principles, do I think that there is the leaft reafon to conclude, that (if we feparate what belongs to the form, from what is peculiar to the power of religion) their scheme has any one proper advantage for religious and moral purposes. On the other hand, it seems to me to be, in many respects, unfavourable to the true spirit of christianity, or to that temper and disposition of mind which is peculiarly called chriftian; confifting, in a more especial manner, of the virtues of humility, meekness, mercy, and benevolence. It is unfavourable alfo to genuine piety, and indeed to every branch of vital practical religion. I think I could point out the caufe of this, but it would lead me much farther than I propose to enter into this fubject at present.

If I be asked why thofe perfons who hold these opinions are not abandoned to all wickedness, when they evidently Jay them under fo little restraint, I answer, that this is often the case, with those who pursue these principles to their just and fatal confequences; for it is eafy to prove, that the Antinomian is the only confiftent abfolute Predeftinarian. But our wife creator has by no means left our moral conduct at the mercy of our opinions; and the regard to virtue that is kept up by those who maintain the doctrines above mentioned, is owing to the influence of fome principles implanted in our frame; which, in many cafes, will not fuffer us to follow, or even to perceive, the immoral tendency of the most licentious opinions; fo that, in general, they are only those who are previously depraved, that openly avail themselves of them. The confideration of this fhould make us both humble and thankful.

Befides, the opinions above recited are fo contrary to natural reason, and the general tenor of the fcriptures, that better fentiments are continually obtruding themselves upon the mind; and these are the principles that, really, though fecretly, influence the conduct of those who are truly pious and virtuous among Calvinifts; and by no means the principles which they openly profess, when they are queftioned about them and it is happy that they do not diftinctly perceive

the

the inconsistency there is between their principles and their conduct. We are, alfo, fo formed, that we naturally turn our chief attention to the most favourable aspect of our sentiments, as well as of every thing else belonging to us; fo that we seldom attend to what is very fhocking, and has a bad tendency in them.

It confirms this obfervation, that many of the more moderate Calvinists, as I am informed, and the greater part of the Methodists, feldom infift upon the doctrines of abfolute election and reprobation, especially in their public difcourfes. This must be owing to their being fecretly diffatisfied with them, to fome latent fufpicion, or confused kind of feeling, that they are not to be depended upon; at least that they are not fit to be the subjects of frequent meditation with the bulk of mankind, and that they are in great danger of being abused. Mr. Venn himself, though he makes a great parade of, I believe, every other branch of what he calls orthodoxy, in his anfwer to my treatife, is quite filent on this head. If his good fenfe be really staggered at these doctrines, a little more thinking will give him reason to entertain fufpicions of the reft: for the whole system is closely connected, and the doctrine of unconditional election, together with that of the subjection of the whole human race to the everlasting wrath of God, on account of original sın, are the chief corner ftones of the whole building. Take away these, and the whole complex, but compact fabric, falls to the ground.

Difficult as it is to account for the virtue of those who call themselves orthodox on the principles mentioned above, they are fuch as themselves muft neceffarily allow for they confider our fentiments as exceedingly licentious; and yet (whatever Mr. Venn may do) I know there are among them, who cannot help acknowledging, that there are genuine marks of unfeigned piety and goodness among those whom they call new fchemers. To account for this fact, therefore, they must have recourfe to the influence of principles that are not explicitly avowed by us, just as I do with respect to them.

SECTION

SECTION IV.

Of the Caufes of Difference of Opinion, and the Reading of the Scriptures recommended.

