but one remedy. "I grant," says your correspondent, "that these doubts subside when on taking a more enlarged and dispassionate survey of the world, we are enabled to discern the tendency of all events to produce a progressive amelioration of the state of society."

Reason and scripture agree in assuring us that under the government of a just and holy God, vice must produce misery; a full conviction of this grand principle is essential to our improvement and usefulness, and even the painful feelings which at times arise out of this state of things, are adapted to be useful in establishing within us a horror of vice, and prompting us to efforts for its banishment from the world.

Reason and scripture (reasonably understood) encourage us also to believe that under the government of a wise and good Being, all the evil which exists will be ultimately overruled and rendered conducive to universal good. A full conviction of this grand principle is essential, and is sufficient to our peace and joy.

A practical persuasion that the Divine Being is carrying on a vast scheme which will issue in the welfare of all his creatures, and that this scheme is to be accomplished by the diffusion of holiness and the destruction of sin, will make us at present "Secure to be as blest as we can bear," and will prepare us for a felicity which " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," and which it hath not entered into the mind of man to conceive.

SIR,

IN

G. B. W.

Gray's Inn.

N the explanations given of the various passages in the New Testament, where worship is said to have been addressed to Jesus Christ, or any other than the One God the Father, it has been usual to shew not only that the expressions in the original were applicable to those acts of respect and reverence which the custom of eastern countries rendered to persons of superior rank or acquirements, but also that there is no reason to conclude from our translators having adopted the word "worship," that they understood the terms in a more limited sense as referring to that

high species of adoration which is due to the Deity alone. Various instances have accordingly been brought forward establishing the latitude of signification borne by the word "worship," about the period when those translators lived. I have, however, lately met with what appears to me an excellent illustration of the ancient use of the English word, and which, as I do not recollect ever to have seen it noticed as illustrative of the passages in question, may, perhaps, be considered not unworthy a place in your Miscellany. It occurs in Lord Coke's Commentary on Littleton, a work nearly contemporary with our authorized translation of the Scriptures, and in the hands of every lawyer.

In the text of Littleton, Sect. lxxxv. the mode of performing the feudal service of homage is thus described in Norman French:-" Car quant le tenant ferra homage a son seignior, il serra discinct, et son test discover, et son seignior seera, et le tenant genulera devant luy sur ambideux genues, et tiendra ses maines extendes et joyntes ensemble enter les maines le seignior, et issint dirra: Jeo deveigne vostre home de cest jour en avant de vie et de member, et de terrene honor," &c.; which Lord Coke translates, "For when the tenant shall make homage to his lord, he shall be ungirt, and his head uncovered, and his lord shall sit, and the tenant shal kneele before him on both his knees, and hold his hands joyntly together betweene the hands of his lord, and shall say thus: I become your man from this day forward of life and limbe, and of earthly worship," &c.: and his comment is simply this " De terrene honor.” 'Expressed by kneeling at the feet of his lord." An example more in point can hardly be desired.

66

E.

SIR,
Aug. 18, 1824.
IN reading the pages of the Monthly

compelled to think that great misconception, erroneous statement, and of course inconsequential arguing are found in the productions of some of your correspondents, when they assail the system of religion usually called Evangelical, Orthodox, or Calvinistic.

Often have I wished that some equitable censor would interpose on such occasions, to repress wrong representations, not only in your work, but in all other religious publications. Surely it would be no great degree of moral heroism, for men to lay upon their consciences the obligation of taking the requisite pains to under stand, before they rebuke; and to describe fairly the doctrines held by others, however much they may disapprove them. I should dread, indeed, to set my foot on this thorny ground; not knowing how far I might be drawn into the thicket of replies and rejoinders, and having neither the love of controversy nor the leisure for it. But I cannot pass by two passages in the last Number of the Repository, which appear to me to call loudly, the one for severe reprehension, and the other for respectful remonstrance. I am not presuming to determine who is right and who is wrong, upon the points of doctrine referred to. Every man should examine for himself these great questions, with a serious mind, and availing himself of all the light that he can procure. I only plead for fair treatment.

