good end to be anfwered by it: but that, in the cafe of the finally impenitent, this end fhould neceffarily include the good of the offender, is as contrary to reafon, as it is to fcripture. It does not appear from any thing we know of governments either human or divine, that the good of the offender is neceffarily, and in all cafes, the end of punishment. When a murderer is executed, it is neceffary for the good of the community; but it would found very ftrange to fay it was neceffary for his own good; and that unless his good were promoted by it, as well as that of the community, it must be an act of cruelty!

Secondly, That there are cafes in human governments, in which it is right and neceffary to relax in the execution of the fentence of the law, is alfo admitted. But this arifes from the imperfection of human laws. Laws are general rules for the conduct of a community, with fuitable punishments annexed to the breach of them. But no general rules can be made by men, that will apply to every particular cafe. If legiflators were wife and good men, and could forefee every particular cafe that would arife in the different ftages of fociety, they would fo frame their laws as that they need not be relaxed when thofe cafes fhould occur. But God is wife and good; and, previous to his giving us the law which requires us to love him with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves, knew every change that could

poffibly arife, and every cafe that could occur. The queftion therefore is not, "If in any parti"cular cafe the ftrict execution of the law would "do more harm than good, whether it ought not "to be remitted;" but, whether an omnifcient, wife, and good law-giver, can be fuppofed to have made a law, the penalty of which, if put in execution, would do more harm than good? Would a Being of fuch a character make a law, the penalty of which, according to ftrict equity, requires to be remitted; a law which he could not in juftice abide by, and that not only in a few fingular cafes, but in the cafe of every individual, in every age, to whom it is given?

It is poffible thefe confiderations may fuffice to fhow that the divine law is not relaxed; but, be that as it may, the queftion at iffue is, what is the moral tendency of fuppofing that it is? To relax a bad law would indeed have a good effect, and to abrogate it would have a better; but not fo refpecting a good one. If the divine law be what the fcripture fays it is, holy, juft, and good; to relax it in the precept, or even to mitigate the penalty, without fome expedient to fecure its honours, must be fubverfive of good order; and the fcheme which pleads for fuch relaxation must be unfavourable to holinefs, juftice, and goodness. I am, &c.

LETTER VI.

THE SYSTEMS COMPARED, AS TO THEIR TENDENCY TO

PROMOTE MORALITY IN GENERAL.

Christian Brethren,

WHAT has been advanced in the last

Letter on the ftandard of morality, may ferve to fix the meaning of the term in this. The term morality, you know, is fometimes afed to exprefs thofe duties which fubfift between men and men, and in this acceptation ftands diftinguished from religion; but I mean to include under it the whole of what is contained in the moral law.

Nothing is more common than for the adverfaries of the calviniftic fyftem to charge it with immorality; nay, as if this were felf-evident, they feem to think themselves excufed from advancing any thing like fober evidence to fupport the charge. Virulence, rant, and extravagance, are the weapons with which we are not unfrequently combated in this warfare. "I challenge the whole

body and being of moral evil itfelf," fays a writer of the present day,*" to invent, or infpire, or whisper any thing blacker or more wicked: if fin itself had all the wit, the tongues, yea, "and pens of all men and angels, to all eternity,

Lewelyn's Tracts, p. 292.

"I defy the whole to say any thing of God "worfe than this. O fin, thou haft fpent and "emptied thyfelf in the doctrine of John Cal"vin! And here I rejoice that I have heard "the utmoft that malevolence itfelf fhall ever "be able to fay against infinite benignity! I was myfelf brought up and tutored in it, and

being delivered, and brought to see the evil "and danger, am bound by my obligations to "God, angels, and men, to warn my fellow"finners; I therefore here, before God, and

the whole univerfe, recal and condemn every "word I have fpoken in favour of it. I thus renounce the doctrine as the rancour of devils; a doctrine, the preaching of which is babbling " and mocking, its prayers blafphemy, and "whofe praifes are the horrible yellings of fin " and hell. And this I do becaufe I know and "believe that God is love; and therefore his "decrees, works, and ways, are alfo love, and cannot be otherwife." It were ill-fpent time to attempt an answer to fuch unfounded calumny as this, which certainly partakes much more of the ravings of infanity, than of the words of truth and fobernefs: yet this, according to the Monthly Review, is, "The true colouring of the doctrine of Calvinifm. Had any thing like

Ꮮ.

Review for July 1792, p. 266.

this been written by a Calvinift againft Socinianifm, the Reviewers would have been the first to have exclaimed againft calviniftic illiberality.

This gentleman profeffes to have been a calvinift, and fo does Dr. Prieftley. The calvinifin of the latter, however, feems to have left an impreffion upon his mind very different from the above.

"Whether it be owing to my calviniftical education, (fays he) or my confidering "the principles of calvinifm as generally fa"vourable to that leading virtue, devotion, or "to their being fomething akin to the doctrine of neceffity, I cannot but acknowledge, that, notwithstanding what I have occasionally writ"ten against that fyftem, and which I am far "from withing to retract, I feel myself disposed

46

to look upon calvinifts with a kind of respect, "and could never join in the contempt and "infult with which I have often heard them "treated in converfation."†

But Dr. Priestley, I may be told, whatever good opinion he may have of the piety and virtue of calvinifts, has a very ill opinion of calvinifm; and this, in a certain degree, is true. Dr. Priestley, however, would not fay that, "The preach' ing of that fyftem was babbling and mocking, "its prayers blafphemy, or its praises the hor

• The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity illustrated, p. 163.