zealous, as acute, as dexterous in disputation, as blameless in the general tenor of their lives, and, he adds, even pious, with exception to their own peculiar tenets. Every man of common sense, my Lord, will perceive that the qualifying words are the result of discretion and episcopal decorum, and were intended probably for a kind of sop to soften the Cerberean part of the priesthood. Be that as it may, the representation which Bishop WETTENHAL gave of his Socinian contemporaries corresponds nearly with my own observations upon my own Unitarian contemporaries. Without the pale of that [the established] church, indeed, there are several Unitarians with whom I think it an honour to be acquainted; and I shall make no apology for introducing into this letter their names, and avowing the sincere respect which I feel for their intellectual powers, their literary attainments, and their moral worth.-DR. PARR: Letter to Archbp. Magee; Works, vol. i. pp. 672-3. [In the remaining portion of his letter, the writer makes honourable mention of the Fratres Poloni, Dr. Lardner, Dr. John Jebb, Dr. John Taylor, Dr. Priestley, Theophilus Lindsey, Thos. Belsham, the Duke of Grafton, Newcome Cappe, Chias. Berry, E. Cogan, Jas. Yates, J. G. Robberds, Dr. Wm. Shepherd, and other Unitarians. See also Dr. PARR's eulogia on the moral and intellectual character of Priestley, in Field's Memoirs of Parr, vol. i. p. 297; and in the doctor's Letter to the Dissenters of Birmingham, Works, vol. iii. p. 317.]

[These extracts are given, we trust, in no pharisaical spirit of boasting or of pride, that Unitarianism numbers among its adherents some of the best and wisest of men that have ever lived; that, though frequently branded as blasphemers of the Saviour, the believers in the simple oneness of God have not been undistinguished, either as individuals or as a church, for their moral worth and sincere piety; and that, though, in common with other classes of Dissenters, excluded from the highest seats of learning in this country, their divines have manifested, in the productions of their pen, no gross deficiency in either classical or scriptural knowledge. These testimonies are cited merely to show, that, as respects the character, the attainments, and belief of Antitrinitarians, there is nothing which, judging a priori, should prevent an investigation into the evidence presented in favour of the opinions which they profess, and which many of them have adorned by their lives, and recommended in their writings. Similar observations will apply with even greater force to the extracts made in the following section.]

SECT. III. UNITARIANS ENTITLED TO THE CHRISTIAN NAME.

It will appear that the several denominations of Christians agree both in the substance of religion, and in the necessary enforcements of the practice of it; that the world and all things were created by God, and are under the direction and government of his all-powerful hand and all-seeing eye; that there is an essential difference between good and evil, virtue and vice; that there will be a state of future rewards and punishments, according to our behaviour in this life; that Christ was a teacher sent from God, and that his apostles were divinely inspired; that all Christians are bound to declare and profess themselves to be his disciples; that not only the exercise of the several virtues, but also a belief in Christ, is necessary in order to their obtaining the pardon of sin, the favour of God, and eternal life; that the worship of God is to be performed chiefly by the heart, in prayers, praises, and thanksgiving; and, as to all other points, that they are bound to live by the rules which Christ and his apostles have left them in the Holy Scriptures. Here, then, is a fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith and practice, containing all the most necessary points of religion established by a divine sanction, embraced as such by all denominations of Christians, and in itself abundantly sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world. — DR. GIBSON, Bishop of London: Second Pastoral Letter, pp. 24, 25. [Unitarians acknowledge the truth of these primary principles, and are therefore entitled to the appellation of Christians.]

Once I remember some narrow-minded people of his [Dr. DoDDRIDGE's] congregation gave him no small trouble on account of a gentleman in communion with the church, who was a professed Arian, and who otherwise dissented from the common standard of orthodoxy. This gentleman they wished either to be excluded from the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, or to have his attendance upon it prevented; but the doctor declared, that he would sacrifice his place, and even his life, rather than fix any such mark of discouragement upon one who, whatever his doctrinal sentiments were, appeared to be a true Christian. Dr. Kippis in Biographia Britannica, vol. v. p. 307.

Some of the Unitarian doctrines do, indeed, appear to many of us extremely unscriptural; and yet it must be acknowledged, however wide of the truth these doctrines may be, there is a very great and essential difference between them and Deism. However mistaken these people may be, yet, while they continue to own Jesus Christ as

their Lord and Saviour, support his cause in general as the cause of truth, and lead pious and virtuous lives, we should not deny them the honour of the Christian name, rank them among absolute infidels, and consign them to eternal perdition, as too many do. They have still a right to a place in our fraternal affection; and we should pity and pray for them, and by all rational means endeavour to reclaim them, but by no means revile and persecute them, or even hurt a hair of their heads.-D. TURNER, of Abingdon: Free Thoughts on Free Inquiry in Religion; apud Field's Letters, p. 67.

We and the Socinians are said to differ; but about what? Not about morality or natural religion, or the divine authority of the Christian religion: we differ only about what we do not understand, and about what is to be done on the part of God. .... A heathen Socrates, I think, would be surprised at those who agreed in so many things requiring declarations and subscriptions, in order to exclude one another. And my difficulty is increased, when I find that making this declaration [respecting the doctrine of the Trinity] separates me from Christians whom I must acknowledge to be rational and well informed; from those who have studied some parts of Scripture with singular success. DR. HEY: Lectures in Divinity, vol. ii. pp. 41, 249.