I

CANNOT help wishing that perfons of all fects and parties would study their bibles more, and books of controverfy lefs. But all perfons have their favourite authors, to which they too much confine themselves, even to the neglect of those authorities, from their agreement with which all their merit is acknowledged to be derived. Were it not for this circumftance, it would be abfolutely impoffible that the individuals of mankind, whofe intellects are so much alike, fhould differ fo widely in their religious fentiments as they now do; at least that they should lay so great a stress on the points in which they differ.

fo

Since the understandings of men are fimilar to one another (at least so much, as that no perfon can seriously maintain that two and two make five) did they actually read only the fame books, and had they no previous knowledge to mislead them, they could not but draw the fame general conclufions from the fame expreffions. But one man having formed an hypothefis from reading the fcriptures, another, who follows him, ftudies that hypothefis, and refines upon it, and another again refines upon him; till, in time, the fcriptures themselves are little read by any of them; and are never looked into but with minds prepoffeffed with the notions of others concerning them. At the fame time, feveral other original readers and thinkers, having formed as many other hypothefes, each of them a little different from all the rest, and all of them being improved upon by a fucceffion of partifans, each of whom contributes to widen the difference; at last no religions whatever, the most distinct originally, are more different from one another, than the various forms of one and the fame religion.

To remedy this inconvenience, we muft go back to first principles. We must begin again, each of us carefully ftudying

ftudying the scriptures for ourselves, without the help of commentators, comparing one part with another. And when our minds fhall, by this means, have been exposed, for a sufficient time, to the fame influences, we shall come to think and feel in the fame manner. At least, all chriftians, being fenfible that they have, in many, and in the chief respects, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, they will keep the unity of the fpirit, in the bond of peace.

In reading books of controversy, the particular texts, from which favourite opinions are chiefly inferred, are kept continually in view, while others are kept out of fight; fo that the perfon who confines himself to the perufal of them, neceffarily forms a very wrong notion of the general tenor of the fcriptures, and lays a disproportionate stress on particular opinions. He never looks into the fcriptures, but it is with a state of mind that leads him to expect to find his opinions either clearly expreffed, or plainly referred to, in every chapter. Now, it is well known, that all strong expectations tend to fatisfy themselves. Men easily perfuade themselves that they actually fee, what they have absolutely depended upon seeing.

Were it poffible for a number of perfons to make but an effay towards complying with this advice, by confining themselves, for the compass of a fingle year, to the daily reading of the scriptures only, without any other religious books whatever; I am perfuaded that, notwithstanding their previous differences, they would think much better of one another than they had done before. They would all have, more nearly, the fame general ideas of the contents of fcripture; and of the chief articles of chriftian faith and duty. By reading the whole themfelves, they could hardly avoid receiving the deepeft impreffions of the certainty, and importance of the great and leading principles, thofe which they would find the most frequently and earnestly inculcated; and their particular opinions, having come lefs frequently in view, would be less obftinately retained. It was in this. manner, I can truly fay, that I formed the most distinguishing of my opinions in religion.

I do

I do not say that this practice would have the same effect with all perfons. I have no hopes of its fucceeding with those who are advanced in life. I would not even recommend it to them; fince the confequence of unhinging their minds, though by a converfion from error to truth, might poffibly do them more harm than good. Nor have I have much hope of those who are hackneyed in controverfy, and to whom the methods of attack and defence, peculiar to any fyftem, are become familiar. But I would earnestly recommend this method of studying the fcriptures to young perfons, before their common fenfe and natural feelings have been perverted; and while they are capable of understanding the obvious meaning of a plain expreffion.

In this cafe I cannot help thinking, that, notwithstanding the feeming force of the texts that are continually in the mouths of those who call themfelves orthodox; and notwithstanding our present tranflation of the bible, which (being made by men who were fully perfuaded of the truth of that fyftem) is, in many places, much too favourable to it; yet that both the general tenor of the whole (which, with a perfon who reads the fcriptures much, cannot but have far greater weight than any particular texts whatever) and also that numbers of emphatical single passages, would effectually over-rule any tendency to that which is commonly called orthodoxy.

To mention a fingle inftance. Would not a constant attention to the general ftrain in which Mofes, all the antient prophets, John the Baptift, our Saviour, and the apostles, addrefs finners, wear out, in time, every trace of the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation? The language in which the Divine Being is uniformly reprefented in speaking, is, As I live, faith the Lord, I would not the death of a finner, but had rather that he would repent and live. Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die, oh houfe of Ifrael. What a folemn, and cruel mocking of mankind would this be, if the Divine Being, at the fame time that he made this declaration, was purpofed that many, if not the greatest part of them, should not repent, but die without mercy?

SECTION