accurate observer of human nature may perceive, that some of the best of men hear from the pulpit, or read, such charges on religious opponents, (an ugly word,) with a complacency sometimes which does them no good, either in the pursuit of truth or the practice of charity. Indeed, whenever the zeal of the pulpit has caused the kind of remark," Calvinism has had a good trimming to-day," it is only too obvious the exertions of the preacher have been worthless. It is equally bad to the Calvinist, who is irritated and made indignant to see his religion represented in such odious colours; and, if he be not more than man, his dislike of those who do it must be augmented. And, surely, it is not the serious, conscientious Calvinist it would convert by misrepresenting his system; that is, charging it with consequences he denies, and knows nothing of in his own feelings and character. The less sincere professor of Calvinism is not likely to quarrel with a creed which, should the Unitarian convince him of its falsehood and evil, he would still prefer, as best suiting his defective views and principles. Will not all Unitarians acknowledge there is in thousands and tens of thousands of our fellowchristians, who make a serious profession of Calvinism, an ardent zeal, a pure and fervent piety, a warm, active, unwearied benevolence, scarcely equalled, certainly not excelled, by any other Christian professors? How must such men feel when they read Unitarian descriptions of Calvinism? That they are equally false and offensive, and the worst possible way of advocating another system. If it be said, our cause is more misrepresented, it suggests at once the best argument for condemning the practice. Forbearance on our part would persuade and prevail more than the keenest words; and it is hardly necessary to remark, that if misrepresentation were on one side only, it would be comparatively harmless, and could not be perpetuated. I would, Sir, I could persuade all my Unitarian brethren, there is something low and vulgar in our usual way of speaking of the opposite faith, and that it offends equally against good taste and good policy; and I am very desirous of seeing in your valuable Miscellany, every possi

ble effort to promote an urbaneness of the Christian character, (consistent, surely, with its sincerity, seriousness and solidity,) that will greatly add to its beauty and influence.

As a Unitarian Christian, I am happy to think our creed has no stigma of bigotry upon it: it sanctions no harsh judgments of other divisions of the Christian world; it unchristianizes none for mere opinion; it reflects on the heart of no man because his faith displeases us; it shuts out no one from salvation because he is not a Unitarian. But it should be remembered, that bigotry is not confined to mere opinion though such is the liberal and Christian character of our faith, (as Unitarians,) it will not be our character, unless our sentiments and feelings with respect to other Christians correspond with our creed. The worst bigotry is that of the heart; and we should keep the heart most diligently from it." He must not be flattered with any better title than that of a bigoted man, who joins an unkindly spirit with a kindly faith; who has neglected to mould his affections to his faith; and, in consequence, regards his differing brethren without either respect or affection. There is danger lest Unitarian Christians should feel a complacency in a generous and philanthropic creed, that may make them self-satisfied before the amiable temper of their creed has been carefully grafted on their own; and, while pluming themselves on the superiority of their faith, they are indulging, perhaps, a supercilious contempt for the understanding of their fellow-christians whose opinions are opposed to their own; or suspecting their sincerity, and harshly judging their hearts. Wherever this is the case, there is the spirit of bigotry; and in Unitarian professors, it is the very worst spirit united with the very best faith; for the faith of the Unitarian cries out most loudly of all against it; and justly then are the holders of it shamed by every benevolent Calvinist who regards their faith with horror, but fervently prays for their conversion; or by the amiable Catholic who closes the door of heaven on the Protestant's faith, though he would endure the labours and sufferings of a martyr to save his soul.

Your readers, Sir, are greatly

obliged to you for the first article of your number for August; the subject, Unitarianism in the United States of America." Many, I am sure, would read with as much delight as myself, the following passage; and I trust, with equal admiration of the spirit of the writer, (a Calvinistic Trinitarian,) and the excellence of their Unitarian brethren at Boston: "Boston is the head-quarters of Unitarianism; and many of the Unitarians there are so amiable and so intelligent; possess so much practical kindness, and so many social virtues, as to exert a powerful influence in favour of their opinions, and to shame many a narrow-minded, indolent professor of a purer faith; a faith which too many of us are apt to forget it is our duty to illustrate, as well as to maintain," &c. I would, Sir, that we ever made it our aim to present to our fellow-christians an amiable character and manners, as well as an amiable creed; and if we must think proselytism a bounden duty upon us, and are convinced we could make the conscientious Calvinist more zealous and more devout; more earnest in religion, purer in his morals and more active in benevolent usefulness; more amiable and more happy by making him a Unitarian; let us do it by shewing him the superior excellence, in theory and practice, of our faith, rather than by pressing upon him consequences of his own system, which he very properly denies because he finds none of them in himself.

I

SIR,

CHRISTIANUS.

