness which vice, as we now believe, is made instrumental in producing? If the precepts of religion were invariably complied with, one great source of moral and intellectual enjoyment

would confessedly be lost; that is, there would be much less real bliss if mankind were uniformly virtuous, than will result from the actual prevalence of the worst passions and the most atrocious deeds! The commonly-received maxim, that the world would be a paradise if inen were universally pure and righteous, must, on this supposition, be false, and the following paradoxical conclusion stares us in the face:-that it is in the highest degree expedient that the majority of the human race should trample on the laws of virtue and religion, and egregiously violate the commands of their Maker!

Notwithstanding these appalling difficulties, one or other of the two opinions I have here described we must necessarily embrace, and in either case it is impossible to avoid believing what is transcendently mysterious. The true ground of complaint appears to be, not that men should

apostle says, These three are one; one in the unity of a consentient testimony; for that unity is all that is requisite to the purpose of the apostle's present argument. It is remarkable, however, that he describes the unity of the testimony of the three celestial and the three terrestial witnesses, in different terms; I conceive, for this reason: of the latter, more could not be said with truth, than that they agree in one, for they are not one in nature and substance: but the Three in heaven being in substance and in nature one, he asserts the agreement of their testimony in terms which predicate their substantial unity, in which the consent of testimony is necessarily included; lest, if he applied no higher phrase to them than to the terrestrial witnesses, he might seem tacitly to qualify and lower his own doctrine."

Critical Synopsis of the Monthly Repository for December, 1824.

tions, is inevitable; but that they should enforce the belief of palpable contradictions, and should prohibit others from calling them in question, under the pretext of their being sa cred mysteries.

All that I mean to assert is, that to whatever system of faith we may be attached, mysteriousness, abstractedly considered, does not furnish a substantial argument against the truth of any doctrine which involves no absolute contradiction, (similar to Dr. Copleston's example of apparent incongruity,) and which is sufficiently supported by reason or revelation.

CLERICUS CANTABRIGIENSIS.

P. S. In his extraordinary vindication of the genuineness of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, your correspondent Ben David [XX. 533] seems to consider it as self-evident that if the text be once admitted to signify unity of testimony, it can never be adopted as an argument by the advocates of the Trinity. But what is the language of one of the greatest champions of orthodoxy in the Anglican Church? It is clear that Ben David never met with the following passage in Bishop Horsley's Sermons: "The

THE IRISH

readers, probably, are aware of the almost complete toleration which has been granted for a century to the Irish Presbyterians. After perusing the present account, one cannot but ask the question, where would be the danger of admitting the Eglish Dissenters to at least an equal footing with that indulged to their Irish brethren?

But

There is something quite imposing in the ecclesiastical order and system of Presbyterianism. We Unitarians and Independents talk and feel much about the value of our liberty, and of its being unfettered by the restraints of discipline and supervision. after all, such a system is only adapted to a few strong and independent minds. A majority of mankind actually love subjection to some controul. They love to have their path marked out before them. The conscious weakness of the individual flies for support to some exterior apparatus of combined numbers. One's numerical and perhaps personal insignificance borrows a sweet importance from one's affiliation with an organized body of reverend men. Such a system will doubtless at times

become the instrument of ambition and tyranny, and be subjected to other inconveniences; but I question if they may not be more than compensated by the order, beauty and momentum infused by it into the life of social religion. Have not many young Unitarian preachers experienced a feeling of desolation from the solitary and unleaning bravery with which they have been compelled to throw themselves on the current of their duties? They want some iminediate, fixed and definite standard of ecclesiastical authority to refer to in doubtful cases; some system of rules as the channel of their general exertions; some sympathy and even controul from an uniform community, What mighty effects were produced by the monastic orders! Do we suppose that the Reformation has eradicated from the human breast the esprit du corps?. Proud and mistaken Unitarians! It still survives, and operates as one of the most effectual engines that play from every quarter on your cause. I felt a kind of envy towards the young Irish Presbyterian, when I came to the following sentence in the description of the Synod's discipline, &c.: "He is now denominated a probationer, and is under the controul and direction of his Presbytery." I almost longed to be bound by the same trammels. My imagination was captivated by the humbleness and meekness of the situation. I thought to myself how good, how obedient, how Presbyterian I would be, if I were the servant of such a master, or, to soften the terins, the member of such a community, which might be rendered as democratical in its polity as is consistent with a proper exercise of regular government. Doubtless such a relation might contribute much to one's happiness, virtue, and intellectual advancement. Will a correspondent of the Repository present the considerations that belong to the opposite side of the question?

I am uncertain whether the following phraseology in note, p. 706, be pure English, George I. who, it is reported, should say," &c. Although in some parts of America it is used in common conversation, yet I believe it is avoided by the most

careful speakers, and I never before saw it in print.

Bigotry of the Home Missionary Magazine. A just but mild remonstrance.

