pious as yourself, with having embraced "dreadful and soul destroying errors," and "destructive heresies ;" and in affirming, that they " cannot be regarded as christians in any correct sense of the word, or as any more in the way of salvation, than Mohammedans or Jews;" that their "preachers all over the world are most acceptable to the gay, the fashionable, the worldly minded, and even the licentious;' that " they are not in the smallest perceptible degree sanctified by their system;" and that among them, you "look in vain for the monuments of its reforming and purifying power?" Do you suppose these expressions peculiarly calculated to soften the temper of those against whom they are directed, to draw them over to conciliation and mildness, or to teach them to search for soft and soothing phrases? Would any one be thought serious, who should take such a course under circumstances like these?

An attack, which involved the opinions, motives, conduct, and character of the persons on whom it was made; which aimed a destroying blow at every thing most valuable in life, and most consoling in prospect; such an attack, you could hardly suppose would be gently repelled. His sensibility is not to be envied, who could feel no shock from it. Every man is bound to defend his reputation; on this depends the dignity of his character, and his usefulness in life; when this is gone, nothing worth having remains. Had your attack extended to Unitarians only as members of civil society, they would have no ordinary grounds of complaint. As it is, the case

is more aggravating; you come down particularly on their religious character; you accuse them of immorality in consequence of spiritual blindness and religious errors; the principles of their faith you represent to be peculiarly grateful to the loose and irreligious; they have no reforming power; their efficacy is not seen in the lives of those, who embrace them.

We should truly not deserve the privileges of christians, if we could recognize ourselves in the picture, which you have drawn. If our apathy were so great, as not to be excited by this exhibition, we might well suspect the truth, power, and nature of our religion. But even you allow us to be sincere. Would you allow it any longer, if we could acquiesce in the justice of your charges? Can we be sincere in adopting principles of moral action, and of piety, and in offering a service to our Maker, which we know to be offensive in his sight? Can we be sincere, in abetting a religion, which we are sure is working our ruin? This is not possible. If we are sincere in any thing, it must be in what we believe to be the principles of a pure and holy religion, the truth as it is in Jesus, and in holding a faith, which we conceive will be the surest means of fixing the stamp of virtue and holiness on our characters, and of preparing us for realizing the hopes of a glorious immortality. To suppose a believer in Jesus sincere in pursuing the course, which you have ascribed to Unitarians, is absurd; and if we are sincere in what we believe to be the true faith, and the great duties and obligations of the christian religion, we must think,--every princi

ple of our nature compels us to think,-that the mode in which you have attacked us is singularly unjust

and indefensible.

In your Reply, you have deserted the ground first taken, and which was the topic of discussion in my last letter. The subject in its original shape, as we have fully seen, related to the moral character of Unitarians; and your remarks on that point only, were all, which you were desired to explain and substantiate. This was more than once expressly stated. You were called on to give 66 some reasons for your violent attack on the morals and religious character” of Unitarians. This request has not been met, nor the subject scarcely touched.

But have entered on a broader and very dif

you

ferent field, by turning from character to the nature and tendency of opinions. This was setting aside the main purpose of inquiry. It was desired that you would point to some example; describe the state of morals among Unitarians where they are united in separate bodies; examine their institutions; refer to some authentic historical record; to the general sentiment of mankind; or, indeed, bring forward any sort of testimony, which should justify you in making charges of so serious an aspect against a whole denomination of christians. This has not been done, nor attempted.

As to the tendency of opinions, it is quite another thing; it is to be settled by examination of principles and by argument, and may be decided either way without impeaching any one's character. But actual

effects must be substantiated by positive proof. To charge immorality, is to assert a fact; evidence is demanded; immorality consists not in an opinion, but in visible acts, which may be cited. This you have not done; you have referred to no class of Unitaritarians more wicked as a class, than their brethren of other denominations. You have singled them out, as prominent on the list of evil doers. Make it appear, by adducing facts, and they will be satisfied. Until you do, they must continue to think, that you have accused them wrongfully, and injured them without a cause.

A portion of your Reply is occupied in endeavouring to show the suitableness of the occasion, which you embraced for delivering the sentiments contained in your Sermon. To this I have little to say. It is natural however, to ask what good effect was likely to be produced by such unqualified and unauthenticated censures? The religion of the Saviour is a religion of peace, brotherly love, good will, kindness, affection. These virtues he has commanded all men to practise, and made it the great characteristic of his true followers, that they love one another. Could the charges in your Sermon against Unitarians produce this effect? Would your hearers or readers be more ready to love those of whom so revolting a picture was drawn, and who were denounced with so much earnestness? And would the persons themselves, who were portrayed in such colours, have their tempers improved, their good feelings called forth, and the holy charities of their nature

multiplied and strengthened, by listening to the language in which they were described? When all the rules of moral perception, and all the laws of virtue, and all the principles of human nature, are inverted, you may expect such a result, and not before. Such descriptions might move the uninformed and the prejudiced, to shun, reproach, and hate Unitarians, but they could never excite an emotion of christian love.

There is another thing, also, which must have some weight on every fair mind. The Unitarians of the city where your Sermon was preached, had recently associated themselves into a regularly organized body for the purpose of worshipping God in such a way, as their consciences should dictate, their understanding direct, and as they should believe the Scriptures to teach. In doing this, they conformed to the laws of their country, as well as to the laws of religion. They asked no favours, they claimed no privileges, which others did not enjoy. They set up no pretensions, which they did not cheerfully allow to others; they asked no more, than to be left in quiet possession of the Bible, to be unmolested in searching for the truths, which it contains, in conforming to the instructions of the Saviour, and in seeking the salvation of their souls, by obeying his laws, and striving to render an acceptable service to their Maker. Notwithstanding this, it is well known, that public sentiment has been unreasonably excited against them. Their enemies have been busy to misrepresent, the credulous have been ready to believe, the timid to shudder with alarms, the ignorant to denounce, and