church during the two or three succeeding centuries, those fruitful eras of human symbols, does the thought ever strike you, that the prominent actors had the honour of religion at heart, or once dreamt of setting up the laws of Gospel charity, peace, humility, and piety? No, you behold a scene of scanda lous warfare, and creeds marshalled against creeds, not to enforce the truth or practice of religion, but to express personal antipathy, to cast reproach on a minority, or to anathematize an enemy. The good Fathers at the council of Ephesus even "pronounced an anathema on all those, that should add any thing to the creed of Constantinople," hereby commencing a quarrel, not only with such as then differed from them, but with all that ever should differ. Creeds were the watch-words of party; they were firebrands thrown among the multitude to keep alive the flame of passion and madness. They afforded inexhaustible materials for strife and discord, and those materials were not used with a sparing or unskilful hand by the persons, who had collected them and knew their value.

To this single practice, so early commenced, of assuming power over the faith and opinions of men, and of attempting to controul them in things in which it was impossible that they should be controlled, you may refer, with a precision almost demonstrative, the unhappy divisions among christians before the Reformation. It was not in the power of princes, popes, bishops, nor councils, to chain the thoughts. They might threaten, oppress, banish,

murder, as they did; but, they could do no more. Volumes of creeds, and anathemas without number, would not induce a man to believe what every principle in his nature revolted at. Using force would rouse his indignation, and make him burn with hatred and revenge; or, perhaps, it might drive him to be a hypocrite and deceiver. In either case he would be more wicked for his adopted creed. Take away restraint, command every one to think for himself, assure him of his freedom and personal responsibility, tell him to be guided by the Gospel, and his faith will then be sincere, he will believe and act like a christian.

These remarks prepare us for entering on the main subject of the present letter, which is to inquire into the occasion of religious differences among Protestants, and to ascertain the comparative agency, which orthodoxy and Unitarian sentiments have had in causing these differences, and in promoting the religious antipathy and dissensions, which have prevailed even from the time of Luther, and which are greatly to be lamented at the present day. The merits of the general inquiry on which we have entered hang with no inconsiderable weight on this point. Certain causes have had very extensive effects. To which system are these to be ascribed? Some of the leading principles, on which christian communities have been organized, and churches instituted, and discipline established, have tended to produce divisions, to create aversions, to clothe some men with a factitious authority, and to oppress and

irritate others. The party, which has embraced these principles, and put them in practice, is accountable for the consequences. By principles here, I do not mean any peculiar doctrines of religious faith, but the grounds assumed, and the steps taken, to promulgate these doctrines. In this respect, have the sentiments of Unitarians, or of the orthodox, been productive of the greatest degree of evil?

A few brief hints on the course pursued by the first Reformers and their immediate followers, or the motives by which they were influenced, and the objects at which they aimed, will place this subject in its proper light, and prove, if I mistake not, that the divisions and party violence, occasioned by differences of opinion, owe their origin to the very same causes since, as before the Reformation. They will be found to have originated in building up systems of faith distinct from the Bible, and claiming authority to establish them as standards of sound doctrine, and tests of orthodoxy. This was a foible with which the world seems to have been so much in love, that christians could not prevail on themselves to part with it, even while rebelling against its power, and deprecating its baleful tendency. In yielding to this weakness, they violated the fundamental principles of the Reformation, and created the elements of future disorder; and just in proportion as they ran to this extreme, they were opposed to the principles of Unitarianism. This will appear as we proceed.

The Reformation was started on the foundation of truth and reason. Two grand axioms were laid

down, as a basis on which the entire superstructure was to be erected, namely, the right of private judgment in all the concerns of religion, and the sufficiency of the Scriptures in qualifying believers for the attainment of salvation. It was justly asserted, that the rights of human nature give every man liberty, nay, require it of him as a duty, to use his best powers freely and independently in determining the manner in which he is to serve his Maker. And, again, it was maintained with equal cogency, that the Scriptures, which contain a revelation from Ged expressly designed for the moral improvement and final salvation of men, must in themselves be adequate to every purpose of instruction, concerning the principles of faith and the rules of action.

These axioms form the ground-work of a true scriptural theology. Let them be rigidly observed, and it will be impossible to fasten dangerous and entailed error on the mind, or to foment the elements of discord, or to multiply the tokens of perpetual altercation. Quarrels, and persecutions, and resentments, merely on account of differences in religious opinions, will cease, when you take away the charters for the defence of which the armour of sacred

warfare is put on. Send all men to the Bible as the only charter of their faith, and you will place them on common ground, and bring them into a bond of union. They will not see every part of the Scriptures alike, but this variety of mental vision will be no obstruction to harmony, since it is allowed by the first laws of union, that every one shall judge of the

Scriptures according to the light and knowledge, which he possesses. It is the spirit of these axioms to permit Christians to differ in opinion, and yet bind them together as brethren.

Had the first Reformers been faithful to the principles, which they embraced at the outset with so much wisdom and intrepidity, the history of the Protestant church would wear an aspect very different from the one, which it now exhibits. But the trial was too much for their experience, if not for their firmness. They stumbled almost at the first step, and never recovered themselves afterwards. It was a notion of the Catholics, that a perfect unanimity of faith was absolutely necessary to constitute a true church; and an objection, which they urged with great warmth against the Protestants, was, that the liberty assumed by them would open a door to an infinite variety of opinions, and terminate in a dismemberment of the church, and the overthrow of Christianity itself.

Alarmed at these threatened consequences, and anxious to fortify themselves against the attacks of their opponents on this point, they gradually deserted their position, and became themselves deluded with the dream of a uniformity of faith. They were next driven to the severe task of devising some mode of establishing this uniformity, without destroying the fundamental axiom, which proclaimed it to be the duty of every Christian to think and judge for himself. This project was not more absurd, than im