Mr. Frend on the British Critic. The remarks on the term Monotheism are a most ingenious retort.

Mr. Frend's proposal, towards the close of his communication, seems nearly impracticable, because, although the propositions, on which he recommends discussion, possess the utmost truth, interest and importance; yet they are precisely such as our brethren of other denominations deem fundamentally erroneous in the outset, and would therefore decline discussing altogether. Can you get a circle of English courtiers to assemble with a knot of rank republicans, and discuss the merits of democratical government?

Dr. Gale a Trinitarian. Dr. Evans's assertion may yet appear justifiable, notwithstanding these proofs to the contrary, during one period of Gale's life.

Friendly Correspondence between an Unitarian and a Calvinist.

The first letter here is truly a sublime composition. Yet why write sublimely, or argue ingeniously? If the following propositions of the Calvinist be correct, this whole correspondence is one of the most nugatory things in the world: "You and I are all blind by nature. The Lord, I trust, will give you sight and me too." Probably if his correspondent agreed in speculation with him, the Calvinist would think that time had come. Yet he appears to me very inconsistent in holding so long an argument with him. He expects from an unawakened Universalist all the docility and reasonableness of an awakened Calvinist. He says, that pride cannot consist in an awakened Calvinist. But cannot something very like pride consist in him, so as to deceive and provoke the undiscerning world? In reply to one of the arguments of the Universalist, the Calvinist says, "Time will shew: we shall see how it will be." Would he permit his opponent to use such argument? One of these notes, however, contains, I think, a very happy and unanswerable retort. The Uni

an

versalist says, that in a future state, "every individual will shall be rendered conformable to the Divine will." The Calvinist immediately subjoins, "Then nothing that the blessed will see will cause pain." This is strong. What becomes now of the argument, that the happiness of the blessed in heaven will be imperfect, as long as there is a sinner suffering in hell? Soon comes a feeble, if not a dangerous argument. When the Universalist anticipates from scripture that " death and hell shall be swallowed up in victory," the Calvinist only replies, "We want more light to understand this." Is it so? Then why not want more light to understand every Calvinistic text in the Bible? You have put into the mouths of the unregenerate a triumphant answer to your own most urgent and solemn appeals. The following maxim of the Calvinist is, in some points of view, sufficiently excellent and weighty: "People do not incur evil by fearing it, but by not fearing it enough." But has not the Calvinist known persons whose fears are a greater curse to them than the apprehended evils? He talks about the paramount necessity of being awakened. Will he not allow, that there are good and amiable beings, so unexceptionably pure and moral in their lives, from the cradle to the tomb, that it would be better not to awaken them? The following is unfair: "You do not adduce proselytes of the character of deeply convinced persons, walking close with God, living in the light of his countenance, and blessed with the sealing evidences and unction of his Holy Spirit." I have known Universalists, to whom every letter of this description of blessedness exactly applies. This testimony I cheerfully accord, though I am not absolutely an Universalist myself. "As to quotations from Scripture," says the Calvinist, "I did not like to offend you by mentioning them" This is singular enough. "Let us strive," he says, "to obtain full convictions of sin.' A Calvinist in religion is what a pure mathematician is in practice. Both are conversant in an ideal world. Both aim at metaphysical, unattainable impossibilities. Neither of them is aware of the unavoidable frictions

in this world of matter. It will not do, the Calvinist thinks, to look upon sin as it actually exists in life, with its common mixture of motives, original infirmities, strong temptations, ignorance, &c. We must reduce it to a kind of essence. The newly-invented extracts of bark and ipecacuanha illustrate well his notion of the nature of human sin. The woody, earthy matter of the plant is entirely separated, and leaves the medicine in a state of pure crystal, of which a single grain is all-powerful, and the very taste of which remains on the tongue for hours.

The Unitarian ends the controversy in a somewhat pettish style. I could have wished from him a different conclusion.

On the Friendly Correspondence, &c. I am a little astonished at this communication. It has at least well nigh confirmed me in my suspicion of a stratagem in the correspondence. I scarcely can believe that any real W. W. would have treated an existing Calvinist with so little delicacy and liberality. The latter might well say to him, "You have first injured me by publishing my correspondence without my consent, and then you have added insult to injury by the contumelious language of your second paragraph." No. This paper of W. W. I must believe, is only à pleasant fiction.

Remarks on a Friendly Correspondence, &c. Will the following alteration be any improvement upon the common rendering of 1 Tim. ii. 3— 5, &c. ?-" Who will have all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, namely, that there is one God, and one Mediator," &c. This seems to preserve a connexion in the passage, and to throw on it a light, which are wanting in the present translation. That yaş may be properly rendered namely, see Schleusner.

The considerations under No. 4, are very well urged. At a late at tempt among the Calvinists of Boston, New England, to get up an awakening, some of their most intelligent preachers and writers came out quite boldly with the sentiment that there are certain doctrines which must not be preached during revivals of religion; such as our inability to