The seventeen ponderous volumes of the seraphic doctor, Aquinas, with his learned reveries and mystical refinements, and the twelve folios of his great antagonist, Duns Scotus, now rest undisturbed by the side of the scarcely less weighty lumber of Lully and Paracelsus, filled with grave dissertations on the philosopher's stone, elixirs of life, horoscopes, and planetary correspondences. They are now equally forgotten, or remembered only as proofs of the degraded condition of the human mind in the times of which they were considered the ornament and the boast.

Credulity was the spring of a barbarous philosophy in science, and of an irrational faith in religion. Controversy revived a wakeful distrust; inquiry and truth followed. Articles were examined; imposture was detected; the Scriptures were honoured and brought into use; the understanding was consulted; a process was commenced, which has continued for three hundred years, and is still going on with increased effect. Much rubbish has been removed; much more remains; long creeds have been shortened; they are daily becoming shorter, and it is no vain hope, perhaps, that they may at some future period, be made to approximate the measure and stature of the Scriptures. Free and friendly discussion will hasten the time. Even then christians will have difSo let it be; there is no help for Let them still discuss, and be friends

ferent opinions. it, nor evil in it.

and brethren; let them rejoice, that something is left to employ their powers, try their faith, exercise

their charity, and give an ample scope to their best

virtues.

As Unitarians differ from those, who call themselves orthodox, chiefly in points of doctrine, they have been compelled to engage much in this department of controversy. Charges of heresy, unbelief, denying the Saviour, and perverting the Scriptures, have been poured out upon them with a confidence and self-sufficiency, that bear few marks of the humility inculcated in the Gospel. They have defended themselves, as God has given them strength, against the prejudices of sectarism, the asperity of intolerance, the pretensions of the self-righteous, the subtleties of the ingenious, the arguments of the candid, and the sober objections of the sincere and well informed. They have claimed the privilege of obeying conscience, and of relying on the Scriptures for the truth of their opinions. Yet the same charges continue to be reiterated. When the arguments of Unitarians cannot be confuted, the next step is to question their motives; when such opinions as they openly profess are found impregnable, it is charitably insinuated, that others are concealed, which they dare not publish; when reason proves a feeble or treacherous ally, it is thought honourable to employ the pioneers of censure and reproach. Argument goes out supported by recrimination, and where one fails to produce conviction, the other may succeed to rivet a prejudice. But these are abuses of controversy, which must gradually disappear. The spirit of the times will not long tolerate them; liberty and

reason will be heard, justice and truth will be respected.

The third general topic of religious controversy which relates to the influence of opinion on practice, or the efficacy of belief on the conduct of christians, has been much less tried than either of the two preceding. It has never been pursued with much method, nor to any great extent. Luther and the first Reformers brought it into the affair of indulgencies, works of supererogation, and perhaps some two or three other articles of the Catholic faith. But it has not been so usual to combat error with its tendency and consequences, as with the weapons afforded by first principles and established facts. The doctrines of election, and reprobation, of total depravity and imputed righteousness, have been sometimes examined in regard to their moral tendency by the Arminians, and others opposed to the Calvinistic dogmas; yet the endless controversies about these doctrines have been concerned almost wholly with their foundation and reality.

It was not till less than thirty years ago, that a formal attack was made on any sect of christians, as entertaining an entire system of belief unfriendly to morals, and destructive of piety. Mr. Andrew Fuller was the first, it is believed, who thought it his duty to descend to this ungracious task, in his indiscriminate assault on Unitarians. His book was not without ability, nor more remarkable for the author's talent at popular declamation, than for his limited acquaintance with the grounds of the Unitarian belief, and his unguarded assertions; for his as

sumption of facts, which never existed, and his deduction of consequences, which never could follow.

The argumentative part of this work, which, indeed, was a very small part of the whole, was confuted in two short treatises, one by Dr. Toulmin, and the other by Mr. Kentish. To the declamation, rhapsody, and rashness, no reply was made, as none was necessary. The subject has been more recently touched in an eloquent sermon by Mr. Fox, but without any direct bearing on the controversy at large. In this country you are the first sumed, who has imitated the example of Mr. Fuller. You have taken up the subject on the same grounds, and pursued it in nearly the same track. Starting with similar positions, you make similar inferences, in both of which I think you are under mistake. I believe you err in supposing Unitarianism to be the fountain of all evil, and Calvinism of all good. My reasons will appear in the sequel.

person,

it is pre

By maintaining, that Unitarians are not christians, that their religious faith is false, and that it sanctions and encourages a wicked life, you have done as much as could be done to compel them to speak in their defence. He would be strangely indifferent to the value of his own character, as well as of his religion, who should be reluctant to defend himself against such charges. The controversy, it is true, carries with it somewhat of an invidious aspect. It is no pleasant duty to search out the weaknesses of our brethren, nor to show how imperfectly their professions agree with their practice; and much less to

look around and select a few persons, whom, with ourselves, we pronounce to be more holy than oth

ers.

To prove, that any system of faith has a bad tendency is much the same as proving, that he who receives it is bad in consequence of his faith. And who would delight in such a work? We may hence learn, that, in this discussion, principles should be kept as distinct as possible from men, and that whatever may be proved to be the tendency of any doctrine, its actual effects should not be estimated except in connexion with other doctrines, and the peculiar circumstances of every person, who is judged by his opinions.

My chief purpose will be to make it manifest, that the faith and morals of Unitarians are not worthy of the odium, which your charges were calculated, and, as far as appears, designed to cast on them. The best manner of prosecuting this purpose undoubtedly is, to compare these with the faith and morals of Calvinists, or of other christians, at the same time that we apply the strength of argument to abstract principles. The subject naturally appeals to such a comparison, as the question is not, which party is perfect, but which is the most defective in consequence of its faith, and whether any one is to be pointed at, and denounced, and condemned, by all the rest.

An investigation of this sort, conducted with a proper spirit, cannot fail to terminate in beneficial results. How far the following treatise will bear