ly one Church professedly Unitarian. The Churches at Portland and Saco, of which you speak, hardly ever saw the light, and exist no longer. The Mr. Thatcher who was formerly a Member of Congress, and the Judge T. whom Mr. Merrick mentions, are the same. He is one of the Judges of our Supreme Court, an excellent man and most zealous Unitarian. He is now on the circuit in this town, and tells me he is obliged on Sunday to stay at home, or to hear a Calvinist Minister. He is no relation to our friend.

Most of our Boston Clergy and respectable laymen (of whom we have many enlightened theologians) are Unitarian. Nor do they think it at all necessary to conceal their sentiments upon these subjects, but express them without the least hesitation when they judge it proper. I may safely say, the general habit of thinking and speaking upon this question in Boston, is Unitarian. At the same time the controversy is seldom or never introduced into the pulpit. I except the Chapel Church. If publications make their appearance attacking Unitarian sentiments, they are commonly answered with spirit and ability; but the majority of those who are Unitarian are perhaps of these sentiments, without any distinct consciousness of being so. Like the first Christians, finding no sentiments but those in the N. T. and not accustomed to hear the language of the N. T. strained and warped by theological system-makers, they adopt naturally a just mode of thinking. This state of things appears to me so favourable to the dissemination of correct sentiments, that I should perhaps regret a great degree of excitement in the public mind upon these subjects. The majority would eventually be against us. The ignorant, the violent, the ambitious and the cunning, would carry the multitude with them in religion as they do in politics. One Dr. M. in a contest for spreading his own sentiments among the great body of the people, would, at least for a time, beat ten Priestleys. Not to dwell upon the consideration, that Unitarianism consists rather in not believing;

and that it is more easy to gain proselites to absurd opinious, than to make them zealous in refusing to believe. With what arms, when the are the judges, can virtue and learning and honour contend with craft and cunning and equivocation and falsehood and intolerant zeal? Learning is worse than useless, virtue is often diffident of her own conclusions, and, at any rate, more anxious to render men good Christians, than to make them Christians of her own denomination; and that self-respect, which is the companion of virtue, disdains to meet the low cunning of her adversaries, or to flatter the low prejudices of her judges. I think then it must be assumed as an axiom, that a persevering controversy upon this question, would render the multitude bigoted and persecuting Calvinists. Then come systems and cathechisms in abundance. Every conceited deacon, every pa rishoner who has, or thinks he has, a smattering in theology, becomes the inquisitor of his pastor. In such circumstances learning and good sense have no chance. They cannot be heard.

The violent party here have chosen to meet their opponents upon very unfavourable ground. Instead of making it a cause of orthodoxy against heresy, they have very unwisely preferred to insist upon a subscription to articles of faith. This bas given great offence to many who are disposed to be in favour of their creed, and thrown them into the opposite scale. Dr. Osgood is really orthodox in sentiment, but a noble and determined supporter of the right of private judgment, and on the best possible terms with our Boston friends. This is also the case with the venerable Dr. Lathrop of West-Springfield, Mr. Palmer's friend, and many others. In short we are now contending for the liberty of being Protestants. If we can persuade the people (and we stand upon advantageous ground) that we have the right to think upon religions subjects as our consciences and the scriptares direct, things will go on well. Learning, good sense, and virtue, will then produce their natural ef

fees, and just modes of thinking upon subjects of this nature, as upon all others, will necessarily prevail.

Will you, my dear Sir, excuse unintentional prolixity? I do not know that you will approve my sentiments, nor am I very confident of their justness; but I have seen the contest between truth and falsehood, before the multitude; between every thing which is respectable and every thing which is detestable, so unequal in politics, that I dread the event in matters of religion. Still I would be no advocate for timidity, much less for any thing like equivocation, or evasion; and it must be confessed, that prudence often degenerates into these vices.

I am, dear Sir,

With the greatest esteem,
Yours affectionately,

W. WELLS, JUR.

Extract of a Letter from THOMAS JEFFERSON, Esq. President of the United States, to DR. PRIESTLEY, upon his "Comparative View of SOCRATES and JESUS."

WASHINGTON, APRIL 9, 1803.

Dear Sir,

While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy of your Comparative View of Socrates and Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknowledge the pleasure I had in the perusal, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversations with Dr. Rush in the years 1798-99, I had promised some day too write him a letter, giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should. first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the ancient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate: say, of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well, but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and shew in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who, sensible of the incor rectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavoured to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice, and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, and even of his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to

writing by himself, But by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him, when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, and presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining, as to shew a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught, and more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers. His character and doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his spiritual disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions and precepts from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that has ever been exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, and still less the information which the subject needs. R will therefore rest with me in contemplation only.

THOMAS JEFFERSON.

