the Saviour as a heretic, and a publisher of new doctrines. Paul was reviled, and mocked, and scourged, as a preacher of a strange faith, and a subverter of the established religion. The Apostles were persecuted for teaching new things, and many of them suffered martyrdom under the charge of heresy. And we have no reason to doubt, that the persecuting Jews and Gentiles felt themselves actuated, in their attempts to suppress error, by as holy a zeal, and as pure a conscience, as their modern imitators in the same undertaking. The former had as good a right to think themselves possessed of all knowledge as the latter.

The same spirit was manifested at the Reformation. Any appearance of advancement in religious knowledge was considered as foreboding danger, and the thunders of the Holy See were ready to burst upon every one, who should dare to wander from the path, which the church had marked out. Luther, and all his associates, who thought it their duty to read the Bible and trust their own understanding, were denounced as odious heretics, worthy of the pious maledictions of the church, and against whom the doors of heaven ought to be closed.

Modern orthodoxy walks in the same steps as the popery of that age, and with less excuse, because it has the advantage of a better light. The time indeed seems to have come, which was predicted by Erasmus. This great man wrote a book, which went to show, that true theology consists chiefly in goodness of heart, and a pious disposition. Latomus violently attacked this sentiment, and insisted that there was no necessary analogy between a good divine and a good man. In writing to his friend, the Bishop of Roches

ter, on this subject, Erasmus observed, that they would no doubt some time make it appear, that to be a good divine and to have common sense are very different things. Non idem esse, theologum esse, et sapere. Erasmus was a true prophet. The wisdom of modern orthodoxy has at length discovered, that something more is wanting to make a good christian divine, than purity of moral character, piety unfeigned, sincerity of motive, faith according to knowledge and conviction, love of truth, a conscience void of offence, respect for the reason and good sense of mankind, and a desire to preserve consistency in the attributes and dispensations of God. Common sense and reason are found to be fallacious guides in conducting men to a knowledge of religious truth; and it is no wonder that these should be discarded, when we consider what some christians have put forth to the world as truths of the Gospel.

But it is not our present design to pursue this subject. We have been drawn to it by late occurrences in Kentucky, of which we are about to give a short account. Our readers will recollect, that we have on several occasions alluded to the conversion and labours of Mr. Eastin. He has long resided as a preacher in the neighbourhood of Paris, Kentucky. Colonel Garrard, who was several years governor of the state, and who has lately died very much lamented, at an advanced age, was one of his parishioners.* It accordingly became Mr. Eastin's melancholy duty to preach his funeral discourse. The following letter

* An obituary notice of Gov. Garrard may be seen in this work, No. XXI. p. 206. He was one of the first in his vicinity who embraced unitarianism-a man of a high order of intellect, great excellence of character, and universally esteemed.

was written by a person, accidentally present, and was soon after published in a religious periodical paper.

"A mixture of motives, about which I have nothing further to say at present, induced me to ride two or three miles into the country, to attend the funeral sermon of a venerable old gentlemen of this neighbourhood, lately deceased. When I arrived at the place, I found an immense concourse of people collected. Shortly after 1 bad taken my seat amidst the crowd, my attention was arrested by the appearance of an aged, serious, well looking man, trembling under the influence of a palsy, and a prodigious weight of years. My feelings were involuntarily enlisted in a moment, and my curiosity greatly excited. I asked a gentleman by my side, as this old man walked to the pulpit, if he were the preacher, and inquired after his name. He informed me that he was to preach the funeral sermon, and that his name was —. I was well acquainted with his history in the churches of this country, and immediately set to prepare myself for the purpose of hearing an Arian minister.

“I have already informed you, that I was sensibly struck with his aged, trembling, and every way venerable appearance. He rose, published a hymn, sung, and then prayed. All was most appropriate and striking. In his prayer, he descanted in a most eloquent and feeling manner upon the majesty, beneficence, and compassion of God; introduced his audience to the divine throne, in a devout and adoring attitude; spoke most impressively of the wants and spiritual necessities of the audience, and with great solicitude invoked the blessing of heaven on each one of us; prayed for special aid in preaching; implored the blessings of the 'God of the widow and fatherless' upon the relatives of the deceased, and concluded in the usual form. He then read his text, and with great firmness and solemnity proceeded to its exposition; and the subject being death, he gave us one of the best moral discourses I had ever heard. He is an old man of fine intellect, and very superiour parts as a pulpit man, making some allowances for the misgivings of age and a decayed memory. He appears remarkably well acquainted with the letter and general analogy of the Bible.

