avowal and promotion of his convictions. His daily bread at present, to all visible appearances, depends on the concealment of his sentiments; and if the strict line of duty require, that even under these circumstances they should be openly maintained, the deficiency in so hard a conflict should rather excite the commiseration than the censure of Unitarians, and serve to impress upon their minds the common obligation to unanimity in the support and encouragement of one another, in order to the consistent and successful maintenance of their common principles.

It appeared that this worthy man had for many years felt the greatest dissatisfaction with the popular systems of religion, both in and out of the establishment, and had long sought in vain for any representations of theology which coincided with the dictates of his own understanding. At length accident, (or rather one of those important measures of Providence to which that name has usually been applied,) placed in his way the "Letters on Hereditary Depravity, by a Layman ;" and though a stigma at tended their first introduction to him, he soon found in them a most masterly developement of those views of human nature, and of the Supreme Being, which an attentive perusal of the scriptures, and his own reflexions, had already in a considerable degree anticipated. He had since written to Mr. Belsham, through whom he had, by his admirable reply to Mr. Wilberforce and other Unitarian tracts, been furnished with a mental feast, which he had not been deterred by his perilous situation from endeavouring to impart to several of his neighbours. Indeed his situation, truly painful as it is, with regard to his Unitarian principles, affords an affecting indication of the ardour with which he has pursued religious truth, and is still bent on its pursuit and promotion, amidst the formidable discouragements with which he has to encounter.

The talents and genius of this man appear even in the humble sphere to which he is at present confined, not withstanding the great disadvantages attending his almost total seclusion from the society of the more enlightened part of mankind. Laying his hand upon one of the most profound

treatises upon the subject of Algebra, he said it formed his favourite study, and in this pursuit in concert with the interesting field which has been lately opened to him in theology, his hours of solitary leisure are in a great degree occupied. His skill and ingenuity in tuition are apparent in the progress of his scholars; and he appears to be actuated by an earnest desire of diffusing useful knowledge, especially with regard to Christianity, by imparting an early activity to the intellectual powers. In this sphere he is of opinion, that much might be done in the cause of sacred truth; and there can be no question that in proportion as this salutary exercise is afforded to the mind in the several stages of its progress toward maturity, the treasures of divine wisdom would be abundantly increased. His eldest sou, at less than fourteen, has made very considerable attainments in the art of writing in several hands; and has gone through Bonnycastle's questions in Arithmetic and Mathematics. He is also now applying to the Latin tongue, and is desirous of qualifying himself for an instructor in Christian truth. By a peculiar method of his own, he teaches the art of writing with extraordinary facility, by means of which a girl of about eight years of age has been enabled to write with ease in six different hands.

These particulars are mentioned in the hope of being instrumental both in rescuing genius from obscurity, and virtue from oppression; and in particular of recommending a valuable advocate for the truth as it is in Jesus, to the notice of those whose views are congenial with his own. In more favourable circumstances, there is every reason to believe, that he would become an able and zealous coadjutor in the cause of unadulterated Christianity; he would delight in teaching the young idea to shoot in a right direction, by a judicious culture which would impart activity and an "enlivening spirit" to the mental powers, instead of stunting or warping their action; and having himself recently experienced the blessings of sacred light, long veiled from his observation, would celebrate with enthusiasm the genuine attributes of the universal Father, and the true doctrine and character of the Son of his love. All cases of merit and suffering

552

P.

[N. B. The particulars of this interesting case have been communicated to the Editor, by whom they will be made kucwu to any persons making inquiry after them, and stating satisfactory reasons for so doing.]

IT

SIR, Aug. 22, 1815. T is well known that the pious and learned Mr. Hallett, of Exeter, in the eighth Discourse of his second volume, has ably maintained, in opposition to the Systems and Catechisms of his time, that "the ten commandments, given at Mount Sinai, do not oblige Christians" who are under a more spiritual law, enforced by superior sanctions.

