tice, and good faith; and especially it is due to the persons who have been injured by this censure, whether intentionally or not, it is due to them, that some testimony should be advanced in its support, and some reasons assigned for so violent an attack on their morals, and their religious character. This is what they have a right to expect and demand.

LETTER IV.

Charges against the Opinions of Unitarians.

SIR,

I HAVE perused your Reply to a letter lately addressed to you, respecting certain charges against the moral character of Unitarians, contained in your Ordination Sermon. This Reply is of a nature, which requires a continuation of my remarks. I agree entirely with you, that the cause of truth and righteousness will not suffer, but rather be promoted, by fair Without investigation and temperate discussion.

these, few truths, which are of any value, can be rationally and permanently established. It is only the flimsy texture of error, that will crumble and decay at the touch. It is only the counterfeit coin, that will be tarnished by the purifying test. And so with opinions; what is false may be detected and exposed by inquiry and argument; truth will stand

more firm, assume a statelier majesty, and shine with a brighter lustre.

For these reasons I do not regret, that you have imposed on me the necessity of speaking more at large on the subject of your charges against Unitarians. I should consider myself guilty of a culpable indifference and neglect, not to defend, when occasion requires, such opinions, and especially religious opinions, as I have adopted from a conviction of their truth. And if, in addition to this, I should not be prompt to repel unprovoked and unwarrantable attacks on my moral character, I should feel, that I had as little respect for myself, as love of virtue, and regard for religion.

You complain with some warmth of the kind of language used in my letter; you think it harsh and disrespectful. Of this I am not aware. Applied to your general character, it possibly might be so; but it was not thus applied; it was used with exclusive reference to your Sermon. The writer was not obliged to know any thing more of your character, while commenting on that discourse, than he found there displayed; and if he did know more, it was not his duty to let this knowledge betray him into language, which would not express his sentiments, to the exclusion of that, which he was conscious the nature of the subject imperiously demanded.

Besides, you seem to forget the provocation. Or have you seriously persuaded yourself, that there is nothing offensive in charging men, who feel that they are as sincere, as conscientious, as virtuous, and as

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 "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 you have entered on a broader and very different 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