men from discriminating; so that while it leads them to deny this thing, and doubt that, it leaves their confidence in other things unimpaired, and perhaps strengthened and quickened. But it is of the nature of a latent and passive skepticism, by confounding the true with the false, and the certain with the doubtful, to spread itself gradually over the whole subject, involving natural as well as revealed religion in the same doubt, and causing them to be regarded with a like indifference, if not contempt. Under the influence of this spirit the best that men can be expected to do, is to settle down at last into the conceited and supercilious conclusion, that Christianity, whether true or not, is a good thing for society, and especially for the lower classes, and must not be disturbed. We know of nothing more likely to move an ingenuous mind to indignation, than to see one who from indolence or indifference is secretly skeptical as to all religion, joining, however, in the vulgar cry of heresy or infidelity against those who will not assent to what neither he nor they believe. We can bear with the opposition, and even with the personal abuse of the bigot and the fanatic, for they are honest, or at least consistent; but we find it more difficult to command our feelings, when worldly, intriguing, hollow-hearted men array themselves against reform, and affect a concern for prejudices and antiquated errors, which in their hearts they despise.

Again, it has been said, that in most communities, to arrive at Unitarianism, men must give up many of the doctrines in which they were educated, and that the giving up of each of these doctrines must weaken their confidence in those which they retain. It is obvious, in the first place, that this objection does not apply to Unitari

anism in any other sense than it does to every reformation, and particularly to the Protestant reformation. Besides, it proceeds in this case on a forgetfulness of the important circumstances insisted on above, that the doctrines discarded by Unitarians were a dead weight on the whole system, and of course that the system, thus relieved, must meet with a more ready and entire assent. We are willing, nevertheless, to admit that men's confidence in simple and pure Christianity must be most perfect in those cases, in which in order to arrive at it they are not obliged to reject any human additions or corruptions with which it has been connected. From this, however, our only inference is, not that men should not be instructed in Unitarianism, but that they should never be instructed in any thing else. If a certain degree of skepticism always adheres to a mind which is conscious of having been once imposed upon and abused, the whole blame of the skepticism should certainly be thrown back on the imposition and abuse, in which it originated. If innovation in itself considered be an evil, especially in religion, the evil should be referred not to Unitarianism, but to the false views in which the people have been educated, and which in the general advancement of knowledge make innovation unavoidable. So far, too, as the charge of having actually innovated on the faith of our ancestors is concerned, it is obvious that the Orthodox of the present day, in New England certainly, are in the same condemnation. If any say, that they have not given up doctrines which they themselves deem essential and fundamental, it should be recollected that we also can say as much; for neither have we given up doctrines, which we ourselves deem essential and fundamental. If they say, on the other hand,

that they have not given up doctrines deemed essential and fundamental by the first reformers, the Puritans, and their own immediate ancestors, they say what is not true. By rejecting, as they have done almost unanimously, the doctrines of imputation and particular election, for example, they have already innovated as essentially on the traditionary faith, as they would do if they were to go further, and reject the doctrine of the trinity itself.

We prefer, however, to meet this charge of innovation on its own merits. Why should it be thought necessary to defend ourselves against the imputation or suspicion of skeptical or infidel tendencies, merely because we have departed from some of the doctrines held by the first reformers? The progress of society and the human mind did not stop with their labors. On the contrary, there has never been a period in the history of man, during which this progress has been so rapid and perceptible as during the last three centuries. We see it in every thing-in the disappearance of a thousand weak and debasing superstitions; in the repeal of many useless, oppressive, and sanguinary laws; in the great improvements which have obtained in education; in the prevalence of a more liberal spirit on all subjects, and in the resistance felt and manifested against every form of usurpation and tyranny. Nor does this progress appear in any thing more than in those sciences necessary to the critical understanding of the Scriptures, and the effectual exposure of the pretences of false religions. Now, are we to believe, can it be imagined, that society and the human mind have been advancing for three long centuries, with unparalleled rapidity, in every thing else but religion, and even in the means of advancement in religion, and

yet that in religion itself, they have not advanced a single step? Possessing the same natural powers with the first reformers, and all the advantages which they had, and many more besides,-entering, as it were, on their labors, and beginning where they left off, is it to be believed, can it be imagined, that the pious, the learned, and the inquisitive, for three long centuries, have not been able to go forward a single step? The Protestant reformation grew out of the progress of society, and the human mind, and this progress has been continually going on. Assign, then, if you can, a single earthly reason possessing even the poor merit of being merely plausible, why this reformation should not go on with its cause. The first reformers were but men, and acted as other men would have acted in the same circumstances. Is it probable then we would ask,-nay, is it possible, that mere men, uninspired men, who had but just broken away from the most degrading prejudices and superstitions, and who still thought, reasoned, and acted under circumstances the most unfavorable of all to cool and impartial deliberation, -is it possible, that such men, in the hurry and passion of a great moral revolution, could strike out at a single blow a difficult and complicated system, which in all after time would neither require revision, nor admit of correction?

At the same time, we would not be understood to speak disparagingly of the claims which the first reformers have on our respect and gratitude. They certainly possessed many noble qualities, and we would honor these qualities; nay more, we would imitate them. Yes, who are the men that imitate the first reformers? that strength and independence of mind, by which they broke away from the

-

prejudices of education; that noble daring, or rather that strict adherence to principle, with which they hesitated not to avow the convictions they felt, though new and unpopular doctrines; and the firmness with which they stood their ground against the voice of numbers, and the cry of schism, innovation, heresy. Yes, we repeat it, who are the men that imitate the first reformers? It is bringing strange names into fellowship, but it is nevertheless true, that Priestley was the Luther of his times.*

* "You say the petitioners are innovators. They deny this, and say they are antiquarians, only not superstitious enough to prefer the rust to the medal. But without availing themselves of this, they prove that the love of novelty is natural, that it puts men on inventing some things, and improving others; that new discoveries by the people call for new limitations, protections, laws from the state; that the yearly assembling of the states is an allowance of the necessity of abrogating some laws, reforming others, and making new ones. That therefore innovation is neither foreign from the nature of things in general, nor from the British constitution in particular; and they might add that almost all the great men, that have appeared in the world have owed their reputation to their skill in innovating. Their names, their busts, their books, their eulogiums, diffused though all countries, are a just reward for their innovations. When idolatry had overspread the world Moses was the minister of a grand and noble innovation. When time had corrupted the institutions of Moses, Hezekiah innovated again, destroying what even Moses had set up; and when the reformations of others were inadequate, Jesus Christ, ascending his throne, created all things new; twelve innovators went one way, seventy another, their sound went into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world, reforming and renovating the whole face of the earth. When wealth had produced power, power subjection, subjection indolence, indolence ignorance, and the pure religion of Jesus was debased, here rises an Alfred, there a Charles; Turin produces a Claude, Lyons a Waldo, England a Wickliff; the courage of Luther, VOL. XII.-NO. 141.

3+