spirit. We abhor both. Let the orthodox come out and be separate, as Mr. Belsham advises; but let them utter no reproaches; let them pass no hasty censures, no unchristian excommunications. Let them deal with their offending brethren in a solemn, affectionate, tender manner. Their business is to labor for the salvation of souls, not to exalt a party.

As to the utter incompatibility of Unitarianism with the faith of orthodox churches, we present our readers with the opinion of a very able man, and a distinguish ed champion of the truth.

"It is very obvious, that two systems, of which the sentiments on subjects such as these are in direct opposition, cannot, with any propriety, be confounded together under one common name. That both should be Christianity, is impossible; else Christianity is a term which distinguishes nothing. Viewing the matter abstractly, and without affirming, for the present, what is truth and what is error, this, I think, I may with confidence affirm, that to call schemes so opposite in all their great leading articles by a common appellation, is more absurd, than it would be to confound together those two irreconcilable theories in astronomy, of which the one places the Earth, and the other the Sun, in the centre of the Planetary Sys

tem. They are, in truth, essentially different religions. For if opposite views as to the object of worship, the ground of hope for eternity, the rule of faith and duty, and the principles and motives of true obedience; if these do not constitute

different religions, we may, without much difficulty, discover some principles of union and identity, among all religions whatever; we may realize the doctrine of Pope's universal prayer; and extend the right hand of fellowship to the worship pers at the Mosque, and to the votaries of Brama."

has been received with very great favor in Great Britain. Mr. Wardlaw probably did not know, that Pope's Universal Prayer had been introduced, with an alteration which did not affect the sense, into the public worship of an enlightened congregation, in the most enlightened place in the world. Yes, this prayer, which declares that the same God is worshipped by one, whom the New Testament describes as a saint, or holy person, by a sage, who is laboring to emit the light of philosophy from the darkness of his own benighted mind, and by a savage, who is engaged in offering human sacrifices to his malignant deities;-this prayer is adopted by a Christian assembly to be used as a hymn of praise to the true God!

These sentences are taken from a work now in the press, and which will be presented to the public in a few days. It is Series of Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, by the Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, of Glasgow, and

To return to the subject, from which we digressed a moment, let the orthodox separate in worship and communion from Unitarians; but let them meekly give a reason for their separation. To treat their opponents with asperity, with contempt, or reproach, tians, or as men. They must is unworthy of them as Chrisfeel, that their opponents have souls to be saved or lost; souls as precious as their own. The great majority of those, whose influence goes to swell the importance of the liberal party, are not involved in most of the censures, which this review implies, or expresses. They, only, who are the principal actors in Mr. Belsham's drama, have been thus unwittingly exposed by their heresiarch. Their conduct deserves animadversion in many things, as it regards religion. In a civil and social respect, we are disposed to treat them with cour

tesy. But we cannot, we ought not to let this courtesy paralyze our hands, and make us indiffer ent, while the contest is pending, whether Christianity shall exist in any thing more than a name in our country, or be supplanted by the new philosophy.

Let our readers say, after the above developement, whether the time is not come, in which we and they are to speak out, and to act with decision. If it is, then let them follow the example; and let the churches in this land, who yet reverence the religion of the Bible, (which was the religion of our fathers,) and bow the knee to Jesus, purify themselves, wherever it is necessary, from the reproach which now lies against some of them.

Have you any doubts remain ing on this subject, after perusing the quotations contained in this Review? You have seen, Christians, in what manner your Bible and your Savior are regarded and treated. Ponder well on this. Shall your children be trained up in these principles? Remember that you are accountable to God for the manner in which you think and act on these subjects.

We are aware, that it will be charged against us, that the tendency of the preceding remarks is to give an unfair representation of the liberal party. It will be said, that the liberal party ought not to be condemned for the extravagant opinions of Mr. Belsham. It has been said, that Mr. Wells is an obscure man, and that his testimony does not amount to much. This is new to us. We had always supposed, that Mr. Wells was far from be

ing an obscure man among the liberal party; and we still believe that he is one of the most intelligent, active, and prominent men in their ranks. That he has been among the planners and executors of nearly all their literary publications will not be doubted. It is with pleasure that we mention one proof of genuine liberality in Mr. Wells: we refer to his republication of the Christian Observer. By presenting this work to the American public, he conferred a lasting benefit on this country; though, by do ing it, he incurred the disapprobation of some of his Unitarian brethren. We believe, however, that Mr. Wells is not at present concerned in that publication.