South Petherton, October 1, 1822. HAVE lately perused Dr. J. P. Smith's " Scripture Testimony to the Messiah" with considerable attention, and with a sincere desire to be informed on the important subject which it attempts to elucidate. Whilst I admire the learning, and reverence the serious piety and amiable temper which are displayed in this laborious work, I must confess that I have risen from its examination with a strengthened conviction that the author's views are altogether untenable. On the result of one of his critical arguments only, it is my intention, at present, to trouble you with a

few observations, but the consequences arising from it appear to me so remarkable, and to involve so much inconsistency and contradiction, that I should really be glad to learn how the difficulty is to be explained. The Doctor maintains, that the word ons, when applied to God, indicates the Deity in a threefold mode of existence, or, in fact, the Trinity; that E dox, in the first chapter of John, refers to the same period before time, as nws in the first chapter of Genesis, or its translation, Ev dex, in the Septuagint. He asserts also, in reference to John i. 3, and other passages in the New Testament, that Christ, or the second person of the Trinity, is the creator of the whole visible universe. Whatever significa tion the word 'n may bear, it is evident that the Being thus designated, was, according to the Old Testament, the sole operative creator. If, then, ons mean the Trinity, it follows, that the Trinity is or are represented in the Old Testament as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and all things therein. But, admitting this to be a faithful witness, how then can it be true that, according to the New Testament, only the second person of the Trinity was the Creator? The only rational conclusion appears to be, that the Doctor must be mistaken in attributing the natural creation to Christ, unless he can prove that D, in the beginning of Genesis, refers exclusively to the second person of the Trinity, and then I cannot conceive how he is to avoid the consequence, that this word is not indicative of a plurality in the Deity.

I cannot conclude this letter without expressing my regret and astonishment, that a person of Dr. Smith's high character, and the general tenour of whose writings is so upright and amiable, should condescend to introduce his Scripture Testimony, by giv ing the Unitarians a bad name, and endeavouring to excite a prejudice against them as members of Christian society. He represents that they are generally persons of gaiety, addicted to the pursuit of frivolous and worldly gratifications, and destitute of religious seriousness. I hope and believe that his charges are unfounded. But before the Searcher of hearts they must individually stand or fall; and what

allowed him, in reading the "Vindication" of your predecessor. Though a man on the borders of seventy, his opinions have been completely changed within the last ten years; and though his conduct upon that occasion, therefore, was what I had reason to expect, yet I must confess that I was not a little surprised when he told me that he had received the book from another man of equal age with himself, who, though a constant hearer of mine, I did not at all suspect as engaged in such speculations. When such things,' to alter our Saviour's expression, are done in the dry tree, what will be done in the green ?

6

"Though I have not the least doubt of the ultimate triumph of Truth, yet I must confess, that I have often sincerely lamented that her friends have sometimes thought themselves called upon to admit principles which I am convinced her cause did not require, and which have given too much advantage to her enemies. Amongst them I am forced to reckon Dr. Priestley. Never man, perhaps, entered upon the investigation of truth with greater ardour, or with a more sincere wish to advance her interests; but I must regret that he thought it necessary, in order to defend his opinions, to speak so doubtfully, at least, as he did speak, of the inspiration of Scripture, and especially of the justness of St. Paul's reasonings. Will you believe me when I say, that were I to attempt to level the whole fabric of superstition in the dust, I would draw my strongest arguments from St. Paul's writings, and what is more, from his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, which have been the strong bulwarks of orthodoxy? I am happy to say, however, that Mr. Yates, and many other Unitarians, are illustrious examples of a conduct very different. Indeed, I am convinced that when once the Scriptures are properly understood, the friends of truth will find them in every instance perfectly consistent with reason and common sense.

I am not ignorant that no man has a right to set up his own opinions as a standard for others, nor to suppose that circunstances which press strongly upon his own mind, will have the same weight upon the minds of all; yet, if it were allowed us to judge from our own feelings, I would not

hesitate to assert, that the great hinderance to the complete reception of truth, is the seeming foundation which those opinions which are called the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, have in the language of Scripture. Notwithstanding all that learning and abilities have done-and they have done much-yet I must confess that no explanation of Original Sin, which throws its baneful shade over the wide surface of revelation, has yet been given which divests that subject of absurdity and contradiction, or which in a satisfactory manner explains all the phenomena of the word of God. Even Taylor's hypothesis, though in many respects a work of extraordinary merit, appears to me to labour under insuperable difficulties. I am convinced, that if ever that subject be properly elucidated-and I think it may be elucidated-the abettors of revelation will be able not merely to defend it as a doctrine that may be reconciled with reason and common sense, but to bring it forward as a strong proof of Scripture itself. The same observations are applicable to the Atonement. Till a more rational account than any which we have of the Jewish economy, and especially of sacrifices, is given, I fear much that the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement, notwithstanding all its absurdity, will maintain its ground. Nay, what is more, I suspect much the Arminian statement of Justification is almost as absurd, though certainly not so dangerous to morality, as the orthodox statements; and will you pardon me when I say, that the account which the Unitarians give of that doctrine in some scattered notices subjoined to their excellent translation of the New Testament, tends not to throw much light upon the subject?

"I confess it is much easier to shew the weakness of another's system, than to establish a better, or rather to establish another altogether free from objections; and hence, I imagine, that whilst the orthodox doctrines have been repeatedly proved to be altoge ther untenable, the real doctrines of Scripture, except the unity of God, have not yet been exhibited in all their native beauty and majesty. You will, perhaps, impute all this to vanity-if you do, I will not say, that in your present circumstances you have great reason to impute it to any thing else.