hood to maturity, without changing one notion of religion from that early, crude, imperfect form in which it first entered the mind. What now is this progress? I mean progress in general, and not of any particular, much less of any doctrinal kind: a progress which often takes place in the passage from childhood to maturity. I answer, that it will always be found to consist in modifying some opinions, and rejecting others, in simplifying and spiritualizing the objects of belief, in attributing more to the spirit, and less to the form of godliness. He who has made any such progress in religious views, who has made any progress worth mentioning, has more and more separated from real and essential piety things that are indifferent to it. He has gone through a process of retrenching; many weak and unworthy conceptions of piety have disappeared; many appendages of prejudice and superstition have fallen off, and every day, pure religion has risen before him brighter and lovelier and more majestic. To give some instances of this progress; he once thought that religion was a sacrifice and a penance, and now it is his privilege and joy; that prayer was irksome, and now it is his delight. He went to his closet with heavy and reluctant steps, and imagined that the Deity was best pleased with the sacrifice of grief: he now goes with joyful alacrity, and he knows that God, the infinitely good and blessed, invites him to worship with joyfulness and gladness of heart: that He, who is himself infinitely happy, is well pleased with the offering of happiness. He imagined that repentance was best testified by tears, but he now perceives that the most acceptable offering it can make, is a humble and cheerful resolution to forsake what is sinful, and to amend what is wrong. There is a similar change in his judgment of the outward expressions and adjuncts of piety. He no longer thinks that any peculiar aspect of the countenance, or any peculiar style of manners, is an essential part of it. He does not look upon the christian Sabbath as a day of irksome restraint on his manners and affections; but as a time, though by no means of levity, yet of cheerful freedom and rest, of religious, rational enjoyment. In short, he has come to perceive that it is not the business of religion to be unhappy; that it lends a charm to all innocent pleasure; that it sanctions reasonable and decent recreation, as much as it frowns on that which is vicious and unhallowed.

It is evident, that such, and more extensively, a similar progress may be made without any reference to doctrinal tenets; and in almost all classes of christians there are many liberal minded persons who have made this progress. Still, however, the spirit of those sccts, the spirit of their views and instructions, is not af

fected by this change in a few of their members, who do not wish to risk their influence, by developing the latitude of their opi nions, or else do actually lose their influence by the disclosure, and pass with their brethren for very loose and worldly christians at the best. But the class of christians with which we are connected, is distinguished by having incorporated into their avowed system these more liberal and cheerful views of religious practice, and along with them, similar ideas of religious doctrine. These views are not kept in the sanctuary of a few minds, but are freely and fearlessly proclaimed; they are preached, talked about, published, and made prominent features of the system. They distinguish, and in a measure characterize, the denomination of christians who embrace this system.

Now there is a class of minds, which, as it seems to me, this state of things exposes to great injury. Indeed it is to be considered, that there are two distinct classes of advocates for the system in question; those who are such from anxious inquiry and from solemn conviction, and those who are such, or pass for such, from easy inclination, from careless preference for a system that is more cheerful, and with respect to certain indifferent matters of faith and practice, more indulgent. It is of these last that I speak, as being peculiarly exposed to danger. In other words, I speak of nominal Unitarians, a class, which, if it is any dishonour to possess, it is a dishonour which we share in common with all other denominations of christians.

There are many such who are indifferent to all religion, who are not under the strong and swaying influence even of any prejudices concerning it, and whose common sense is therefore left. to operate more freely, and perhaps more justly; who dread all superstitious fears, and rightly; who abhor all creeds and systems, and all human authority, and all dominion of fear over mens' consciences, and do so perhaps even too much. However this may be,it is certain that all this will not necessarily make them christians; and yet that it may make them, in their speculative views, so far as they have any, Unitarians. Just as an opposite cast of mind, a submission to fear and prejudice and authority, may fail to make men christians, and yet may make them orthodox; in other words, may make them of the popular, the prevailing faith. There are also people of the world who dislike restraint, who dislike seriousness, who cannot bear singularity and strictness in religion, nor do they like plain and close dealing from their religious instructors, and who are, therefore, naturally attracted to a system of doctrine, and mode of teaching, that appears more cheerful and liberal. They prefer to hear those preachers, that do not (because they think the evil of the matter is more in the

abuse than in the practice) that do not so much inveigh against their favourite amusements. They are apt to feel that this is a good sort of religion for them. Still more, if this is the fashionable religion, they find an additional inducement for attaching themselves to it. It is to be observed, by the by, that it is not always the fashionable religion; and it will be found that every system and sect, has in its turn, according to its circumstances, the homage of the gay and the worldly. And this only shows, in a still more striking manner, the hurtful levity of that class of persons, to whom the general course of our remarks apply. They have not thought enough to be prepared for a more liberal system. They are dazzled and led astray by the very light that is around them.

