Having thus sifted and cross examined the articles of the Unitarian faith, which we never yet saw displayed in so pompous a form, let us now enquire, what fairly remains, which is entitled to the name of Christianity. The sum total is this;that Jesus Christ, a frail and fallible man, whose moral character in private is even questionable, was invested by the Almighty with a commission to preach the resurrection of the dead, and the certainty of future rewards and punishments; and that the power of working miracles was given him to attest his divine commission; and, that after his death, the apostles were endued with similar powers for a similar purpose. Now this is high orthodox Unitarianism; for taking away the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, much even of this fleeting shadow of a creed must vanish before the arguments of the sceptic.

Let the common sense of our readers determine how far such á system of belief can be termed Christianity: and whether it is not a most unjustifiable perversion of terms to apply a word which, in the common acceptation of mankind, has compre, hended a long train of positive and distinct ideas, to an utter negation of every one of them. With respect to Christianity, not even the low Arian has a notion in common with the real Uni tarian creed. The only point upon which there is a seeming agreement, is upon the miracles and the resurrection of Christ; but even here, if we come to a close examination, their ideas upon the person and the powers of Christ are so distinct, as necessarily to involve the nature of his actions. When then the Unitarians reject every peculiar doctrine of Christianity, which, under different modifications, has been received by the whole Christian world, asserting him to be a frail and fallible man, whom even the lowest Arian holds to be a portion of the divinity; and when in addition to all this, they destroy, as we have already shewn, the joint authority to which contending parties have ever yet appealed, as to a common rule of faith; can such men, according to the common usage of language, without a notorious ambiguity and perversion of terms, be called CHRISTIANS? It is impossible that any common religious appellation can be applied to two sets of men so decidedly opposite.

To another set of men the Unitarian will be found to bear a closer affinity, namely to the Deists. Let us take the Deistical creed in its most decent and respectable form as we find it given by Lord Herbert, of Cherbury, in his Religion of the Gentiles, p. 3. This creed is included in five propositions. I. That there is one Supreme God. II. That he ought to be worshipped. HI. That virtue and piety are the chief parts of divine worship. IV. That we ought to be sorry for our sins and

repent

repent of them. V. That divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments in this life and after it.

We know the creed which, as Christians, we profess; we have now before us the creed of a Deist in its simplest form: let us compare the creed of Mr. Belsham with both these, and determine to which it is most closely allied. If to the fifth article the following clause be added at the resurrection of the dead as the one Supreme God hath declared to us by his messenger Christ, and the Apostles :" is not this the sum total of the Unitarians belief? A remarkable coincidence is to be traced between Lord Herbert and Mr. Belsham in the third article, viz. that virtue and piety are the chief parts of divine worship; for Mr. Belsham, in his Review of Wilberforce, p. 103, declares that

"A virtuous man is performing his duty to the Supreme Being as really and as acceptably, when he is pursuing the proper business of life, or when enjoying its innocent and decent amusements, as when he is offering direct addresses to him in the closet or in the temple."

Mr. Belsham is indeed no believer in the necessary observation of the Sabbath, for, as he declares in another place

"That one day should be more holy than another, or that any occupation which is morally lawful on one day should be morally unlawful on another, is a distinction unfounded in reason, wholly unauthorized by Jesus and his Apostles, and unknown in the pri mitive ages of the Church." Serious Caution, p. 26.

Some of our readers may consider us harsh in declaring the creeds of Deism and Unitarianism thus closely allied. We have one witness more upon this point, with whose remarkable testimony we shall close this part of our case; this is no less a person than Mr. Belsham himself, who in a note to p. 168 of his Review of Wilberforce makes the following avowal:

This

"Reveilliere l'Epeaux is a member of the Theo-philanthropic Society a religious community lately introduced into France, whose common principle is a belief in the existence, perfection, and Providence of God, and in the doctrine of a future life; and whose rule of morals is, love to God, and.good will to men. sect is in a very flourishing state; its professed principles comprehend the essence of the Christian religion. But not admitting the resurrection of Christ the Theo-philanthropists deprive themselves of the only solid ground on which to build the hope of a future existence."

After this irrefragable proof of the alliance between the two systems of Deism and Unitarianism," the professed principles

of

of the one comprehending the essence of the other," we shall be justified in concluding with the learned Prelate that THE

LINE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CONTIGUOUS SYSTEMS IS OFFEN INDISCERNIBLE, AND AT BEST BUT

FAINTLY MARKED: a position against which Mr. Belsham, in the Letters before us, now protests, with all due vehemence, as cruel and injurious in the highest degree.

Having thus demonstrated, by the clearest evidence, the close connection between Unitarianism and Deism, it will be somewhat curious to trace its identity also with Mahometanism; and to shew that if the Unitarian shall claim the name of Christian, the Mahometan is still more entitled to the appellation. The following are the passages in the Koran, in which the belief in Christ is inculcated:

"When the angels said, O Mary, verily God sendeth thee good tidings that thou shalt bear the word proceeding from himself; his name shall be Christ Jesus the son of Mary, honourable in this world and in the world to come, and one of those who approach near to the presence of God; and he shall speak unto men in the cradle, and when he is grown up he shall be one of the righteous. She answered, Lord, how shall I have a son, since a man hath not touched me? The angel said, so God createth that which he pleaseth; when he decreeth a thing, he only saith unto it: be, and it is: God shall teach him the scripture, and wisdom, and the law, and the Gospel, and shall appoint him his Apostle to the children of Israel; and he shall say, Verily, I come unto you with a sign from you, Lord-I will heal him that hath been blind from his birth, and the leper, and I will raise the dead by the permission of God-and I come to confirm the law which was revealed before me, and to allow you as lawful part of that which was forbidden you, and I come unto you with a sign from you, Lord, therefore fear God and obey me, p. 41, 42. God said, O Jesus, verily I will cause thee to die, and I will take thee up unto me-P. 43. Chap. III. Verily, Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary is the Apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed to Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his Apostles, and say not, there are three Gods. Forbear this, it will be better for you. God is but one God." P. 81. Chap. iv.