I think, Sir, you could not feel pleasure in admitting to a place in your pages the "Satiric Fragment" on the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 421). I trust that many who reject that doctrine, feel the duty of discussing it with seriousness. The inquiry, What has God revealed concerning his own nature and manner of existence? is, in every point of view, a solemn and awful subject; and which never, I humbly think, should be entered upon without a serious and devotional state of mind. The broad jesting and buffoonery of that Fragment are unworthy of any rational and candid enemy of the doctrine thus ridiculed. The author ought to have reflected that many have been and are conscientious believers of that doctrine, who have not taken it upon trust, who do not build their faith on prepossessions, who have carefully exercised their best reasoning powers upon the question, and who would not believe with out what appeared to them rational and sufficient proof. The wit and ingenuity of the writer have, I fear, inebriated his judgment. He could scarcely, otherwise, suppose that his

VOL. XIX.

32

representations stood upon an honest basis. Whoever opposes the Trinitarian doctrine should do it the justice to recollect, that those who maintain it carefully guard us against imagining that they hold the Divine Essence to be One and Three, in the same sense, or under the same relations. Whether their interpretations of scripture, on which alone they rest their belief, be correct or not, it ought not to be forgotten that, in their own conceptions, they fully believe and strenuously assert the Unity of God.

My other objection is to the strain of representation in page 417, which identifies Calvinism with the gross and revolting notions of Antinomianism. It is peculiarly painful to see this unjust and confused manner of representation come from so respectable a person as Mr. Worsley. He exults in his truly illustrious ancestry: but has he forgotten that George and Obadiah Hughes were Calvinists? He justly celebrates "the purity of their principles," and he can scarcely fail to know that they, with the great body of the Puritans and Nonconformists, held the doctrine of Divine Influence in the conversion and sanctification of souls; while they perceived not the least inconsistency in exhortations and invitations, arguments and persuasions, addressed to the unconverted, urging them to make a sincere application to the Saviour, and " to pray for pardon," and for all other spiritual blessings.

Be Mr. Worsley's own religious opinions what they may, I cannot but be astonished that he should be so little acquainted with the faith of his revered ancestors and of all consistent Calvinists, as to say concerning such a style of exhortation, that it " is a needless and must be an absurd thing, if none can pray as they ought, but they who are already renewed by the Holy Ghost, and that number is exceedingly small. As well might men pray to a picture or a statue; as well talk to the wind." Upon the ground of this assumption, he applauds as

consistency" and "integrity," that which to my perceptions appears to be no other than horrid impiety. Is it possible that Mr. Worsley's theological reading should be so scanty, or that his investigations of religious doctrines have been so crude and

hasty, as that he should not be aware of the distinction which all consistent Calvinists make between natural and moral ability or inability? Is it possible that he never studied, or that he has forgotten, a distinction of such prime importance in theological disquisition? It might reasonably be supposed that Mr. Edwards's Enquiry into the Freedom of the Will, (said by Dr. Priestley to have "obviated every shadow of objection," and to be unanswerable;" and so often referred to in Mr. Belsham's Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind,) is a work not unknown to a man of liberal education and a Necessarian. Every consistent Calvinist maintains that the inability [but Mr. Edwards clearly shews that the term is improper: we ought to say INDISPOSITION] of an unconverted sinner to comply with the calls of the gospel, and to perform religious duties in a spiritual and acceptable manner, is not a natural inability, but is altogether moral; that is, it consists not in any absence of mental faculties and physical powers, but solely in the WANT OF INCLINATION. It would seem superfluous to cite so well-known a book as this of Mr. Edwards's; but I may request the serious reader to study Part I. Sect. iv. for the brief, but satisfactory elucidation of this most important and vital distinction. I would also intreat attention to a few sentences from an admirable paper, first published in a periodical work in 1785, by a gentle man whose eminence in theological knowledge, equalled only by his exalted character for piety and benevolence, has long invested him with the love and veneration of those who have the happiness to know him.

