least fear of contradiction or exposure, that no one fundamental principle of Protestantism is thus contended for and thus denied. Let us look a moment at a subject, which has given rise to so uch groundless clamor. What e the first principles of Prostantism? We have always supsed, that justification by faith done, was, by way of eminence, the first principle of the early reformers. Another important principle was this; that before regeneration men are totally destitute of holiness, and can do nothing which is acceptable in the sight of God. Other principles were the doctrines of predestination, election, conversion by the Spirit of God, new obedience, and perseverance. Which of these doctrines is contended for by the liberal party in this country, or denied by the orthodox? But let us look at another class of principles. Protestants have uniformly held, that the Scriptures are the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice; that Popish traditions are of no authority; and that the decisions of councils are not infallible. Have the orthodox in this country ever denied either of these principles? If they have, it is new to us. Perhaps the orthodox have been unwilling to put the Scriptures into the hands of the common people, in their mother tongue? If so, let the offence be proved. Let the guilty individuals be named; and we will heartily join in their condemnation. But it will be said, perhaps, that the orthodox have a creed, or creeds; in other words, they express, by a short summary, the principal doctrines, which they believe the Scriptures to contain. This is true; and it is precisely what all the Protestant churches have uniformly done, in perfect consistency with every principle of the Reformation. Let us hear no more of this miserable cant about Protestantism. The complaint is absolutely without foundation. As well might it be said, that the Inquisition of Goa, having travelled across the Indian and Atlantic oceans, (palaces, caverns and all,) has seated itself on Beacon hill; and that father Josephus a Doloribus sits there, on his black marble throne, daily sentencing the "worthy confes sors" of Unitarianism to his subterranean dungeons. The liberal party are not contending for the privilege of thinking for themselves. This has never been denied them in this country. But they are contending for the priv ilege of thinking for themselves and the orthodox too; at least so far as to prescribe the manner, in which the orthodox shall regard them. While they mutilate the New Testament, and reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel; while they degrade the Savior to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man;-they clamor. ously insist, that the orthodox should have just as good an opin ion of them as they have of themselves, and should acknowledge them to be candid, impartial, enlightened, pious Christians. This is requiring too much. While they demand the privi lege of thinking and acting for themselves, let them accord the same privilege to others. Mr. Belsham predicts, that the time will come when the truth, by which he means Unitarian not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. THIS Discourse is a very sensible discussion of an important subject. The text is 1sa. ii, 4. They shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall The preacher illustrates this proposition: "Though war has existed in past ages, yet, in a future period, it shall wholly cease to exist." In pursuance of his design, he considers the existence of war in past ages; inquires how it appears, that war shall wholly cease; and shows in what The two way it shall cease. last of these heads are treated in a very interesting manner. Το the inquiry, how it appears that wars shall hereafter wholly cease, the preacher replies, that it does not thus appear from the native character of mankind, nor from any events that have yet taken place; but solely from what God has declared in the Scriptures. The way, in which the preacher supposes that universal peace will be established, is described under these two particuJars; the publication of the Gospel through the whole carth, and the effusion of the Holy Spirit on all nations. We entirely approve of these sentiments, and are deliberately of opinion, that Christians ought to keep them constantly in view, in all their plans for doing good to mankind. It is not sufficient to prove, that war is unjust, cruel, unwise, impolitic, and ruinous. Mankind have always known this. The understanding is easily convinced; but, before the world will be reformed, the hearts of men must be changed. We have no room for extracts; but cordially recommend this sermon to the perusal of our readers. C LETTER Jnr Pickerings TO THE REV. SAMUEL C. THACHER, ON THE ASPERSIONS CONTAINED IN A LATE NUMBER OF THE PANOPLIST. ON THE MINISTERS OF BOSTON AND THE VICINITY. BY WILLIAM E. CHANNING, Minister of the Church of Christ in Federal Street, Boston. BOSTON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY WELLS AND LILLY. A LETTER, &c. MY FRIEND AND BROTHER, I HAVE recollected with much satisfaction the conversation, which we held the other morning, on the subject of the late Review in the Panoplist for June, of a pamphlet, called "American Unitarianism." I was not surprised, but I was highly gratified, by the spirit with which you spoke of that injurious publication. Grief rather than indignation marked your countenance, and you mourned, that men, who bear the sacred and pacifick name of Christian, could prove so insensible to the obligations of their profession. Our conversation turned, as you recollect, on the falsehood of that Review; on its motives; and on the duties which are imposed on those ministers, whose good name and whose influence it was designed to destroy. After leaving you, my thoughts still dwelt on the subject; and, painful as is the task, I have thought it my duty to exhibit to the publick the topicks which we discussed, as well as to add some reflections suggested by private med tation. I bring to the subject a feeling, which I cannot well express in words, but which you can easily understand. It is a feeling, as if I were degrading myself by noticing the false and injurious charges contained in this review. I feel as if I were admitting, that we need vindication, that our |