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 Would your hearers or readproduce this effect? ers 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

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.

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 you 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