were blessed with a race of learned and educated men, both in church and state. Our magistrates and our ministers, from the beginning, were accomplished scholars, and profound thinkers, coming fresh from the schools and universities of the old world, deeply versed in all the learning and theology of the day. Their descendants did not disgrace themselves by degenerating from their sires, but proceeded onwards in the career of inquiry and improvement, till, at the end of little more than a century, the result was, that the most intelligent and sensible men, both among the clergy and laity, in this part of the country, abjured the dogmas of the Genevan Reformer, and embraced the milder and more rational tenets of the Arminian faith. The reformation, so happily begun and forwarded, did not stop till the great doctrine of the undivided, uncompounded unity of God, was discerned and embraced in the metropolis of New-England and its vicinity, by almost all the men of standing and influence, who had sufficient intelligence to discriminate between truth and error, and to disentangle the plain declarations of scripture from the maze of bewildering fictions in which they had so long been involved. This ascendency which Liberal Christianity acquired, at its first development, among persons of judgment and reflection, it has ever since retained, and still possesses.

Wherever, indeed, the light of christian truth has broken in upon the darkness of prevailing error, the intelligent have usually been the first to welcome it. It was perfectly natural, therefore, that Unitarianism should, in the first instance, appear and spread, not among the ignorant and poor, but among the well-informed, occupying important stations in society. This simple circumstance,

I conceive, has given some countenance to the charge now under examination, that Unitarianism is not a religion for common minds. The primitive doctrine was revived and restored by the zealous labors of the enlightened and educated; and from this very natural circumstance a most illogical inference has been drawn, that it is suited only to them. It might just as reasonably be argued that the common implements and machines employed in the various departments of manual and mechanical labor, are suited only to the ingenious and skilful, merely because they were the first to discover and apply them. It might just as well be asserted, for instance, that the safetylamp could not possibly be handled by the ignorant miner, but was adapted solely to the use of experienced chemists, simply because we owe its invention to an individual of that description. I am surprised that any person of tolerable sense is deluded by such sophistry. No one ob

jects to the christian revelation, that it had an all-wise God for its author, and for its promulgator one on whom the spirit of wisdom and understanding was poured without measure. Why then should any one object to Unitarianism that it was here first avowed and is still defended by men of high talents, sound sense and sober judgment? We rejoice that it had such promulgators, and that it now possesses such advocates. We rejoice, too, in the belief that it is now daily extending itself among the less informed, but no less important and worthy classes of the community.

2. There is another circumstance which perhaps has done something to countenance and foster the charge now under consideration;-I refer to the abstruse and subtile speculations on Materialism, and Philosophical Neces

sity, which were so zealously maintained by some of the prominent English Unitarians towards the close of the last century. The avowal and defence of these metaphysical heresies not only subjected them to unmerited odium, but likewise brought an additional reproach on the obnoxious religious opinions of which they were at the same time the intrepid heralds and champions. It is not surprising, that the undiscriminating should consider these philosophical notions as naturally and necessarily connected with Unitarian Christianity, particularly as its distinguished advocates seemed disposed to blend them into one system and to link together their fortunes and their fate. It is less surprising that the politic and practised opponents of Unitarianism should avail themselves of such an apparent concession, to strengthen the existing prejudice against that faith. On the ground of this pretended identity they reared the objection we are examining. A system,' said they, so abstruse and metaphysical, dealing in such nice distinctions, and involved in such minute discussions, cannot possibly be level to general comprehension; it may, perhaps, be a congenial religion for metaphysicians and philosophers, but it never will suit simple and plain men among the common people.'

It was unfortunate for English Unitarianism that it was thus linked by some of its ablest supporters with obnoxious topics totally irrelevant to it; topics which, whether true or false, had nothing to do with its characteristic principles. That they are irrelevant and independent, is proved by the simple fact, that the very points in question have been strenuously maintained by eminent Orthodox divines, and as strenuously impugned by other distinguished Unitarians. They have at different times

been claimed and disclaimed by the combatants on both sides. The doctrine of Philosophical Necessity has no more natural and necessary connexion with the Unitarianism of Hartley, Priestley and Belsham, than with the Calvinism of Edwards, Toplady and Hopkins. On this point, as well as on the subject of Materialism, it is well known that Priestley found his most able and strenuous opponent in Dr Price, who at the very time of the controversy was his coadjutor in disproving the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact is, that these are questions belonging to entirely distinct and independent provinces, and ought not to be confounded. The one is a question of metaphysics, the other of theology. It is an unworthy artifice to charge upon a whole sect the supposed practical consequences of philosophical opinions maintained by individuals who belong to, or see fit to take the name of that sect. Whether the opprobrium, if opprobrium it be, of embracing the metaphysical speculations of Priestley, can or cannot justly be fixed upon the English Unitarians of his time or upon those at the present day, this much is certain, that it cannot rightfully be fastened on the Unitarians of this country. These speculations are adopted, I believe, by few if by any among us, and by them are not considered as making a part of their theological belief. As I have before observed, they have no natural or necessary connexion with Unitarian Christianity, and it is therefore manifestly unreasonable and unfair to infer from such a supposed connexion that our views of religion are too abstruse and refined for common minds.

II. Having thus accounted in part for the origin and currency of the charge under consideration, I come now

to speak directly of the adaptation of Unitarianism to the capacities and wants of the common people. I maintain, and shall endeavor to show, that from its very nature it is eminently adapted to interest, satisfy and bless them.

1. A prominent and striking feature of Unitarian Christianity, is its perfect simplicity; and it is this simplicity of doctrine which recommends it to the acceptance, and adapts it to the comprehension of the unlearned portions of the community. It is so perspicuous and intelligible, that he who runs may read,' and 'the wayfaring man need not err therein.' It is therefore exactly the kind of religion that the common people want; not a system of intricate, shadowy, evasive dogmas, but a plain exposition of truths which are palpable, distinct, and within the comprehension of common understandings. Trinitarianism is avowedly mysterious. The Trinity,'

says Dr South, 'is a mystery; and he that too much strives to understand it, may lose his wits. Why should I then unhinge my brains, and pursue distraction in the disquisition of that which a little study would sufficiently convince me to be unintelligible?' In another place he says, 'That any one should be both Father and Son to the same person, produce himself, be cause and effect, too, and so the copy give being to the original, seems at first sight so very strange and unaccountable, that were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be exploded as a contradiction.' What can be more complicated and perplexing to common understandings than the doctrine of the Trinity? This doctrine asserts that there are three persons in the godhead. Now the common people, unused to the nice distinctions of scholastic theology, understand by a person, an intelligent being. They are,