are now, they are the least known of any parts of the system, and yet the most decisive tests of both, its truth and tendency. And for obvious reasons: if these attacks upon the authenticity and natural meaning of single texts, and of whole books of Scripture, are unjust, then the system (as it can only stand upon the ruins of those inconvenient texts) has no foundation. It is, therefore, what Unitarianism cannot do without, which is (or ought to be) the grand object of public attention. Now it cannot do without assuming that many chapters and passages of the New Testament are base fabrications; it cannot do without assuming that whole books of the New Testament are of doubtful authenticity; it cannot do without assuming that all Scriptural language which affects itself is figurative; it cannot do without assuming that Jesus Christ and his apostles were fallible, and not to be trusted, when they reason upon topics which interfere with Unitarianism! Yes: all this must be conceded to Unitarians, or their cause is lost; for in vain they palliate coarse and sweeping criticisms, by pretending that these were uttered in the heat of controversy; in vain they disentangle themselves, as a body, from the rash and gross things uttered by individuals; because, if these things are not true, the texts and the interpretations, affected by them are true, and Unitarianism false. This is the alternative either to identify themselves with the battering-rams of their system, or to acknowledge that nothing material is demolished by them, as yet; for the work of destruction is all to do over again, if they disclaim the ma.. chinery by which it has been attempted. But this is not disclaimed; and, therefore, whatever

marks of infidelity exist in Unitarian canons of criticism, and modes of attack, may justly be made public.

In the present day, infidelity labours under an unusual degree of public odium, owing to its actual alliance with some revolutionary demagogues, and to its supposed spread among the lower orders. Hence the bare name, Infidel, associated as it is with the sanguinary horrors of France, awakens the joint strength of religious and political feelings. Such being the real state of public feeling, it is no trifling matter to identify, in any sense or degree, the system of any religious sect, with infidelity: the direct tendency of such identification must be to involve that sect in disgrace, if not in difficulty. It is, therefore, of importance to examine whether it be fair to pro

mote such an event.

se

Now, as to degrading Unitarianism in public opinion, one thing is certain, namely, that sheer malignity itself could hardly brand or denounce it more verely than Unitarians do the orthodox system. According to them, it is abstruse, absurd, gloomy, and cruel, irrational in its principles, and unholy in its tendency; fierce in its spirit, and horrid in its aspect; derogatory to the honour of God, and subversive of human welfare. Anticipating its speedy consignment to oblivion, one of them writes thus: "I trust it will never emerge to blast and blight all the kind and holy feelings of humanity." Now what is this, but a direct assertion that our system has done so, and is blasting and blighting in its influence upon humanity? Nothing worse than this charge could be advanced against infidelity itself;

Harris's Sermons, Note L.

and, could it be substantiated by facts, the adherents of Orthodoxy might justly be identified with infidels, in a moral point of view in a speculative, they are so, and that by one of the most candid Unitarians. Mr. Yates, in his controversy with Dr. Wardlaw, appeals to Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion, as containing a demonstration, that Orthodoxy and Infidelity are created upon the " "The opvery same basis.” posers of Unitarianism and of Christianity necessarily assume the very same ground." The sentiments often advanced by Trinitarians, in defending their doctrines against the objections of reason, tend to UNIVERSAL SCEPTICISM." Sequel, pp. 29, 30.

In this manner, it might be shown at large, that barely doing as we are done by," would afford range enough for the rancour of even an unprincipled enemy; but, bad as our system is said to be, it acknowledges no such maxim,—connives at no such retaliation. Its authoritative maxim is, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." And I venture to affirm, in the name of all the intelligent Orthodox, that if evidence that our creed is derogatory to the divine honour, and baneful to human welfare, is produced, equal in kind and degree to the evidence we produce of its being revealed from heaven, then we will not only relinquish it, but also thank Unitarians for exposing its fallacy. This is how we would be done by : give us only the same number of similar proofs of its error and infamy as we give of its truth and excellence, and, although we may not embrace Unitarianism, we will renounce Orthodoxy at once; for, with all our imputed prejudices, and impaired rationality, we have still common sense and natural

N. S. NO. 61.

candour enough left, both to know and to acknowledge, that a creed which degrades God and man too, cannot be "from God." Such evidence, however, has not been produced; and, while Scripture and the accumulated experience of ages continue to be the only legitimate witnesses upon the subject, it never can be. Instead, therefore, of violating the Saviour's golden rule of equity, we are acting up to the very spirit of it, when we attempt to undeceive Unitarians: it is doing as would be done by. Upon this simple ground I rest the abstract justice of the process I am about to pursue.

we

And as to the direct tendency of identifying, in any sense, Unitarianism and Infidelity, the worst that can be augured from the most successful attempt is, the extension of the civil restraints now upon ribald Infidelity, to ribald Unitarianism. I say ribald; because common decency in either is a safeguard against all restraints. Un-less, therefore, Unitarians are determined to employ ribaldry in behalf of their system, this fear, however it may be paraded, cannot be seriously entertained; for, if they did apprehend any danger to religious liberty from such identification, they would not surely affirm, that our sentiments lead to UNIVERSAL SCEPTICISM! This, we have seen, is roundly affirmed; and we may naturally suppose, from their well known jealousy of human restraints upon conscience, that they would not connive at any thing likely to affect the liberties of others. It is true, in one sense, that Orthodoxy is the religion of the state: this being the case, restraints upon it are certainly improbable, whatever is proved against it. But I will not concede, because of this, that Orthodox Dissenters are less endangered by