But there is much evidence on this subject, besides the testimony of Mr. Wells and Dr. Freeman. We feel entirely warranted to say, that the predominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word. The Anthology, published by the most prominent clergymen and laymen of the liberal party, clearly favored the Unitarian school. The General Repository was still more open and undisguised. Both these works had the patronage of those, who have the entire control of the College; the latter issuing from the walls of that seminary. The Improved Version of the New Testament was patronized and praised by the same men. Of this Version Mr. Belsham says, in his Calm Inquiry, p. 460, that 'the notes were intended chiefly to exhibit the most approved interpretations of the Unitarian expositors.' Of this avowedly

sectarian publication the Reviewers in the General Repository speak thus, vol. iv, p. 207.

"We honestly profess, and without fear of losing reputation with those, whose good opinion we are very solicitous to retain, that we think it a work highly respectable, and adapted to be very useful."

Again; the Reviewers say, that the editors of the Improved Ver

sion

"Have produced a version far more faithful, more correct, and more intelligible, than that in common use; a version therefore to an intelligent English reader of very great value.”

In the Anthology for May, 1811, p. 336, is a review of the Memoirs of Dr. Wheelock. This review was written, as we have reason to believe, by the President of Harvard College. If we have been misinformed, we will take the earliest opportunity of correcting the mistake. In the course of the article, there is much sly sarcasm in reference to the orthodox faith. The following passage we quote as a specimen.

"The early conversion of Mr. Wheelock is by no means the general privilege of the disciples of his school, however exemplary and regular their lives. The change, which they deem saving, is most commonly, in the case of those intended for the ministry, delayed till near the time when they must begin or relinquish their chosen calling. At that period, they often find themselves pursued, as a "murderer by the avenger of blood to the very gates of the city of refuge"-and they must enter or perish. If their reason survives the dismay or despondence of the law-work, the dreadful spasm passes off; and the agitation subsides into a calm, which enables them first to hear the whispers of hope, and then proceed to the exultation of joy.' pp. 337, 338.

rian school. Could the founders, benefactors, and instructors of Harvard College, for nearly a century and three quarters, have foreseen the day, when the literary publications, patronized by the governors and instructors of that institution, should ridicule the idea of conversion by the agency of the Holy Spirit of God, with what deep and poignant grief would their hearts have been affected! And how great would have been their astonishment, as well as their grief, if informed, that the highest officer, in that venerable seminary, would think it a proper employment of his time to sit down coolly to the composition of a strain of sarcasm and raillery on such a subject:-and that, not for his own amusement only, but to be thrown into the world to furnish new jests for the profane, and increase the natural antipathy of men to religion!

This passage is written in a style, which exactly suits the views and feelings of the Unita

It appears, then, that the College, and nearly all the influence of the liberal party through the medium of the press, are in favor of Unitarianism. If individuals dislike Mr. Belsham as a leader; if they are not willing to be classed among his followers; let them declare ther own opinions openly. But let them not yield. all their countenance to Unitarians, and yet complain if ranked in the same class, by those who have no means of learning their opinions except by their conduct,

The pamphlet contains a curious letter from Mr. Jefferson to Dr. Priestley, which we have not room to describe Speaking of Mr. Jefferson, Dr. Priestley says: "He is generally considered as an unbeliever: if so, however, HE CANNOT BE FAR FROM US,

and I hope in the way to be not only almost, but altogether what we are." This is what we have always thought, and frequently said. Unitarianism and Infidelity are nearly related indeed. Mr. Wells, who is a hopeful pupil of the Priestleian school, says that they are identical. "Unitarianism," says he, "consists rather in not believing;" and he wishes to make men "zealous in refusing to believe." The words printed in Italics were so printed by Mr. Belsham, and were probably underscored by Mr. Wells. On reading this passage, we turned to the Improved Version, saying to ourselves, "Who knows but Mr. Wells may read Scripture thus: He that believeth not shall be saved." We find that this conjectural emendation is probably reserved for some improved edition. Whether it is so reserved or not, it is quite as worthy of credit as several conjectural criticisms contained in that work.