There is some hazard, even to a thinking and serious mind, in giving up its early prejudices; but for one carelessly to throw away his prejudices, and take no principles in their stead, to catch just enough of a more liberal system to render him more easy in sin, and more stupid in conscience and a sense of duty, to be growing worse under a system of improvement; what can possibly be more dangerous! There is a system of truth, pure, spiritual, and ennobling, that is kindly and encouraging to every generous and holy feeling, that is fitted to elevate, to sanctify, and gladden the soul; and all that they know about it is, that it is not severe nor strenuous concerning trifles, nor strict about things indifferent, that it does not require any austerity nor eccentricity of manners, that it is fair and inviting in its outward appearance. Its inward beauty they have never perceived; its glorious power they have never felt. They have caught a gleam of light from it; but even the light that is in them, is darkness; and how great is that darkness! They are all the worse, it may be, for what they know. They condemn others, and this keeps them from thinking humbly of themselves. They condemn others, and it may be that they do so justly; but the evil is, that they take credit to themselves for all the fault they can find with oth ers. They talk violently against all superstitious terrors, and foolish singularities and sanctimonious austerity-against all spiritual pride (but their own,) and all hypocrisy and intolerance; and seem to think they have done their part in religion. What is still worse, it is much to be feared, that they have confounded with these faults, all serious, self-denying, and watchful piety, or else they are too much dazzled by their own discoveries to perceive that these old fashioned qualities are indeed and in truth a most essential part of religion. Wiser men think it sufficient to strip off some of the human appendages and additions which have disfigured the religion of past times, but with their superfi

cial views, they make no distinction between the good and the bad, the fair and the deformed, and are ready to raze the whole superstructure to its foundation.

It will be asked, now, if a preference of the kind just described, for any given system of religion, is not a decisive argument against that system. In fact, it is often brought against the system which we embrace, as an unanswerable objection. It is said, that the worldly and fashionable men that are indifferent to religion, are readiest to receive it; and on the contrary, that persons the most serious and earnest in religion, feel towards it a strong repugnance. But what, let it be asked, has made them thus serious and earnest? What but a set of ideas which have taken so deep a hold on their minds, as to preclude all others; which have become so greatly endeared to them, so interesting and affecting, as of course to render them averse to progress or innovation of any kind. While those who have been less impressed with those ideas, and therefore less religious, are more accessible to new views and convictions.

But to come to the question in hand. Admit now that the preference of these last for the system, for the progress of thought in question, is a decisive objection against it, and consider what will follow. Not to urge any other reply, the simple inference from the principle which the objection assumes, is enough to set it aside. The principle is, that what the wordly, the indifferent in religion, (bad men, says the objection), what such prefer and admire, must necessarily be wrong. Apply this principle to common life, and it will follow that those, whom the worldly or the bad most venerate and admire, are the vicious and the unworthy. But who does not see the falsity of such a principle as this? Who does not know that this bad world, with all its bad propensities, has yet given the homage of its reverence, its gratitude, its enthusiasm, and of all its stronger and deeper sentiments, not to impiety and vice, but to worth and virtue? When did ever the character of our Saviour fail to attract the universal respect of the world? But according to the objection we are considering, this general regard would be a fatal impeachment of his greatness and purity.

Again, apply this objection to systems of opinion, to which indeed it particularly relates. We have considered in a former part of our remarks, the natural progress of thought from child. hood to the maturity of reflection. Now it is certain that every mind would prefer the latter state. But if, perchance, men without religion do so, this must prove, according to the objec tion, that it is the worse state-that the enlightened and liberal views of mature reflection are worse than the superstitions and

1

crudities of childhood. Nay, this objection would stand against christianity itself, for christianity was a more liberal and inviting system than Judaism, which is represented as a yoke that men were unable to bear.

It would stand against protestantism, which imposes fewer austerities than popery. It would stand against every enlightened sect of christians, in the comparison with those which are more extravagant and fanatical; for the former require fewer singularities and outward self-denials.

Let it be admitted, and it is undoubtedly true, that the best system, the system which comes nearest to true christianity, is the one which is the most spiritually strict and pure, which involves the greatest inward self-denial, the most rigid sacrifice of all unholy passion, of all unkindness and malignity, and selfishness, which, in fine, extends most, and most scrupulously to the thoughts and intents of the heart in all the departments of duty and conscience. All this is undoubtedly true, and all this is precisely what I believe concerning the system in question. That others do not think so, that the careless and worldly do not think so, is the very evil complained of, the very danger which is feared.

I have ventured thus to speak of one class of persons, whom, it is apprehended, the progress of opinion exposes to danger; and if it has been with plainness, I trust that the case and the motive will plead my apology.

But the state of things, in which we are placed, does not exempt the most serious and conscientious from exposure. Some dangers, therefore, of general concern will now be very briefly noticed.

There is danger, then, in the progress of thought, of becoming less serious and fervent in religion. It assists the weakness of our nature to lean on forms and mystical doctrines, on the common consent of opinion, on venerable antiquity. Probably some of the devoutest and most earnest worshippers and believers in the world have been the most mistaken and extravagant. It is one of the excellencies of our system, and yet one of the circumstances of exposure, that it is more simple than others, that it furnishes less food for superstition and imagination, that it deals more in motives which are mild and encouraging, that it shows a greater mistrust of passion and excitement.

Besides, there is danger in mere speculation. It has a tendency to chill the heart. Even when it travels in the paths of received opinion, it has this tendency; much more, when it turns aside from them. Speculation is then too apt to grow into a passion for censure, which is unfriendly to the warm and gen.