C

Unitarian calumny, than Unitarians are by Orthodox zeal; for, if the one have any thing to fear from being assimilated with Infidels, the other, both as Methodists and Calvinists, have equal reason to be alarmed for their freedom, when their creed is held up to public reprobation. Calvinism, especially, is as much an object of state jealousy as Unitarianism; and, by the High Church party, as often deprecated and denounced, as infidelity itself. Such being the real state of the case, it is easy to see where restraints would fall soonest and heaviest, were the abstract doctrine of tendencies to become the rule of toleration. It is, therefore, with an ill grace that Unitarians insinuate, that orthodox Dissenters would be glad to see them restrained by law. And as to our promoting checks upon their freedom, what way, except by formal impeachment, is there left, which they have not tried against us? Absolutely none. Whatever gross calumny and grosser caricature could do to gibbet our system, has been done by them, and is doing daily; not, of course, for the purpose of suppressing Calvinism by law of all such designs we acquit them; but it is their object to render it odious by representing it as infamous.

It will be seen from these remarks, that nothing is more foreign to my design, or abhorrent to my nature, than the promotion of civil restraints upon liberty of conscience. As an individual, I both question and deny the right of the magistrate to prescribe a single article of faith, or to prosecute any man for any kind of scepticism. Christianity itself disclaims and despises all human coercion: the practice of sects is the only thing amenable to human tribunals.

Influenced by such views, and afraid of incurring that censure,

" Ye know not what spirit ye are of," it will be my study to adhere to the authoritative command, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Now Unitarians are our neighbours, and, as such, have an unalienable right to all the justice expressed in the letter, and implied in the spirit, of this command. But neither the letter nor the spirit of the injunction forbid bearing witness against a neighbour, when that witness is true, and the welfare of society connected with its disclosure. Indeed, the chief reasons which interdict false witness, enforce the duty of bearing true witness, upon all questions of vital importance to the community, however that evidence may go against our immediate neighbours. It would be impertinent to divulge the foibles, or even the faults, of individuals, when these do not affect materially the interests of mankind; but that is false delicacy, yea, high treason, against religion, which to spare the feelings of the few, risks the salvation of the many, by timid and untimely silence. Now, so far as the accumulated experience of ages is proof, it has been found that both the morality and the salvation of sinners, in this country at least, have sprung from the belief of the doctrines usually denominated orthodox. Hitherto these have formed the grand bulwarks of that" city of refuge," to which sinners have fled from the thraldom of vice, and from the wrath to come." There they have obtained a good hope, and acquired the beauties of true holiness. Now, the total and eternal overthrow of these bulwarks, is the deliberate and avowed object of Unitarianism to accomplish their speedy demolition, Unitarians are publicly embodied, and already embarked in the enterprize. One of their acknowledged champions, Mr. Harris, has boasted, both from the

system; and the bustle they have made of late, instead of allaying suspicion, has actually confirmed it.

I am fully aware that by giving currency to this suspicion, I expose myself to the hackneyed charge of copying the Heathen, who accused the primitive Christians of Atheism. Indeed, Mr. Aspland has already appealed to this fact, and congratulated the Unitarians, that they are suffering reproach in good company. In one sense, however, the appeal is most unfortunate; for the primitive Christians were avowed Atheists, in the sense in which their ACCUSERS applied the term. The Heathen meant by it, the denial of the existence of their gods: and, most certainly, the Christians did deny this, and embraced martyrdom rather than admit the bare idea of such divinities. Now, sceptical as I imagine Unitarians to be, I do give them credit for believing more of the Bible than the primitive Christians believed of Pagan mythology.

Let us now compare Unitarianism and Deism. And that I may not misrepresent either system, I shall confine myself to acknowledged digests of both, and use only the express words of their respective adherents. In regard to Deism, it is not much known as a system; because Deists, in this country at least, have never been formally organized as a religious body. It is, therefore, difficult to fix upon any document which may be fairly considered as their authorized creed. There is, however, one instance in the history of English Deism, in which they did issue a confession of their faith. I refer to the period of Warburton's Controversy on the Divine Legation of Moses. That work, his Lordship says, was written for their use; and, accordingly, it is dedicated to the FREETHINKERS. Soon after its appear

ance, an answer was published by a society of gentlemen, who begin thus: "We, the Deists and Freethinkers of Great Britain," &c. Towards the close of this elaborate answer, they give what they call, "The five Articles of the Religion of God and Nature;" and quote, with unqualified approbation, the opinion of Lord Herbert upon these articles. They are as follows:

"1. The Deists believe that there is one supreme God and Father of all things.

"2. That all worship and adoration ought to terminate in this one God.

"3. That the love and pursuit of truth and virtue is the chief and only essential part of this acceptable and rewardable worship.

"4. That deep contrition and sorrow for our sins, and aberrations from truth and virtue, with a sincere repentance and reformation after such sins, is the true propitiation for sin, or the means of reconciling sinners unto God.

"5, That God, as the wise and righteous Judge and Governor of the world, will certainly reward virtue, and punish vice, both here and hereafter."

66

This," they say, "is the true universal religion which God has established; the revelation of which he has given in Nature and Providence to all mankind." Now, if this be Deism, well might Dr. Priestley say of Jefferson, the Deistical President, " If he be an unbeliever, he cannot be very far from us; and I hope he is in the way to be not only almost, but altogether what we are." It would be a mere waste of time and space, to prove that these articles form the very substance of Unitarianism. It adds nothing material to them but the divine mission of Christ; and as that, according to Unitarianism, taught little or nothing more than these articles, Deists