these he admits on divine authority; and, to maintain a good conscience, he lives in their habitual exercise, and is thereby formed to a virtuous disposition. But his faith, being founded on an accidental circumstance of his nativity, and not being the result of inquiry and conviction, has in itself no worth. The Parent of Life favourably appointed the place of his birth, and by this circumstance his religious superstructure is erected on the basis of truth; but from it he himself can claim no merit. But in the man, who cultivates his intellectual powers, who examines the foundation of his religion, weighs its evidence, and adopts it on conviction of its truth, faith is a moral exercise, acceptable to God. This man has preserved his mind free from the influence of prejudice, and his heart from the bias of sin; and obedience in him is the act of an enlightened judgment, as well as of a sound conscience.

The observations made respecting religion as a system will apply to its several parts. If our understanding must be convinced before we can consistently profess the belief that a particular religion is true, then its peculiar doctrines must be examined and understood before we can consistently embrace them. To believe as this master in theology, or as that church believes, is not to give a sufficient reason for our faith. We stand on our own foundation, not theirs; their answers will not be accepted as ours in the day of judgment. The right of private judgment will not be questioned. If we voluntarily resign it, we part with our religious capacity, we undermine the foundation of personal re

ligion, and can no longer live in the rational exercise of faith or hope. Implicit confidence can never be safely reposed on human authority. Religious instructers are forbidden to exercise dominion over the faith of their fellow-men, but they are directed to be the helpers of their joy.

We are commanded to call no man father, knowing that one is our Father, who is in heaven. We are solemnly warned not to judge one another, knowing that every one shall account for himself to God. When we resign our understandings and consciences to fallible men, and receive human formularies as the standard of sound doctrine, we remove ourselves from the foundation of the gospel, and have no sure basis on which to rest; and we shall be exposed to all the impositions which the weakness or ignorance, the worldly interests or the personal ambition of men can introduce into the Christian church. Reason and revelation, I think, warrant the position, that every man who seriously endeavours to acquire the knowledge of divine truth, and habitually practises according to the dictates of an enlightened conscience, will be accepted at the final judgment; but the individual who complies with this condition of acceptance can be positively ascertained only by him who knows the heart. To the serious consideration of those who feel disposed to condemn a brother merely for his Christian opinions, I present the reproof of our Saviour to his disciples, Ye know not what spirit ye are of.

As the understanding of a man must be enlightened, and his judgment convinced, before he can

consistently embrace any system of doctrine, I infer,

3. That uniformity of religious opinion is not to be expected even among Christians."

The natural understandings of men differ, their education is dissimilar, and their course of life is va rious. These circumstances lead to different views of religion and of all other subjects. A truth that is plain and evident to the man of ten talents, may be unintelligible to him who possesses but one. What you deem to be a mere rite of religion, your neighbour may hold as a fundamental principle of the gospel. No one ought to adopt the opinion of another against the dictates of his own mind. Speculative differences, when accompanied with Christian virtues in the life, should not be made the occa. sion of uncharitableness among disciples who acknowledge a common Master. Is this opening too widely the door of charity? Look into the New Testament, and there learn the term of admission into the Christian church. This is simply a confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Such was the confession of Peter-We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And of Mary-I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. On this confession, Philip baptized the Samaritan converts and the eunuch of Ethi opia. On a similar profession of faith, St. Paul bap. tized the jailer and other Gentile disciples. If the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was all the apostles required for admission into the Christian community, shall we demand more, and deny the Christianity of the man who, professing

the name of Christ, manifests by his life that I 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 gospei? 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 coun try, by the weight of publick odium. They insinuated 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 institutions 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