the name of Christ, manifests by his life that he faithfully observes the directions of his divine Lord? Shall we exclude from our fellowship all who do not receive the whole system of doctrines which we believe to be revealed in the gospel? We shall then probably exclude from our charity the greater number of Christian professors. Should our principle of fellowship be generally adopted, the Christian church could never be relieved from bitter disputes and destructive divisions.

The signs of the times led my reflections to our present subject. Many of this audience know that the history of American Unitarianism, originally issued from a British press, has lately been re-published in our Commonwealth, and a strong appeal made to the publick on the system of doctrine therein unfolded. The purpose of the Editors probably was to depress Unitarianism in our country, by the weight of publick odium. They insin. uated that Unitarian Ministers, in the apprehension that their cause would not bear the light, were endeavouring to promote it in a secret and insidious manner. On this representation of timidity and concealment, the Editors exclaim, "Are these the true representatives of the Apostles and martyrs, glorifying God by an open profession of his gospel, and not ashamed to own their Lord before men? Is this the simplicity and godly sincerity of the gospel?" Thus assailed, Unitarian Ministers were compelled publickly to vindicate themselves. They corrected the gross errours in the statement of their opponents, explained their opinions, and adduced scriptural authority for their support. Whether

the general effect on the publick mind corresponds with the expectations of those who originated the dispute, the present state of the Unitarian controversy in our country will decide. Prejudices are in some degree subsiding. Learned Theologians with us now defend their peculiar tenets in the spirit of our religion.

The time for inquiry and investigation is come; and our citizens, liberated from the shackles of a national establishment, will not receive the dogmas of schoolmen as the truths of revelation. On the minds of the clergy of our Commonwealth there is no bias from a view to the emolument of high ecclesiastical offices, nor from a fear of ecclesiastical censures, which the civil power will enforce by the forfeiture of salaries, by fines and imprisonment. These circumstances are highly favourable to free and candid inquiry, and they tend to elevate the character of a Christian community. But all human advantages are attended with inconvenience, and are liable to abuse. When men think for themselves, they form different opinions even on subjects the most important; and if they hold their peculiar sentiments with an uncandid spirit, and refuse Christian fellowship with those who differ from them, the society of Christians must be divided into numberless sects, and few of them will possess the means to support the publick institu tions of the gospel in a respectable manner. Most of those who acknowledge the divine origin of Christianity embrace all the principles that are es sential to its effectual establishment. Let Christ

ians, then, in forbearance and charity, permit each other to judge for themselves respecting doctrines, in the explanation of which the wisest and best men have disagreed, and then they may mutually co-operate in promoting the reign of their common Lord.

Professors with us, at the present day, may be classed in two great divisions, Calvinists and Liberal or Unitarian Christians. Perhaps the most distinguishing point of difference between them respects the office of reason in the sacred concerns of relig ion. The Calvinists style themselves the orthodox, evangelical professors; and they require that the mysteries of revelation, as they denominate them, should be received, though these cannot be explained, in humble submission to Divine Wisdom. Numbers of this class seem disposed to attribute opposition to their peculiar system of faith to the obstinacy of a mind not rectified by divine grace. Some more ardent, altogether deny the Christianity of those who reject their peculiar views. In answer to these allegations, we say, that, among all denominations, worthy and unworthy professors may be found that, in each, the most perfect disciples have occasion to lament their weakness and their failings and that, with every denomination, the fruits manifested by the life and conversation should furnish the rule of charitable judgment, and not doctrinal opinions.

In respect to the office of reason in religious concerns, we hold, that without the exercise of reason, no man can be a consistent disciple of Jesus Christ. Indeed, we perceive that Calvinists never

reject the authority of reason, when it can be brought to support their positions. We hold, that by the exercise of reason a judgment is formed of the evidence by which our religion is proved to be trueby reason we make up our opinions of the doctrines contained in the sacred scriptures-and by reason we pronounce on the purity and excellence of the precepts and institutions of the gospel. Though we do not pretend to comprehend God in his attributes, in his works or ways, yet we say that our duty extends no further than our capacity for knowledge extends; and that we cannot consistently admit any position as a doctrine of divine revelation, which consists of a set of terms conveying no distinct ideas to the mind, much less if it involve a direct contradiction, or is manifestly opposed to admitted principles of rectitude and goodness. Deny this, and we are denied the power to distinguish between a true and false religion, between good and evil, between virtue and vice.

You, my candid hearers, are witnesses that, in my general course of preaching, I have dwelt on the undisputed doctrines of revelation, and on the im, portant duties of the Christian character; though I have not studied concealment of my opinion on any religious subject, but as occasion dictated have, as far as I understood it, declared unto you the whole counsel of God. Unusual attention is at this day given to doctrinal questions on which Christians have divided. Disquisitions on these subjects are now circulated among every class in soci. ety, by the distribution of sermons, religious tracts, and theological journals; and the peculiar tenets of

the two great divisions of believers are frequently made the subject of conversation in our families. Under these circumstances, I think it expedient to give my opinion from the pulpit, on the important questions now agitated. Assured of your attention and candour, I intend to deliver a course of sermons on Christian theology. My plan is extensive, and embraces the unity of God-the derived existence and divine commission of Jesus Christ, the Mediator-the primitive state of the Christian church-the corruptions and abuses introduced by ecclesiasticks, and particularly by the Roman Pontiff-the nature and extent of the Reformation in the sixteenth century-the system of Calvin-the peculiar doctrines of revelation-the design of the positive institutions of the gospel-and the rewards and punishments of a future world. Relying on your support, I shall, with as few intermissions as possible, on the morning of every sabbath, God granting me bodily and mental strength, deliver a discourse on a doctrinal subject, till the design, of which I now give the outlines, shall be executed. In conclusion,

Let us, my respected hearers, improve the means we enjoy for the acquisition of Christian knowledge. May we not hold the truth in unrighteousness, but live in the maintenance of a conscience void of offence towards God and man. Then we shall be able to give an answer to every man who asketh us the reason of the hope which is in us. The moral excellence of the gospel will not only entertain our minds, but also purify our hearts, and form us to the disposition requisite to enjoy the fu