"The distinction between natural and moral INABILITY illustrated.

“Natural inability arises from some object without the will.

"Natural inability is neither praiseworthy nor blame-worthy.

"Natural inability is a sufficient excuse, for not doing any thing required.

inability to do a great deal against the truth, than Joseph's brethren were under a natural inability to speak peaceably to him. He had a natural ability to invent lies, or to oppose the truth; and they had a natural ability to speak the language of peace and brotherly-kindness. But grace was the cause of Paul's moral inability to do any thing against the truth; and envy and spite were the cause of their moral inability to speak friendly to Joseph.

"When we say of a man destitute of an honest principle, that he cannot refrain from cheating, when he has an opportunity of doing it secretly, is not this inability far from affording him any excuse? If some men are so addicted to uncleanness, that they cannot look on a beautiful female, without lusting after her in their hearts; if sonie are so addicted to profaneness, that they that know them are ready to say, they cannot open their mouths without an oath; if some are so given to lying, that they cannot speak the truth; some so revengeful, that they cannot forgive an injury; and many so easily provoked, that they cannot keep their temper if you contradict them; surely such a kind of inability will not be admitted as an excuse, either by God or man. Nor will it avail a sinner, to plead before his future Judge, that his mind was too carnal to bear subjection to the divine law, or his heart so proud that he could not stoop to salvation by grace." Dr. RYLAND'S Remarks on the Different Representations of Evangelical Doctrine, Part II. pp. 19, 23, 24.

I cannot but hope that, upon reconsideration, Mr. Worsley will perceive the justice of revoking his decla rations on the tendency and practical application of true Calvinism, as if it superseded the use of commands, exhortations, arguments, or any methods of rational persuasion, to induce "the wicked to forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts.” All that is wanted is a sincere inclina

"Moral inability is no excuse at all, for any neglect of duty.

"Paul was no more under a natural

of will, disposition, or inclination come? "The thing wanting is, not There are faculties of mind, and a a being able, but a being willing. capacity of nature, and every thing else sufficient, but a DISPOSITION.

[S it permitted to an anxious and (I

trust) sincere inquirer after reli gious truth, to submit to the advocates of Unitarianism a few difficulties which embarrass him in their explication of the Christian doctrine of Atonement; a solution of which he should be much gratified to obtain through the medium of your highly respectable publication?

Unitarians (I believe) reject the Orthodox doctrine of the Atonement, because they conceive that it is to tally inconsistent with the justice and equity of the Supreme Being to "punish sin in a surety; and appoint such a way of salvation as requires an innocent person to suffer in order that the guilty may go unpunished." And it must be allowed that such conduct is directly opposed to all our ideas of justice. Yet they allow that Christ did actually suffer for our benefit: that by his death, "not as the suffering of a substitute but as the seal and ratification of a better covenant," (vide Improved Ver. Matt. xx. 28,) we are ransomed or delivered from the power of sin, and consequently from final perdition. Now,

1. Is it not as inconsistent with the justice and equity of God to permit that an innocent person should suffer for the benefit of a criminal, as that he should suffer in his stead? Or, if the injustice in the former case be not as great (in degree) as in the latter, is it not equally an injustice?

2. Does not the moral government of the world present similar instances of seeming injustice,-nay, even of vicarious sufferings? "Men by their follies" (says Bishop Butler)“ run themselves into extreme distress, which would be fatal to them were it not for the assistance of others. God commands by the law of nature that we should afford them this assistance in many cases where we cannot do it without very great pains, and labour and sufferings to ourselves and we

see in what a variety of ways the personal sufferings of one contribute to the relief of another. ... so that vicarious punishment is a providential employment of every day's experience." (Analogy of Nat. and Rev. Religion, Pt. II. 2.) Are not children often punished (and that before they have done either good or evil) for the sins of their parents?