We shall close with a few brief observations on Mr. Wells's letter; a letter which contains, within a small compass, a faithful epitome of the most common cant of the liberal party, as it has appeared in their publications, for ten years past.

It is curious to observe the truly meek and charitable manner, in which Mr. Wells arranges the parties to the Unitarian controversy. On his own side, are "honesty unfettered and unbiassed," "correct sentiments," "virtue and learning and honor," "spirit and ability,""good sense," "self-respect, the companion of irtue," "truth," and, in short, "every thing which is respecta ble." On the side of the ortho

dox, are "craft and cunning and equivocation and falsehood and intolerant zeal," "low cunning," "low prejudices," "and every thing which is detestable." So much for abstract qualities. When we come to persons, we find "Mr. Norton, an excellent young man," "the very worthy and learned Dr. Ware," "Dr. Kirkland the president," "most of the Boston clergy and respectable laymen, (many of whom are enlightened theologians,). who do not conceal their sentiments, but express them, when they judge it proper," and "Judge Thatcher, an excellent man and most zealous Unitarian:" these are drawn up in battle-array, in the liberal ranks. On the other side no names are mentioned except that of "Dr. M."* But we find that the orthodox consist of "theological system-makeis;" of "the ignorant, the violent, the ambitions, and the cunning;" of "conceited deacons," and "bigoted, persecuting Calvinists." Really! This is an arrangement which, in point of liberality, has seldom been surpassed. Mr. Wells ought to be appointed grand marshal of the Unitarian corps.

Dr. Osgood and Dr. Lathrop are suffered to stand apart. This favor seems to have been granted them, because, to use the words of Mr. Wells, "they are on the best possible terms with our Boston friends."

Mr. Wells decides, without the least hesitation, that Unitarian sentiments are the only sen

• The manner in which Dr. M. is men

tioned in this letter, and the influence which he is deemed to have, will account Unitarians have shewn to put him down. for no small part of the zeal, which some "Worthy" conduct in a "worthy" cause!

timents to be found in the New Testament. It is not to our purpose to inquire, whence he derived his authority to dogmatize in this flippant manner. He speaks, however, of Drs. Osgood and Lathrop as "really ortho dox," and as "noble and determined supporters of the right of private judgment." Yet, if his decision is entitled to credit, these aged and "venerable" clergymen are the mere dupes of "theological system-makers;" and have been employed all their lives in teaching doctrines, which have nothing to support them in the New Testament.

Again; Mr. Wells speaks in the most confident manner, as though all the learning in the world was enlisted on the Unitarian side, and had to contend with nothing but ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry. Is it possible that Mr. Wells can believe, in reference to this country, that all the learning is on his side, when nearly all the regular clergy, all the colleges except one, and all the theological institutions, are decidedly opposed to Unitarianism? and when he can number, as in favor of his scheme, only one college, and a few clergymen in Boston and the vicinity? Is it possible, that he can believe the crude speculations of such a man as Mr. Belsham to be evidences of great learning, while such men as Middleton, Magee, Buchanan, Wardlaw, Chalmers, and the Editors of the Christian Observer, are poor, ignorant, deluded, bigoted creatures?

of our fathers,) "have very unwisely preferred to insist upon a subscription to articles of faith." The simple fact is, that the founders of the Theological Institution at Andover have very wisely insisted, that the professors supported by their funds should subscribe articles of faith. Yet a stranger would suppose, from Mr. Wells's representation, that all our ministers and churches were required to subscribe to some authorized formulary of religious doctrines, on penalty of being excluded from the communion of the orthodox church

es.

We need not say, that such. a representation is entirely unsupported by fact.

It is indeed singular, that men professing unbounded liberality, should raise and keep up a violent outcry, merely because a few charitable individuals have endowed professorships with their own money, and have provided that the professors should believe certain doctrines, which, as the founders are fully perguaded, are taught in the Scrip

tures.

Again; Mr. Wells says that "the violent party," (by which term he very meekly characterizes the friends of the religion

Again; "We have to contend here," says Mr. Wells, "for the first principles of Protestantism." "In short, we are now contending for the liberty of being Protestants." Were it not that similar assertions have been often made by many of the liberal party, we should not notice this subject. We must intreat Mr. Wells, and his brethren, to state precisely what those principles of Protestantism are, which are contended for by him and his friends, and denied by the orthodox. Till this is done, we shall take the liberty of asserting, and we do it without the