clay and John Wesley; and so is every man, who has a mind of his own. While the liberty of thought and speech remains, while christians are mortal and fallible, controversy will never cease, and it would be an injury to religion if it should. If there be any chance of truth in this world of uncertainty, it must

be from the collision of opinion. Accidental harmony of thought, and sentiment, and motive, and design, among any number of men, is not to be expected; it is not consistent with the laws of human nature. It is only by comparison and discussion, that

hope to approximate a uniformity of opinion, especially on subjects in themselves obscure and intricate.*

Every individual has separate interests and views. The social principle unites some; similarity of habits, and affinity of religious belief, unite others. But when the best is done, there will and must be divisions. These are apt to provoke the passions; they are unfriendly to charity; they sometimes trouble the fountains and obstruct the channels of kind feeling and forbearance. Such are the evils of sects and parties in religion, and deplorable indeed would they be, if the good did not, after all, greatly pre

*The benefits of controversy are well expressed in the following words of Dr. Lardner. "Its effects will be," he observes, "that we shall all better understand our Bible. Possibly some errors may be mixed with our faith, which, by this means, may be separated, and our faith become more pure. Being more confirmed in the truth of our religion, we shall be more perfect in the duties of it. Instead of being unthinking and nominal, we shall become more generally serious and real christians." Such cannot fail to be the good effects of religious controversy, when properly conducted.

ponderate. The differences of party are themselves productive of good; more opportunities are offered for practising the christian virtues, trying the character, and proving our sincerity, than we could possibly have, if all were of one mind and one purpose. Each party is compelled, by the watchfulness of others, to be more cautious in belief, and circumspect in practice; more inquisitive after knowledge, and zealous in good works.

There is one class of christians only to whom controversy, or religious enquiry and discussion, can be of no service. Those persons who have bound themselves to a written system of faith, in the shape of a creed or confession, which they are resolved never to forsake, or which they engage by a solemn covenant always to support, as in the case of many clergymen, church members, and professors in theological institutions; such persons cannot possibly expect or hope to gain any thing by examining their opinions, and comparing them with those of others, and with the standard of the Scriptures. To change a single sentiment would be a violation of their covenant, and a crime. What conscientious man will allow the suspicion to enter his mind, that any thing can be wrong in a faith, which, in the most solemn manner, he has pledged his veracity and conscience to cherish and support? He may defend his adopted creed, and rally round the system to which he is chained, with all the aids in his power, but he cannot go a step further. He cannot open his mind to a new truth, nor suffer himself to concede, that an

opponent's argument can have any weight, or his opinions any claim to respect. This would be to distrust the grounds of his own faith, and to betray the guilt of doubting, where he has made a sacred engagement never to doubt. What advantage can a person, thus cramped and bound, derive from an examination of religious subjects? The public may be benefited by knowing his sentiments, and his mode of explaining and defending them; but, as for himself, his journey will be a circle; he will end where he began.

The subjects of religious controversy may be arranged under three general topics; first, the nature of a christian church and the modes of worship; secondly, the truth of doctrines as articles of faith; thirdly, the influence of belief on practice. A few remarks on these respectively, will show us how the charges against Unitarians stand in regard to each, and prepare us for our future inquiries.

The first of these topics embraces all inquiries, which pertain to the foundation, characteristics, history, government, and discipline of the church; to the authority of the church, or any number of men calling themselves the church, in matters of faith; to modes of worship; to external forms and ceremonies. In Protestant countries, this branch of controversy seems nearly to be exhausted. It was long ago settled in theory by Chillingworth, and Barrow, and Tillotson; and the spirit of modern times is bringing the theory into practice. If there are yet some contenders for tradition, some who think the

Protestant cause is not sufficiently supported by the Bible, but needs the props of fathers and councils, their number is small, and their share in the sympathy of the christian public at large proportionably feeble. It is a fundamental principle of Protestantism, that christians may think and decide for themselves, and it is now generally agreed, that they may differ on most of the particulars, which fall under this head of controversy, without forfeiting their title to a good character, or christian privileges. Which system of church government, or plan of discipline, or mode of worship, is the best, may never be determined to the satisfaction of all parties; nor is it necessary, while it is agreed, that every system and mode, approved and followed by serious christians, is consistent with a pure religion and holiness of conduct.

To this first part of controversy, the charges against Unitarians have seldom extended in any distinct or exclusive form. Their views are much the same as those of many christians of other denominations. They maintain the unlimited freedom of thought and judgment to be a first principle, not only of religion, but of human nature. They believe in the truth and divinity of the christian religion from the same testimony as others, and among their numbers may be

reckoned several of the ablest defenders of christianity against the scruples of doubt, and the cavils of infidelity. And in regard to the nature of a church, the qualifications and authority of ministers, forms of worship, and other things of this description, they do

not discover, that Christ has left any positive commands, or that he has established any one system as preferable to all others, and necessary to be adopted by his true followers, as essential to salvation. The religion of Jesus was intended to be universal; and, in regard to its forms, there seems to be a wise adaptation to the conditions and circumstances of men in the world, to their customs, manners, organization of society, and their political and civil institutions. Unitarians hold, that it should be the chief endeavour to be sincere and faithful worshippers, after such a manner as every individual shall in his conscience believe agreeable to the word and spirit of the Gospel. Any number of christians may unite in adopting such forms as they please, and their offering will be accepted, while they seriously strive to worship God in the purity of holiness, and to walk in the footsteps of Christ.

The second topic of religious controversy includes what are usually called articles of faith. It looks not so much to demonstrable facts, as to reasonings from facts, and is less concerned in telling men what to do, than what to think. The theatre of controversy, to which this topic opens, is boundless. It has been traversed in every direction, but has never been compassed, and never will be, while the powers of mind are so various, and the force of evidence is so unequally felt; while the imagination is so fertile, and the lights and shadows of truth and error are so intimately blended in the objects of human thought and inquiry.