3. Is not the whole animal creation, though innocent of moral guilt, made subject to pain and death?

If, then, Unitarians admit that the world is under the moral government of a holy and just Being, notwithstanding those seeming anomalies in its administration, why should they reject the Orthodox doctrine of Atonement (certainly the most agreeable to the language of Scripture) on account of similar anomalies, which we find it impossible to reconcile with our notions of the justice and equity of the Almighty?

As these objections, which I have endeavoured to state as briefly as possible, have been often urged, it is not impossible but that they have been satisfactorily answered by some of the able defenders of Unitarian sentiments; in which case it would answer every object which the writer of this has in view, if some of your contributors would point out in what publications they are to be met with, and where they are to be procured.

Note. Would it not be advantageons to the cause of truth, (on which ever side it may rest,) if the principal works in defence of Unitarianism were presented to the National Library at the British Museum? At present only a few of them are to be found in its catalogue, while all that has been written against it are mustered on its shelves.

Unitarianism is the rule, Trinitarianism the exception. This consideration does not appear to have been sufficiently attended to by my neighbour Mr. Le Grice, who, in the papers which he has communicated to you, charges with inconsistency, and even insincerity, Unitarians who attend what he calls Trinitarian worship. For my part, I call that Trinitarian worship which is addressed to the Trinity, or to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: that which is addressed to the Father only, in the name of Christ, I call Unitarian worship; and I appeal to all who are familiar with the Church ritual, to say which of these two modes of worship is the more prevalent there. They must needs answer in favour of the latter, as, indeed, a mere glance at the Prayer-book is sufficient to evince. To whom does the Church lead us in the confession of our sins? From whom does she declare that the penitent receive absolution? Is it not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? And is not the far greater part of all the prayers and thanksgivings addressed to the same Almighty Being, mentioning the name of Christ only as that of the Mediator, through whom we approach his throne? If we pass from the prayers to the praises, and consider the devotional hymus which the Church in general uses, these too will be found to be almost exclusively Unitarian, being plain and scriptural versions of the Psalms, savouring nothing of the dogmas of the creeds and articles. But we may boldly say, that even the creeds themselves are not consistently Trinitarian. The principal creed, the most ancient, and that which alone is required to be believed by lay communicants, is positively Unitarian, and such as no consistent Trinitarian can subscribe. The Apostles' Creed, (as it is called,) runs thus: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. How can such a declaration consist with the opinions of those who might as

well say that they believe in God the Son, maker of heaven and earth? The plain sense of the Creed identifies God with the Almighty Father, and with him exclusively. The Creed proceeds: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, &c. Here we see such an account of our faith in Christ as no honest Trinitarian would ever give it begins and ends with his humanity: of the stupendous doctrines of his deity and pre-existence it says nothing: this, in the mouth of a Trinitarian, would afford a striking instance of that sort of prevarication which, though it tells the truth, does not tell the whole truth. But let us pass to those symbols which were made in later ages, when the glory of the Christian church was already waxing dim, when her miserable divines were groping in the darkness which their own sophistry had produced, and when the arrogance of childish folly conceived the vain attempt of binding the faith of all future generations, by the decisions of a noisy and intriguing council. The faith which was carried by vote in this manner stands recorded in what we call the Nicene Creed; but, according to more modern notions, even this Creed is not orthodox, for as it declares the Son to be only a derived and secondary God, it does not represent him to be equal to the Father, but manifestly inferior to him. And what shall I say more? To the eternal confusion of all those who presumptuously endeavour to forge shackles for the understandings and consciences of others, it is undeniably true that not even the Athanasian Creed itself is consistently Trinitarian; nay, there is a clause in it which is irretrievably Unitarian. It warns us that we must believe in the Trinity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. The word here translated substance, is in the original Greek ería, that is, being or essence. cording to this Creed, therefore, the three persons form but one being, whence it most plainly follows that the word person, (iósaris,) as here used, signifies not what it does in common acceptation, a distinct, intelligent agent, but merely a character or mode of existence; so that the

Ac