1 lately discovered, on recurring to the "Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes," that Milton had there expressed an inclination to the same opinion. Discussing the civil magistrate's right to euforce, by penaities the ten commandments, he says, "And whether they be not now as little in being, to be kept by any Christian, as they are two legal tables, remains yet as undecided, as it is sure they never were yet delivered to the keeping of any Christian magistrate. But of these things, perhaps more sone other time." (P. 83.) That time probably never arrived, unless the subject were discussed, where it might suitably appear in "a System of Theology in Latin," which according to Mr. Hayley's "Life of Milton" (p. 191) "seems to have been entrusted to his friend Cyriac Skinner," and to "have probably perished."

I have quoted the first edition of the Treatise, 1659. 24mo. a size which may account for an expression at the end of the work After the invaluable remark that " doubtless in matters of religion he is learnedest who is plainest," Milton thus concludes, "The brevity I use, not exceeding a small manual, will not

therefore, I suppose, be thought the less considerable, unless with them perhaps, who think that great books only can determine great matters. I rather chose the common rule not to make much ado, where less may serve. Which, in controversies, and those especially of religion, would make them less tedious, and by consequence read oftener, by many more, and with more benefit." I beg leave to recommend the reasonings and the example of Milton to your correspondents, especially the Theologians. LAICUS.

SIR,*

I BEG leave through the medium of the Repository to offer to your readers a few plain hints on the remarks of Mr. Frend and Pastor on the legitimate use of the term Unitarian.

Unitarian is a term evidently used in opposition to Trinitarian. To the former appellation no one is entitled, but he who believes that God is one in essence and in person. It is no uncommon thing for Trinitarians to say, "I am as much a Unitarian as any one." But the term cannot be conceded to those who make an improper claim to it.

Scriptural Unitarianism forbids us to ascribe divine perfections to any being but the Father alone. "To us there is but one God, the Father." Therefore, those who ascribe perfections, exclusively divinc, to any being but the Father, are not Unitarians. There is no medium between created and uncreated, derived and underived. Whoever regards Christ's existence, authority, power, knowledge, &c. as underived, robs the Father of the glory of his supremacy, violates the divine unity, and is not a Unitarian.

The holding of any doctrines which in the system of reputed orthodoxy are inseparably connected with the doctrine of the Trinity, is inconsistent with Unitarianism. What these are will in some instances be disputed; but when any are ascertained to be thus connected with Trinitarianism, the consequence must be allowed. The following doctrines probably will be allowed to be in this predicament,

*This article would have appeared last month if it had not been mislaid by the Printer.

besides some others not mentioned: The eternal covenant of grace between the Father and the Son; (resulting from this) absolute election, not to mention reprobation; the doctrines of original siu, satisfaction and substitution; the infinite demerit of sin; the hypostatical union; the supernatural operations of the Holy Spirit, &c. It has been often observed, I believe truly, that the doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of what is called orthodoxy; and that the de molition of the whole system generally is effected by establishing the proper unity of God.

Many doctrines, however, though false and irrational, may have no connexion with Trinitarianism; and therefore they may be held consistently with it. Indeed if we adhere rigidly to the definition-the belief of one God in one person-Jews, Mahometans, Swedenborgiaus, indeed, all but Athanasians, have a right to be denominated Unitarians, their right not being abrogated by their opinions on other subjects, as Mr. Frend observes. But if Mr. Belsham's pale is too contracted, as some think, Mr. Frend's, on the other hand, is much too comprehensive. Though, I presume, Mr. Frend is serious when he prescribes the use of the denomination Unitarian in a sense that will include Jews, Mahometaus, Swedenborgians whose creed annihilates the Father) and Calvinists, I shall, I hope, be excused from serious urging any reasons against a sense so novel and peculiar.

