opinion which has been at any time found in company with the doctrine of three persons in one God; and if every rash saying of every brother Trinitarian were to be laid at his door. But this is the common mode of treating Unitarians. If one of their number happens to send abroad crude and extravagant notions, he is at once made the oracle and mouth of the whole body; whilst the affecting, solemn, and impressive views of religion which form the mass of their writings are studiously kept out of sight. By Unitarianism I understand the doctrine, that God is strictly One Person, One Conscious Agent, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is alone and exclusively the Supreme and Independent God, and that Jesus Christ is a distinct, inferior, and dependent being. This doctrine may plainly be held in connexion with a great diversity of opinions on other subjects, and I have known it joined even with the errours of Calvinism. course it may be expected to form sometimes part of a system, which, as a whole, is very uninteresting; but there would be mainfest injustice in setting down Unitarianism, as on this account wanting in power to move the soul. Of In England, at the present day, the great Unitarian principle seems to me to be held in connexions not very favourable to the excitement of a due fervour; and some of the causes are not obscure. The Unitarians of that country, through circumstances not necessary to be detailed, may be considered as forming a political as well as religious party. Now it is apparent, from the history of religion in England, particularly from the history of Puritanism and the Established Church, that religion always suffers by being confounded with political feelings and struggles. But, leaving this delicate topick, I haste to another still more delicate. The influence of distinguished individuals, so great on all classes of Christians, has not been favourable to a just zeal among Unitarians in England. Dr PRIESTLEY should always be named with respect for his eminent endowments, and for his devotion to science and to the cause of Christianity; but the distinctive traits of his mind made him too receptive of the spirit of his times, which was a spirit of innovation, as well as of improvement. Distinguished more by rapidity, than by profoundness of thought; inclined, perhaps by his attachment to physical science, to confound the provinces of matter and mind; constitutionally deficient in moral enthusiasm and deep feeling; and connected by political and literary sympathies with the revolutionists on the continent, whose hearts were frozen by an earth-born philosophy, he was not particularly fitted to spread warmth and earnestness around him, or to exhibit Christianity in its most quickening form. He endeavoured to incorporate with Unitarianism the chilling doctrines of the Materialism of the Soul, of the mechanical Necessity of human actions, and of the suspension of consciousness for ages after death, and adopted philosophical notions, as they have been falsely called, in regard to prayer, divine influence, &c. I think too, that his literary connexions, his habits of physical research, and the spirit of the age led him to believe, that Christianity would be made more credible by excluding from it the supernatu‐ ral as much as possible; an opinion, which probably swayed not a little his views of his favourite doctrines, and which indeed is not uncommon among philosophers; though to me it seems not very rational; for reason rather teaches, that the supernatural cannot form an inconsiderable feature, but must occupy either a large space or none at all, in the divine administration. result was, that he framed and propagated a system, in many respects open to the charge of being cold and uninteresting. But surely the great doctrine of "One God even the Father," or of the Supreme Divinity of the Father alone, is not to be identified with all the speculations of Dr Priestley or of any other theologian. To me it seems to attract to itself naturally and powerfully all those doctrines of Christianity, which are most suited to touch, move, exalt, and sanctify the soul; and however mixed at present with imperfect views, it will, I doubt not, through the affinity which subsists between all the truths of God's word, unite with itself more and more whatever of genuine Christianity is scattered through the various denominations of Christians. The Had I time, I might enlarge on one more cause of the reproach thrown on Unitarianism, of being a cold, uninteresting doctrine, and a cause which implies errour and blame in its professors. Unitarians, contending against irrational opinions, have been very anxious to maintain the character of rationality. Now in religion, as in common life, a distinction is often made between reason and the imagination and affections, as if they had separate provinces and must act apart; and the consequence is, that a system is apt to be thought rational, in proportion as it is addressed to the naked intellect, and neglects the other parts of our nature. This is a sad errour. From the nature and purposes of religion, that system of faith is alone rational, which accords with man's whole nature, and especially with his moral nature, with those high spiritual faculties and sensibilities which adapt and direct the mind to God, and to a nobler existence than the present. Accordingly, it may be said of men, in whom the intellect acts alone, or in whom it is disjoined in a great degree from imagination, taste, and refined moral sentiment, from the perception and feeling of the great, the good, and the lovely, that, although they claim for themselves peculiarly