study of the Scriptures, and retard the progress of religious knowledge.

IV. An inquiry into the sentiments of celebrated English Unitarians, with proofs, that any charges against their religious opinions, as having an immoral tendency on their lives and conduct, are groundless and unjust; and that there is the strongest evidence of their honesty, sincerity, veracity, independence, christian temper, and christian practice.

A full and mature consideration of these several topics will prepare us for the conclusion, that Calvinistic orthodoxy has no claims to the high pre-eminence to which you would raise it, either as a rational and consistent system of faith, a guardian of morals, or a promoter of piety. It will, moreover, enable every impartial inquirer to divest Unitarianism of the ill shapen, frightful garb, in which your fancy has clothed it, and to behold under that hideous covering the fair proportions, majestic nature, and commanding aspect, of a pure christian faith, where reason, and truth, and scripture, and charity combine to add dignity and grace. The conclusion it is hoped will also be very obvious, that there may be pious and good christians under both forms of faith; that it is quite as important for believers to love God and their brethren, as to have an orthodox creed; and that the rewards of salvation depend on the deeds done in the body, and the virtues that dwell in the heart, more than on the ever varying opinions that float in the mind, or the dreams that play in the fancy.

PART II.

CHRISTIAN NAME AND CHARITY.

LETTER I.

Import of the Christian Name, and the Evils of confining it to particular Sects.

SIR,

In the present letter I am to inquire into the grounds, on which you deny to Unitarians the name of Christians. At first view, this subject does not seem to be of much importance. Names do not alter things, and whatever any one may choose to call us, we shall still be the same. But many things derive their importance as much from their consequences, as their nature. Although names are nothing in themselves, yet when they misrepresent our motives, sentiments, and characters, they are not so trifling, or unworthy of consideration, as might at first be imagined.

Our reputation in the world depends on the opinion of others. If this opinion be perverted, or ill

founded, it will not alter our characters, but it will weaken our influence, destroy our usefulness, and thus diminish our happiness. Now this result is to us a real injury, and the more to be deprecated, as coming from so unjustifiable a source, as false opinion. And besides, although we are not made worse, others are, because they are prompted to indulge thoughts, give currency to reports, and be guilty of conduct, which adds nothing to their own virtues, nor to the good order of society. It is obvious, then, that there is some virtue in names, and that it is the duty of every man, who values his reputation and his rights, to assert his claims to such titles, as shall truly represent his character.

No name is more honourable, none is more endearing to every sincere follower of Christ, none is cherished by him with more sacredness, than the name of Christian. It is a bond of union and love, which unites the hearts of those, who are enlightened by the same truths, engaged in the same duties, encouraged by the same promises, and pressing forward with the same hopes. This bond you have attempted to sever. A large portion of the followers of Jesus, who humbly and earnestly study his Gospel, who rely implicitly on his word, who desire to bring themselves wholly in subjection to his laws, who consider him to have been commissioned from heaven to make known the will of God and the terms of salvation to men, and whose choicest consolations are derived from their faith in the divinity of his character, and the truth of his doctrines,-a large portion of

these, you would exclude from the privilege of uniting under his name, and deprive them of the consolations, blessings, and enjoyments, which such a union is calculated to ensure. Few christians, who feel the power of the religion they profess, and are sensible of their own imperfections and proneness to error, would be willing to pronounce such a sentence of exclusion. Few would presume to institute such a tribunal upon the consciences and hearts of their fellow men, and place themselves in the judgment seat of Him, before whom all "must stand or fall," and who alone has power to judge.

It is not my purpose here to inquire into the origin of the name christian. It was first applied to the disciples of Christ at Antioch; but whether it was originally adopted by themselves, or given by others, we are not told; nor is it of any moment. The present application of the term is the only thing with which we are concerned.

66

In its general use it has two significations; one relating to the faith, the other to the practice, of those to whom it is applied. You say that Unitarians cannot be regarded as christians in any correct sense of the word." The two senses here mentioned, it is believed, are the only ones in which the word can with any propriety be used. The latter of these, indeed, is acquired and forced, and is comparatively of modern origin. It is sanctioned, however, by custom. In its correct use, the word is employed exclusively to designate those, who believe in Christ as the Messiah, and who profess to receive him as their Master

acknowledged by all men, not only to deserve the name, but to sustain the character of a christian. And when this character is seen, no one thinks of asking what his religious creed is, before he gives him the name. Now I humbly trust, that there are as many persons of this description among Unitarians, as among other denominations. In respect to the second sense of the term, therefore, as well as the first, your harsh and ungracious sentence of exclusion is passed without a semblance of justice.*

Let us look for a moment at the process, by which you have come to your extraordinary results. You say, "he, who does not receive the doctrine of man's guilt and depravity by nature, and the doctrine of the divinity and atonement of the Son of God, and

I cannot forbear to quote here an excellent passage from President Davies' Sermon on the Christian Name. It breathes a spirit of liberal feeling and enlightened charity, which may be recommended with some hope of profit to all such, as think themselves alone worthy of the name of christian. "To be a christian," says he, "is not enough now-a-days, but a man must also be something more and better; that is, he must be a strenuous bigot to this or that particular church. But where is the reason or propriety of this? I may indeed believe the same things, which Luther or Calvin believed; but I do not believe them on the authority of Luther or Calvin, but upon the sole authority of Jesus Christ, and therefore I should not call myself by their name, as one of their disciples, but by the name of Christ, whom alone I acknowledge as the author of my religion, and my only Master and Lord. If I learn my religion from one of these great men, it is indeed proper I should assume their name. If I learn it from a parliament or convocation, and make their acts and canons the rule and ground of my faith, then it is enough for me to be of the established religion, be that what it will. I may with propriety be called a mere conformist; that is my highest character; but I cannot properly be called a Christian, for a Christian learns his religion not from acts of parliament, or from the determination of councils, but from Jesus Christ and his Gospel." p. 229.

The pious and persecuted Baxter long ago expressed similar sentiments in fewer words, when he said, "I am a christian, a mere christian; of no other religion; my church is the Christian Church."