I do not remember that any Christians assumed the name of Unitarian before the Polish brethren, since most generally called by their opponents— Socinians. Their leading principles, if I mistake not for I have here no opportunity of consulting books) were: The unrivalled supremacy of God, the Father; the proper humanity of Jesus Christ; the necessity of explaining the scriptures in a rational manner; and the sufficiency of reason to understand and explain the mysteries of revelation. Those who in this country openly avowed these princi. ples, despising the shame and popular odium resulting from their profession, called themselves Unitarians; their opponents generally called them Socinians, pestilent heretics, &c. &c., regarding the denomination Unita

rian much too good for them; and those who, as it were, halted between two opinions, but had a particular dread of being esteemed heretical-fearing the unpleasant consequences of a fearless and explicit avowal of their principles, used in some curiously qualified manner the language of orthodoxy, and feared above all things to be called and classed among Unitarians or Socinians. If Anti-athanasians in general now begin to think and act in a manner more liberal and correct, I hail the happy change, and thank God. There is no "obvious inaccuracy" in refusing to class those (whatever be the reverence of their names) among the Unitarians, who were hostile to the explicit avowal even of their leading principle-the proper unity of Godand who feared the contagion of their society. "Obviously inaccurate" indeed!!

Quere: Where are those many Christians to be found, who, disbe lieving the doctrine of three persons (or three somethings) in the godhead, "agree on other points with the majority of Christians, and differ most of all from those who would be denominated Unitarian - Priestley, Lindsey, &c.? Let them come forth unto the light, that they may be made manifest.

Mr. Frend's supposition that other Unitarians may wish still further to contract the pale of Unitarianism is absurd-the leaning is evidently the other way-and the enumeration of particulars invidious and uncharitable. I would wish your readers to consult on this subject Mr. Yates's excellent Answer to Wardlaw: excellent in Christian spirit as well as argument.

It has been the usual practice among Christians to consider those as a particular class, and to give them a title descriptive of their denomination, who think alike on a few leading characteristic principles, and who in consequence of this similarity of opinions worship God together, and live in Christian communion with one another. Now, if I am not greatly mistaken, the leading principles of those who have always openly avowed Unitarianism in this country have been,-the proper unity of God, the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, the free forgiveness of sins without an atoning satisfaction, and that Jesus

554

Christ is the dispenser or minister of the free grace of God to all those who believe in him, i. e. receive him in that character: and they, generally speaking at least, made a conscience of avowing their principles, with a view to enlighten that world by which they were so grossly calumniated.

I am aware that it has been found difficult to designate us by an unobjectionable term: a term appropriate, without implying reproach against ourselves or our opponents. Shall we call ourselves, rational Christians -liberal Christians? This is invidious. Shall we simply call ourselves Presbyterians? This is no proper distinction. Shall we call ourselves Socinians? This is meant as a reproach to us, and at the same time does not properly designate us, who, as Mr. Frend has very truly observed, bow to no human authority. What unobjectionable title then can be found? I have no childish affection for Unitarian any more than for other terms; but I believe it will not be easy to find one more appropriate; nor can I see what right any have to adopt this denomination who do not hold and arow the leading principles which have always distinguished the avowed Unitarians in this country.

Mr. Belsham, on his side, has been sufficiently explicit in explaining his sense of the term Unitarian; I think Mr. Frend has not been equally so, and therefore, I for one, would wish him to explain himself more fully. And there is another subject on which many desire in common with me that he would propose his sentiments plainly and explicitly-in what he differs concerning the salvation by Christ from those who are generally denominated Unitarians or Socinians. He says (if I remember right) "I receive Christ as a whole Saviour." The question surely is not, whether he is a whole Saviour, or a part of a Saviour; but in what sense and in what manner he is a Saviour, and in what sense and in what particulars some Unitarians, from whom Mr. Frend wishes to be distinguished, despoil him of his real character of Saviour. And for the sake of truth and Christianity -why not add Unitarianism too? Let our discussions be carried on in a friendly manner and with godly simplicity, and not in the hostile, irritat

ing, retorting style of worldly men. Verbum sat. I am, Yours, &c.