the character of rational, they are among the last to discover the rational in religion. The subject is too copious to be pursued farther at present; but I could not abstain from this short notice of an errour which I think has done injury to a glorious cause. NOTE II. for page 26. It was my intention, but I wanted time and strength, to consider an objection which may be made to my views of the power, which the Christian ministry is fitted to exert on society. I may be told that it has not hitherto put forth this power. I know that the history of the ministry furnishes many sad facts; but its alleged impotence is to be ascribed to no inherent defect, but to gross and palpable perversion; to its having lent itself for ages to the purposes of worldly ambition; to its having blunted the edge of its heavenly weapons, and unnerved its own arm, by fanaticism, superstition, and corruptions of the truth. And, after all, the ministry has never been wholly impotent; but on a broad view will be found to have contributed largely to human improvement. And when we consider that the obstructions to the efficacy of this institution are yielding to better views of religion; that in the progress of society, men are growing more and more susceptible of moral and religious influences; that in an age of experiment and rapid improvements, we are authorized to anticipate more effectual methods of training the young for dispensing Christianity; and, above all, that God's spirit is specially pledged to prosper wise and holy efforts for the promotion of his truth; is it not rational to believe, that the ministry is destined to become as powerful an agent in the regeneration of society as has been suggested in this discourse? OF THE FEDERAL STREET CHURCH & SOCIETY. THE Church in Federal Street was originally constituted by a number of Presbyterian families from the North of Ireland, the descendants of emigrants from Scotland to Ireland, in the reign of James I. They arrived in Boston in the year 1727. The Rev. JOHN MOORHEAD, then about twenty-three years of age, accompanied them. We are informed that they met with an uncourteous reception, at first, from some popular and groundless prejudices, which prevailed respecting them. Such misconceptions, however, were gradually dissipated, and they gained merited encouragement and esteem, as a company of industrious, pious, and exemplary people. Similar prejudices had been indulged respecting a previous company of like description, who emigrated to this country, from Ireland, in 1718, part of whom made a settlement at Nutfield, afterwards named by them Londonderry, in New Hampshire. It was soon found that these worthy people, whose ancestors had suffered much for the Protestant cause in Ireland, and who had themselves been subjected to many hardships and inconveniences, were a valuable acquisition to the country. They introduced the manufacture of linen on a scale before unknown in New England. "Their spinning wheels, turned by the foot," says Dr Belknap, "were a novelty in the country. They also introduced the culture of potatoes, which were first planted in the garden of Nathaniel Walker, of Andover."* Between these different companies of emigrants there was an intimate connexion; and other settlers of the same denomination * Hist. New Hampshire, ii. 37. established themselves, about the same time, in different parts of New England. The Rev. JOHN MCKINSTRY, with his flock, began the settlement of Ellington, in Connecticut. The Rev. Mr AberCROMBIE, with a number of families, took up their abode in Pelham, (Mass.); several in Coleraine; and others in East Windsor, (Conn.); and at Brookfield. The settlers in Londonderry were under the ministry of the Rev. JAMES MAC GREGORE; and the Rev. Mr CORNWALL, with twenty families, arrived at Casco Bay. Mr MOORHEAD was born near Belfast, in Ireland, of respectable parents, A. D. 1703. He received the first rudiments of learning in Ireland, but finished his education in Scotland, at the University in Edinburgh. It does not appear that he was the pastor of any Church, and it is not known whether he had received ordination before he came to this country. The religious Society in Boston, of which he was the minister, was established by his pious zeal and assiduity. They purchased a convenient lot at a corner of Berry Street and Long Lane, (now Federal Street) and converted a barn, which stood on the ground, into a house of worship. This was in 1729; and the congregation having increased, they afterwards added two wings to the building. This rude and lowly edifice was their place of worship until 1744, when a new and convenient Church was erected, in the usual style of such buildings in the country at that period. At that time the Society was in a flourishing condition. There were twelve elders, correspondent to the number of districts or sections into which the congregation was divided. The minister and elders were assiduous in all the offices of instruction, counsel, reproof, and charitable aid, for which the Presbyterian plan of Church government makes careful provision, and which the circumstances of the Society required. Mr MOORHEAD was unwearied in his endeavours to promote the best good of his flock, to which he was most cordially attached, and who cherished for him a reciprocal and united affection. His character is fully, and, it is believed, justly delineated in a biographical sketch written by the late Rev. David McLure, of East Windsor, and which was published in the Panoplist, for February 1807. The leading features of the delineation are confirmed by an obituary notice of Mr MOORHEAD, which appeared soon after his decease, in |