"While thus situated, and attending to the sermon, I could not but reflect, what a pity, what matter of deep and lasting regret, that such a man should be heterodox in his views of the Saviour; that he should consider him not divine, and speak of instruction as the only object of his coming into the world. It occurred to me, if religiou

advice, if a moral lesson in reference to futurity, can so affect this audience, and move the multitude surrounding me, what would not the effect be, were this man upon the plan of the Bible, and in truly apostolic style, to ‘preach Jesus Christ and him crucified.'

"You must know, when I learned the preacher's name, knowing him to be an Arian of the low order, and perhaps latterly a unitarian, I was strongly prejudiced; but all prejudice against the man was removed, as soon as I heard him open his mouth. He has every trait, every lineament, every appearance about him, of a perfectly candid man, and honest in his views. His morals, for nearly half a century, I am informed by those who have known him long, and know him well, have been altogether irreproachable. All he wants, and this he has wanted for twenty years, is a correct apprehension of the grand and distinguishing peculiarities of the Gospel scheme, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures; and surely this is a sad deficiency. Not duly to appreciate the personal glory and redeeming blood of the Son of God, is one of the most fatal errors into which the sinners of our race can fall, and fearfully pregnant with disaster and mischief to the souls of men.

"But to return to my preacher, you will permit me to assure you, that I could not refrain from tears, while reflecting anxiously upon what he is, and reluctantly contrasting him in his present situation with what he might be. May he yet experience what the writer glories in more than 'aught heaven has beside to give,' an interest in the covenant of redemption through Jesus Christ.”

This letter is written in a tone of candour, and was evidently dictated by liberal and generous feelings, although the writer acknowledges himself to have been under the influence of prejudice. He yields to the impressions of truth, and seems only to wonder that there should be so much to commend in one, whose religious opinions differ so widely from his own. He innocently expresses his amazement, that a unitarian should preach a good sermon, or be a good man.

We shall next quote the remarks of the editor, who first published this letter. You will not fail to perceive here the genuine spirit of orthodoxy. He observes, alluding to the letter,

"The writer seems to have felt the greatest veneration for the preacher, in consequence of his age, his venerable appearance, his solemn manner, and splendid talents; while he pitied him most sincerely on account of his errors. He thinks this venerable old man was candid and honest. But before we admit this to be the fact, we must retrace him to that period of his life, when he first embraced those Arian sentiments. Then, in all probability, it will be found that his departure from the doctrines of the Bible originated in pride and self conceit, for which he was given up to error. As the subject of his discourse was death, of course he would be solemn and impressive. But what will solemnity and impressiveness avail, if there be no vital instruction given? A Hindoo may be solemn and impressive, but no light is communicated. So may an Arian, and what light does he communicate to his attentive audience? None that is scriptural or spiritual; his thin sermons being made up with a kind of deistical morality, and palmed upon his audience under the covert of christianity. Although we may respect the persons of men on account of their age, gravity, talents, &c. we never ought to be disposed to bear with their errors, no, not for an hour.”

Mr. Eastin, feeling himself aggrieved by these illiberal and presumptuous remarks, and deeming it a duty to vindicate himself against such calumnies, wrote to the editor in the following terms.

"I am one of those persons, who have been so long accustomed to the pressure of burdens, and harsh sentences, that they have almost become habitual to me. Yet sometimes I can hardly refrain from complaint. I will not undertake to say, what the publisher of a paper, purporting to be a religious one, should do; or how far he has a right to indulge his own feelings. But this I may say with safety, that no man in the sight of God has any right to slander his neighbour with impunity, nor bring against him so high a charge as 'pride and self conceit,' on probability, and that too, when the evidence before him, in relation to the party accused, was, that 'his morals for nearly half a century had been altogether irreproachable.'

"If the charge, which you have brought against me, of departing from the doctrines of the Bible, and being given up to error, should be a mistake on your part, you ought to retract.

"It is said of Bishop Horsley, that he 'declared the moral good of unitarians to be sin.' Perhaps the same temper and feeling in your.