In Chap. xxxvi. the miracles, of the Apostles at Antioch are allowed, and in another part severe judgments are denounced upon the unbelievers in Christ. From all this then it appears, that the Mahometans themselves have even a higher notion of Christ than the Unitarians, the latter believing him a frail and fallible man, the former a spirit sent from God. So great, however, was the resemblance of their belief, that in the reign of Charles II. the Unitarians presented an address to Ameth Benameth, embassador from the Emperor of Morocco at the Bri

tish court, shewing the identity of their opinions. This address is still preserved, among other places, in Leslie's dialogues on Socinianism. And again, on the other hand, we find it recorded in a letter of M. Leibnitz to the author of the Reflections upon the Origin of Mahometanism, dated Berlin, 1706, that a Turk hearing a Polish Socinian discourse on the Trinity and Incarnation, wondered he did not get himself circumcised.

The proof of our second charge against Unitarianism, respecting the general tendency of the doctrine to promote still further scepticism among its followers, will be even still more concise. Our testimony in this part of the case also, will be derived from the same source as before. Mr. Wilberforce, in his practical view of the prevailing religious systems had represented Unitarianism as a sort of half-way house to infidelity: in our opinion it is far closer to that wretched bourn from which no traveller returns.—But be this as it may, let us hear the answer of Mr. Belsham to this allegation.

"Our author is mistaken if he means to represent the majority of those who enter this mansion as only sojourners, pausing for a while, and then pursuing their progress to infidelity.' Some, it must be confessed, of whom we once entertained better hopes, have deserted our society. We formed, alas! an erroneous judgment of their characters. They went out from us because they were not of us; if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us * They either did not understand their principles; or they were perplexed with difficulties which, perhaps, patience and attention might have solved: or they did not sufficiently feel the practical energy of christian truth; or they might possibly be too much in fluenced by love of the world, to advancement in which, the profession of unpopular truth is no small obstruction. But it is not our province to judge. They have a Master to whom they are accountable; and by his decision they must abide. May that sentence be favourable! In the mean time Mr. W. may be assured, that the number who have left us are few in comparison with those. who remain, or who are daily joining themselves to our society."P. 204.

Mr. Belsham thus admits, that a certain number (though not a decided majority) have actually forsaken the shadow of a creed which Unitarianism affords, and have travelled on towards general scepticism. This, however is, in Mr. B.'s opinion, far preferable to a retrograde motion, and to rejoining the ranks of orthodoxy, for says he, p. 203. "Nor am I ashamed to avow, that of the two I would rather approach the

1 John xi. 19.

confines

confines of cold and cheerless scepticism than the burning zone of merciless orthodoxy."

But the most important and alarming fact still remains behind. Mr. Belsham has been accused by Mr. Carpenter, whom we understand to be a very low Arian, of "coming to do mischief and to promote infidelity, by taking the Divinity chair at Hackney." How does Mr. Belsham answer this grave and awful charge.

"My worthy friend remarks, It is unpleasing to reflect how many well disposed youths, who came there, i.c. to Hackney, to be educated for the christian ministry, have not only given up that profession, but Christianity itself.' This fact, to a certain extent, cannot be denied; and, most surely, it excited unpleasing sensations in many, and not least, in the minds of those whose endeavours to form them to usefulness in the church were thus painfully disappointed. But it might have qualified my friend's unpleasant feelings, if it had occurred to him, to reflect how many able, faithful and learned ministers, whose talents and exertions are successfully devoted to the improvement of mankind in knowledge and virtue, and who now oc cupy some of the most conspicuous stations in the dissenting churches, received their education in that useful but short-lived institution. It is an easy thing for tutors to educate their pupils in the trammels of any religious faith which they may chuse. Take away the key of knowledge and the business is done. You bring them out at once Calvinists, Arians, Papists, Protestants, any thing that you please; and ready to join in the cry against any sect which, for the season, may be obnoxious to the ruling party. This was not the method pursued by the tutors at Hackney: they gloried in encouraging freedom of inquiry; nor were they at all apprehensive that the interest of truth and virtue would suffer by it in the end." P. 39.

The answer is made by admitting the truth of the accusation. What then is this "freedom of enquiry," upon whose altar is thus exultingly to be sacrificed in so many lamentable examples, all that can inspire life with joy and death with hope? It is no other than a wild and experimental scepticism uqon all those vital points which the wise and good of every age have deemed essential to the welfare and happiness of the rising generation, no less as the bulwark of national prosperity, than as the anchor of individual faith. This freedom of enquiry was considered necessary however by the directors of this Unitarian seminary, to emancipate the minds of the youth entrusted to their care from the trammels of religious faith, and was employed as an engine to dispose their minds to the reception of Unitarian truth. It will be important, however, to determine in what this "freedom of enquiry" really consisted, and the mode in which it was conducted. Upon this point we shall adduce the

evidence