There are none who would not choose to have their faith designated simply by the name which is common to us all,-Christians. And he who, for a moment, gives a preference to the peculiarities of his own individual opinions, over the great principles of the Gospel as it is held by the church universal, has departed from the simplicity there is in Christ, and is guilty of a wrong to the cause of his master. But there is no inconsistency with this, in submitting to be called by such names as shall denote not only that we are Christians, but what sort of Christians we are. For it is as well to let our differences as our agreement appear. Truth is injured, not served, by merging the former under a pretence of promoting the latter. Fair and free discussion may eventually diminish our differences. But such discussion requires that these differences be well known and distinctly designated.

It is somewhat too common at the present time, to show great sensitiveness about party names. Objections are raised to useful associations because of the name they wear. And individuals are uneasy when they are called by the name which usage has made appropriate for such, as hold the opinions which they are supposed to prefer. For example, the term Unitarian is obnoxious to many, more than the peculiarities it indicates. Greater hinderance to the diffusion of religious truth is by nothing occasioned, than by the odium which is attached to that name, not merely through the misrepresentations of opponents, but the prejudices and fears of friends. If the peculiar opinions of Unitarians be of a kind which is favorable, beyond most others, to the interests of general Christianity, shall they who think so be ashamed or afraid to own it? And if they are not of this description, and

we err in our estimate of their value, are we unwilling that the world should have the best chance for finding out and correcting the error?--Whence originated the name is of no consequence. The name itself is, by itself, of no importance. But names and things go hand in hand. He who quarrels with the one, is apt to become an enemy to the other.

It is surely no fair ground of complaint, that men should always tell what they mean to do, in every plan which seeks the public support. The more explicit the avowal, the better. If a society be established for the purpose of disseminating and defending not only Christianity generally, but that form of christian doctrine which is thought the purest, can the founders have done wrong in assuming as their title, an appellation which shows the nature of their institution? If Unitarian Christianity be the uncorrupt Gospel, is it disloyalty to Christ to submit to be called a Unitarian? And yet this very circumstance, of taking the name Unitarian, is made an occasion of opposition to those who seek to promote Unitarianism, by such too as are not unwilling that Unitarianism should have free course.

It is not the name, but the spirit of a party, of which we ought to be jealous. We do mischief, not merely by being of a party, but by making too much of it; by allowing differences to make us forgetful of agreement; by hard speeches, and cruel surmises, and an exclusive temper; by unjust and uncharitable expedients to increase our own, or diminish the influence of others; by seeking the establishment of truth and the removal of error in any manner which shall tend to destroy those virtues, of which it is the chief glory of truth, to be the protector and support.

THE

UNITARIAN ADVOCATE.

VOL. III.

MARCH, 1829.

No. III.

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS ON THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE BETWEEN ORTHODOX AND LIBERAL CHRISTIANS.

NO. IV.

ON THE FIVE POINTS OF CALVINISM.

THE celebrated five points of Calvinism are the following; total depravity, election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and the final perseverance of saints. It has been justly observed that "the two first only are fundamental doctrines, of which the three last are necessary consequences." The consequences, however, are none the less liable to their separate and particular objec

But as I propose to confine myself to questions at issue between Orthodox and Liberal Christians, I shall not think it necessary to offer anything more than a passing remark or two on the doctrines of particular redemption, and the saints' perseverance.

Particular redemption, or the limitation of the atonement, both in its design and efficacy, to the elect, is a doctrine which has long since been discarded by the Calvinists of New England. Indeed, the Orthodox Churches of New England are about as improperly called Calvinistic, as they are, in common parlance among the mass of

our people, denominated Presbyterians. It is worth while to remark, though it be only for the sake of correcting an extending verbal inaccuracy, that there are not above a dozen or twenty Presbyterian Churches in New England. And it is more important to observe for the sake of correcting an error in the minds of the people, that there is probably, in strictness of speech, not one Calvinistic Church in the ancient dominion of the Puritans. Every one of the five points has been essentially modified-has been changed from what it originally was. Depravity is no longer an inability to obey the Gospel ; and election is no longer absolute, and irrespective of good works; and particular redemption is not believed at all; and irresistible grace is not held to be, strictly speaking, irresistible; and perseverance is little else but persevering.

But to return; the doctrine of particular redemption deserves to be noticed, as an instance of that attempt at mathematical precision, which, as I think, is a distinguishing trait of Calvinism, and which has done so much harm to the theological speculations of this country. I shall have occasion to refer to this kind of reasoning again. In the instance before us, it appears in the following shape. Sinners, it was said, had incurred a debt to divine justice; they owed a certain amount of suffering. Jesus Christ undertook, in behalf of the elect, to pay this debt. Now, if he had suffered more,-paid more, than was necessary to satisfy this particular demand, there would have been a waste of suffering, a waste of this transferable merit, commonly called, vicarious. But there was no such waste; the suffering exactly met the demand; and therefore, the redemption was particular; it was limited to the elect-no others

could be saved, without another atonement. This was, once, theological reasoning! And to dispute it, was held to be intolerable presumption. Such presumption severed, for a time, the New England churches from their southern brethren. Such a dispute, with one or two others like it, came near to rending the Presbyterian church asunder.

Let us now say a word, on the doctrine of the saints' perseverance. If you separate from this, the idea of an irresistible grace, impelling, and, as it were, compelling Christians to persevere in piety and virtue, there is little, perhaps, to object to it. It is so separated in the present Orthodox belief, and therefore, it is scarcely a question in controversy. We all believe, that a man who has become once thoroughly and heartily interested in the true gospel, doctrine, character, and glory of Jesus Christ, is very likely to persevere and grow in that interest. I confess, that my own conviction on this point, is very strong, and scarcely falls short of any language in which the doctrine of perseverance is declared. I can hardly conceive, how a man who has once fully opened his eyes upon that "Light," should ever be willing to close them. And I believe, that in proportion as the Gospel is understood and felt-searched out and felt in all its deep fountains of peace and consolation, understood in all its yet coming revelations and unfoldings of purity and moral -beauty-that in proportion to this, the instances of "falling away," whether into infidelity or worldliness, will be more and more rare. I am aware, however, and think it ought to be said, that the common statements of the doctrine of perseverance are dangerous to the unreflecting and to the speculative. The truth is, that we ought to