all have been inclined to look on Unitarians with an eye of distrust and aversion. Under such circumstances, and conscious of the purity of their motives, and of their responsibility to God, they could hardly deem it a mark of christian kindness in any one to hold them up as worthy of public censure, dangerous to society, unsound in faith, and immoral in their conduct.

you

But you say, "allow me to ask, are Unitarians in the habit of being very scrupulous about bringing forward their peculiar opinions on public and special occasions, and even in preaching ordination sermons ?" This question, it is presumed, every Unitarian will joyfully answer in the negative. The time will never come, it is hoped, when Unitarians will be “ scrupulous about bringing forward their peculiar opinions" in any place. And what is this to the purpose? No one has complained, that should enforce your peculiar opinions in such a place and manner as you choose. That charges were made against the character of others was the complaint, and not that you attacked their opinions or published your own. On what occasion has a Unitarian preacher done this? Never. Look over their printed discourses, consult as many persons, as you will, who have heard such as have not been printed, and then show me a single example in which the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, or any other sect, have been selected and denounced, as peculiarly immoral from the nature of their religious faith, or from any other cause; show me but one example, and I will give up the argu

ment. You can find none. But suppose you could; suppose it were true, that Presbyterians, or any other body of christians, have been denounced and accused of immorality by Unitarian preachers, it would not readily appear, how such an outrage could justify any one in following their steps.

It is time, however to dismiss this part of the subject, and to come more directly to the points, which remain for discussion. In removing your charges from the moral character of Unitarians, and fixing them on the tendency of their principles and opinions, you have rendered them much more indefinite, and connected with them many additional topics. Several of the particulars, incorporated with your remarks on the evil tendency of Unitarian sentiments, it will be necessary to examine with considerable attention; such, for instance, as your statements concerning the christian name, the nature and objects of christian charity, and the opinions and characters of some of the most distinguished English Unitarians. The extraordinary errors, into which I think you have fallen in treating of these topics, seem to serve as a kind of support in your mind of other errors more important, and not less extraordinary, respecting the principles and tendency of Unitarian doctrines. To correct the former, will aid in some degree to remove the latter.

You charge Unitarians with denying all the essential doctrines of the christian religion, and with embracing in their room sentiments, whose influence drives them naturally into irreligion and immorality.

Some of these sentiments, which are deemed most offensive and objectionable, you particularize. Such will be distinctly examined. In considering this charge in its proper latitude and various bearings, and in testing the accuracy of your views and statements, I shall pursue the following method.

I. Inquire into the import of the christian name; pointing out the evils of confining it to particular sects, and examining on what authority any person assumes the right of denying it to those, who believe in the Gospel, and in the divine mission of Christ. Inquire, also, into the nature of charity as explained in the Scriptures, and practised by the first christians, showing the weak and unscriptural pretence on which some of the orthodox would limit its operation to the few of a favourite party.

II. Consider the doctrine of the trinity, its origin, meaning, and authority, and especially its moral tendency. Also, the doctrine of atonement, as understood by different christians, and the comparative influence of Unitarian and orthodox views in relation to the character of God, the pious affections, and the practical virtues.

III. A general comparison between the doctrines of Unitarianism and Calvinism in regard to their moral tendency; embracing the views entertained by each party of the depravity of man; of conversion and divine influence; of election, particular redemption, and perseverance; the doctrines of future punishment and annihilation; and the tendency of Calvinism to suppress free inquiry, discourage the

study of the Scriptures, and retard the progress of religious knowledge.

IV. An inquiry into the sentiments of celebrated English Unitarians, with proofs, that any charges against their religious opinions, as having an immoral tendency on their lives and conduct, are groundless and unjust; and that there is the strongest evidence of their honesty, sincerity, veracity, independence, christian temper, and christian practice.

A full and mature consideration of these several topics will prepare us for the conclusion, that Calvinistic orthodoxy has no claims to the high pre-eminence to which you would raise it, either as a rational and consistent system of faith, a guardian of morals, or a promoter of piety. It will, moreover, enable every impartial inquirer to divest Unitarianism of the ill shapen, frightful garb, in which your fancy has clothed it, and to behold under that hideous covering the fair proportions, majestic nature, and commanding aspect, of a pure christian faith, where reason, and truth, and scripture, and charity combine to add dignity and grace. The conclusion it is hoped will also be very obvious, that there may be pious and good christians under both forms of faith; that it is quite as important for believers to love God and their brethren, as to have an orthodox creed; and that the rewards of salvation depend on the deeds done in the body, and the virtues that dwell in the heart, more than on the ever varying opinions that float in the mind, or the dreams that play in the fancy,

PART II.

CHRISTIAN NAME AND CHARITY.

LETTER I.

Import of the Christian Name, and the Evils of confining it to particular Sects.

N

SIR,

In the present letter I am to inquire into the grounds, on which you deny to Unitarians the name of Christians. At first view, this subject does not seem to be of much importance. Names do not alter things, and whatever any one may choose to call us, we shall still be the same. But many things derive their importance as much from their consequences, as their nature. Although names are nothing in themselves, yet when they misrepresent our motives, sentiments, and characters, they are not so trifling, or unworthy of consideration, as might at first be imagined.

Our reputation in the world depends on the opinion of others. If this opinion be perverted, or ill