had written of the rise and progress of the Unitarian controversy,' but forbore to publish, the rightful position was assigned to the General Repository, as the advance-guard of Unitarianism proper." What he meant by the words Unitarianism proper' I do not understand; nor do I conceive him to have had any distinct meaning in his own mind. No work, in opposition to what its writer regarded as prevailing errors concerning religion, could have less connection than the Repository with any thing that may be called Unitarianism proper,' unless by this term be meant simply Antitrinitarianism, a sense which, as appears from the connection in which it stands, could not reasonably be intended. The common use of the words Unitarians' and Unitarianism,' to denote a sect and the opinions of that sect, was, I think, introduced among those who had before been called 'liberal Christians,' by Mr. Channing, through his Letter to Mr. Thacher, published in 1815. The Orthodox had endeavored to fix that name on liberal Christians invidiously, for the purpose of confounding them with the English Unitarians of that time, and of making them responsible for all the speculations of members of that body. Mr. Channing, though recognizing it as an ambiguous term, and remonstrating against the use made of it by the Orthodox, and carefully defining that by Unitarianism he meant only Antitrinitarianism, yet adopted the appellation as the distinctive name of those in whose defence he was writing. In a note to this Letter, he explains that he regarded the name ' liberal Christians' as too assuming; 'because the word liberality expresses the noblest qualities of the human mind.' That name, however, had been familiarly applied by the Orthodox to their opponents, without any intention either of complimenting them or of sneering at them.

"The name 'Unitarian' gradually became prevalent among

us, and those by whom it was assumed combined into a sect. They thus quitted the high ground on which they had stood, or might have stood, in company with the good and wise, the philosophers of different ages and different denominations, - with such men as Erasmus, and Grotius, and Locke, and Le Clerc, who, according to their light, opposed the religious errors prevailing round them, and were the liberal Christians' of their day. They exchanged this for a connection with the English Unitarians as they then existed; and, notwithstanding the credit conferred on that sect by the eminent talents and great virtues of Priestley, and the sturdy honesty of Belsham, this connection was an unfortunate one. They were obliged continually to explain, that they were not to be held responsible, either for the metaphysical doctrines, or for many of the religious sentiments, of its more conspicuous members,-that they agreed with them only in being Antitrinitarians. There are times in which religious truth is exposed to particular persecution and obloquy, when it may be well for its defenders to combine into a sect for mutual encouragement and support. But the pressure from without must be great to render it advisable. The combination implied in the formation of a religious sect at the present day, with a distinctive name, is attended with great evils. It is, however, favored by many, through their love of sympathy, and from the excitement of party feeling, or because, as members or zealots of a sect, they may attain to a consideration which, standing alone, they could not possess. But religious truth, the great means of improving the condition of mankind, is not to be ascertained and made efficacious through the combination of men into religious parties, though its influence may be greatly impeded by such combinations.

6

"The name of Unitarians,' to whatever honor it had

been raised by the persecuted 'Polish Brotherhood,' the Fratres Poloni, in the seventeenth century, was an unfortu nate name to be assumed in the beginning of the nineteenth by a sect among us. It was explained as denoting merely a disbelief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and as including all (that is, as was then meant, all Christians) who rejected that doctrine, whatever might be their differences of opinion respecting the language of Scripture which has been supposed to relate to it. But, were Christian sects at the present day to be founded at all, it must be bad to found them on disbelief, and especially, as in the present case, on the disbelief of a particular doctrine,—that of the Trinity. It is giving this doctrine a solitary place of preeminence among a multitude of other errors all linked together, and some of them equally, or even far more, disastrous. The ill consequences of a name of such indefinite comprehensiveness, and so easily abused, when this name is assumed by a religious party, were not at once perceived. But they have become conspicuous. When a Unitarian was first spoken of among us, a unitarian Christian, as I have said, was meant. But the adjunct unitarian' has succeeded, to a great extent, in dispossessing the substantive 'Christian' of its power; and the Christian Unitarians among us have in consequence found themselves brought into strange fellowship with unbelievers and pantheists.

6

"But I am unwilling to conclude with the few sentences last written. What is now wanting to the progress and influence of rational religion among us is a revival of the feeling of the importance of religious truth, a practical conviction of the fact, which, however obvious and indisputable, does not seem to be generally recognized, that it is only by religious truth that religious errors, with all their attendant evils, can be done away; and of a fact equally obvious, that,

in the present conflict of opinions, minds disciplined in habits of correct reasoning and informed by extensive learning, minds acquainted with the different branches of theological science, which embraces or touches upon all the higher and more important subjects of thought, are required for the attainment and communication of religious truth. In one word, it is learned and able theologians that are wanted, such men as Mr. Buckminster."

A DEFENCE

OF

LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY.

Ropes

I 1-25,

AMONG Protestant Christians there are two principal parties, which have been denominated with no great propriety of language the orthodox and the liberal. Between such, however, as may be decisively ranked in either party, the whole interval is filled by men, whose different opinions, some more resembling those of the one side, and some those of the other, may supply every shade in the gradation. But, though the limits of neither division can be accurately defined, and though in each are comprehended men who differ much in belief and sentiments from one another, yet there are some general characteristics of each division, which are sufficiently distinguishable. Those are to be considered as liberal Christians, who believe that Christianity, in respect to its main design, is a

Jan 1812.