From Dr. PRIESTLEY to Mr. LINDSEY, containing remarks upon Mr. JEFFERSON's Letter.

NORTHUMBERLAND, APRIL 23, 1803.

Dear Friend,

In my last I promised to send you a copy of Mr. Jefferson's Letter on reading my pamphlet entitled "Socrates and Jesus Compared." The above is that copy. He is generally considered as an unbeliever: if so, however, he cannot be far from us, and I hope in the way to be not only almost, but altogether what we are. He now attends public worship very regularly, and his moral conduct was never impeached.*

J. PRIESTLEY.

Extract of a Letter from DR. PRIESTLEY, to MR. LINDSEY, soon after his arrival in America.

NEW-YORK, JUNE 15, 1794.

-WITH respect to myself the difference is great indeed. In England I was an object of the greatest aversion to every person connected with government; whereas here they are those who show me the most respect. With you the Episcopal Church is above every thing. In this city it makes a decent figure, but the Presbyterians are much above them, and the Governor (Clinton), who is particularly attentive to me, goes to the meeting-house.

But the preachers, though all civil to me, look upon me with dread, and none of them has asked me to preach in their pulpits. This however does them no good. Several persons express a wish to hear me, and are ashamed of the illiberality of the preachers, and some are avowed Unitarians; so that I am fully persuaded an Unitarian minister, of prudence and good sense, might do very well here. If I were here a Sunday or two more I would make a beginning, and I intend to return for this purpose. The greatest difficulty arises from the indifference of liberal-minded men as to religion in general; they are so much occupied with commerce and politics. One man of proper spirit would be sufficient to establish a solid Unitarian Interest; and I am persuaded it will soon be done. As I am much attended to, and my writings, which are in a manner unknown here, begin to be inquired after, I will get my small pamphlets immediately printed here; and wherever I can get an invitation to preach I will go.

* See Beltham's Life of Lindsey, Appendix, p. 538--540.

With this view I shall carefully avoid all the party politics of the country, and have no other object besides religion and philosophy. Philadelphia will be a more favourable situation than this, and there I shall make a beginning It will be better, however to wait a little time, and not show much zeal at the first; and as my coming here is much talked of, I shall reprint my Fast and Farewell Sermons.

I have written to Mr. Belsham, whom I hope, soine time or other, to draw hither. He will tell you my scheme. But as I am soon going to Philadelphia, I shall soon know more on the subject.

I was never more mortified than I now am at not having with me any of my small tracts in defence of the divine unity, as my being here leads many persons to wish to read what I have written on the subject.I shall reprint them, and I flatter myself they will produce a considerable effect. Indeed my coming hither promises to be of much more service to our cause than I had imagined. But time is necessary, and I am apt to be too precipitate. I want your cool judgment. You waited patiently a long time in London; but what an abundant harvest have you had there.* J. PRIESTLEY.

From the same to the same.†

PHILADELPHIA, June 24, 1794.

With respect to religion, things are exactly in the same state here as in New-York. Nobody asks me to preach, and I hear there is much jealousy and dread of me; and on the whole I am not sorry for the circumstance, as it offends many who have, on this account, the greater desire to hear me so that I have little doubt, but that I shall form a respectable Unitarian society in this place. The alarm of the danger of Unitarianism has been sounded so long, that it has ceased to be terrific to many, and I stand so well with the country in other respects, that I dare say I shall have a fair and candid hearing; and at my return from the Susquehannan, where I propose to go the next week, I believe some place will be prepared for me. In the mean time, I am preparing an edition of my Appeal and Trial of Elwall, which will be ready, I am told, by the next Monday. Part of the impression will be sent to New-York, where things are in as great forwardness as here. If I do not greatly deceive myself, I see a great harvest opening upon, and there is room for many labourers, but it will require great prudence and judgment at first.

I have almost determined to make my residence in Northumberland, and spend a few months of the winter in Philadelphia.I shall be, on the whole, of as much use in propagating Unitarianism, as ifl resided in the town. I see so great certainty of planting Unitarianism on this continent, that I wish you and Mr. Belsham would be looking out for proper persons to establish in New-York and Philadelphia, and also to supply the College, which you may take for granted will be established at the place of my residence. A place of worship is building here by a society who call themselves Universalists.tend to apply to me to open it, which I shall gladly do. A person with -The society, I hear, in a proper spirit and prudence may do great things here. Mr. H. was the most imprudent of men; and did apparently much harm here; but eventually even that may be for the best. I find I have great advantages, and I hope to make a good use of them.

Memoirs, p. 530-532.

J. PRIESTLEY.

† Memoirs, p. 533. App.

Dr. Priestley died at Northumberland, (Penn) Feb. 4, 1805. See Mem. p. 544, App.