I never attempted to encourage or discourage his [the Duke of Grafton's] profession of Unitarian principles; for I was happy to see a person of his rank professing, with intelligence and sincerity, Christian principles. If any one thinks that an Unitarian is not a Christian, I plainly say, without being an Unitarian myself, that I think otherwise. BISHOP WATSON: Life, vol. i. pp. 75-6. [See also vol. ii. p. 227.]

I shall ever think and ever speak of Mr. Wakefield as a very profound scholar, as a most honest man, and as a Christian who united knowledge with zeal, piety with benevolence, and the deep simplicity of a child with the fortitude of a martyr. Undisguisedly and indignantly, I shall ever bear testimony against the uncharitable spirit which excludes the followers of Socinus utterly from the Catholic Church of Christ. Without professing any partiality for Unitarians, I hold that they who acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the promised Messiah, to have had a direct and special commission from the Almighty, to have been endowed supernaturally with the Holy Spirit, to have worked miracles, and on the third day to have risen from the dead,-yes, my Lord, I hold that men, thus believing, have

C

a sacred claim to be called Christians. - DR. PARR: Works, vol. i. p. 402; vol. vii. pp. 9, 10.

When I look at the steady and unmoved Christianity of this wonderful man [Sir Isaac Newton]; so far from seeing any symptom of dotage and imbecility, or any forgetfulness of those principles on which the fabric of his philosophy is reared; do I see, that, in sitting down to the work of a Bible commentator, he hath given us their most beautiful and most consistent exemplification.-DR. CHALMERS: Astronomical Discourses, pp. 87, 88. [In his Preface, pp. 7, 8, where the writer endeavours to qualify his eloquent panegyric on Newton as an interpreter of the Bible, he admits, what some deny, that he was a Unitarian.]

I know very well that my learned friend will probably here say, "I do not admit the Unitarian to be a Christian;" but I am not obliged to listen to such explanation on the part of my learned friend. If the Unitarian be not a Christian, it is in consequence of that prerogative with which my learned friend gratuitously invests him, namely, the right of interpreting the Bible for himself, spurning the authority of the Church of Ages, which teaches us that Christ is both God and It is utterly useless for my friend to tell me the Unitarian is not sincere and Christian. What! proscribe all the Unitarians in England; men of splendid and commanding genius; men of conscience and honour; men of integrity and truth; men who live and die

man.

die actually with the persuasion that Christ is mere man, and "Intercessor❞—who believe in God most firmly! Is it just, is it honourable, to say they are not Christians, when it is his very system, the system which he himself recommends, that has caused their unchristianization? Oh it is really unfair! it is decidedly unkind, ungenerous, and unfair on the part of my learned friend, or on the part of any clergyman of the Church of England or Scotland. MR. FRENCH, a Catholic Barrister: Discussion between him and the Rev. J. Cumming, at Hammersmith, in 1840; p. 482.

[See Lord Chancellor ERSKINE's splendid eulogium on Newton, Locke, and Milton, quoted with approbation by SIMPSON, in his Preface to Plea for Religion, p. 11-14. Respecting Milton and Lardner, see Congregational Magazine, new series, vol. x. p. 193-211; and vol. iv. p. 260. See also Address to Dr. Priestley from Forty-three Dissenting Ministers (apud Yates's Vindication, pp. 23, 24), on the character and sufferings of that eminent Christian and philosopher.]

SECT. IV. - BELIEF IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, OR IN THE METAPHYSICAL SUBTILTIES OF ARTICLES AND CREEDS,

NOT ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION.

If it were considered concerning Athanasius's Creed, how many people understand it not, how contrary to natural reason it seems, and how little the Scripture says of those curiosities of explication, .... it had not been amiss if the final judgment had been left to Jesus Christ; .... Indeed to me it seems very hard to put uncharitableness into the creed, and so to make it become as an article of faith. BISHOP TAYLOR: Liberty of Prophesying, sect. ii. 36.

We know that different persons have deduced different and even opposite doctrines from the words of Scripture, and consequently there must be many errors among Christians; but, since the Gospel nowhere informs us what degree of error will exclude from eternal happiness, I am ready to acknowledge, that, in my judgment, notwithstanding the authority of former times, our church would have acted more wisely and more consistently with its general principles of mildness and toleration, if it had not adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed. Though I firmly believe that the doctrines themselves of this creed are all founded in Scripture, I cannot but conceive it to be both unnecessary and presumptuous to say, that, except every one do keep them whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." BISHOP TOMLINE: Elements of

66

Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 222.

If different men, in carefully and conscientiously examining the Scriptures, should arrive at different conclusions, even on points of the last importance, we trust that God, who alone knows what every man is capable of, will be merciful to him that is in error. We trust that he will pardon the Unitarian, if he be in an error, because he has fallen into it from the dread of becoming an idolater,— of giving that glory to another which he conceives to be due to God alone. If the worshipper of Jesus Christ be in an error, we trust that God will pardon his mistake, because he has fallen into it from a dread of disobeying what he conceives to be revealed concerning the nature of the Son, or commanded concerning the honour to be given him. Both are actuated by the same principle-the fear of God; and, though that principle impels them into different roads, it is our hope and belief, that, if they add to their faith charity, they will meet in heaven.. BISHOP WATSON: Theol. Tracts, vol. i. pp. xvii. xviii.