J.

Newport, Isle of Wight, Sept. 4, 1815. SIR,

T

HE discussion which has taken place in the Repository relative to the term Unitarian, I have viewed with considerable interest. I conceive that it is a matter of no trivial importance to ascertain to whom the term of right belongs. I have evinced this to be my opinion, by having addressed publicly a Letter to Dr. Gregory of Woolwich Academy, on the subject. And while I feel regret to differ from such writers and theologians as Mr. Belsham, Drs. Lardner, Priestley, &c. &c.; I am clearly of opinion that the term includes and of right be longs to Arians,-I would say, even of the highest description. The term appears to me both from pristine usage and grammatical propriety, to mean the believer in One God as ONE PERSON in contradistinction to One God in THREE PERSONS. This being my persuasion, strengthened by what has been advanced by Mr. Yates, I should not have troubled you with a line upon the subject, did I not greatly differ from the latter gentleman, as to the propriety, or rather innocence, of calling Unitarians Socinians. We call our opponents Calvinists because generally speaking, they admit and own the title. Some Trinitarians are strictly Calvinistic and others who either do not accurately know what they believe, or wherein they differ from Calvin, style themselves moderate Calvinists. The case is different with Unitarians, using the term in the most lax sense of the word-they do not agree with Socinus, as I have, I think in the pamphlet alluded to clearly shewn; of course to call them Socinians must indicate either an ignorance of ecclesiastical history, or an evident intention to detract for the term is generally used as a word of reproach. I am perfectly aware there are persons, among whom is my friend Dr. Gregory above alluded to, who say they do not so use it to such persons I would remark; that as from its being frequently so used, the term is objectionable, they would be studying the avoidance of the appearance of evil, more, to give the term

up. But while their mental obliquity is so great that they pretend to see no difference between him who believes God to be one person and him who believes him to be three persons, or in other words, that believers and disbelievers in the Trinity are equally Unitarians, we can scarcely expect them to be so rational, as the above hint requires.

I very much deprecate the idea of the Unitarians forming themselves into different parties. They are too much like a rope of sand already; every thing of difference should be as much as possible avoided, It will be quite time enough for them to split upon the question whether Jesus was simply a human being, or the logos, or something else, when they have by union cleared the world of the Trinitarian doctrine. For which reason I much admire the broad base upon which most of our Unitarian Societies stand; and I greatly approve and have extensively circulated a decisive Unitarian sermon from the pen of Mr. Hughes, published by the Southern Society, but which has been condemned by some persons, though I am happy to say these persons are comparatively few, because the author avows in it, his attachment to the opinion that Jesus preexisted. But whether he did or did not, it has nothing to do, in my esti mation at least, with Unitarianism; and I sincerely hope, that by the formation of local societies for popular preaching, or by some other means, which, now the attention of Unitarians appears to be turned to the subject, may be adopted, those who can not receive the doctrine of the Trinity will become a more compact, united, and energetic body, maintaining their right, and their exclusive right to the honourable name of Unitarian, charitably waving the discussion of those points which are not immediately involved in the designation and which can only serve to give pleasure or triumph to their adversaries. I remain, Sir,

Yours respectfully,
JOHN FULLAGAR.

The title of this Discourse is, "The Titles and Attributes of God, no proof of HIS Divinity to whom they are ascribed." Eaton.

Essex Street, Sept. 6, 1815.
SIR,
REQUEST that it may be un-

derstood that I have no controversy at issue with any of your respectable correspondents concerning the meaning of the term Unitarian. Out of the various significations which it is known to bear, I have selected that which appears to me to be the most appropriate. I have defined my term: to shew that I have not arbitrarily annexed a new signification to the word, I have appealed to grave authorities: I have pointed out what appear to me to be the inconveniences of using the word in a more extended sense and finally, I trust that I have correctly adhered to the definition with which I set out, so that no person who reads the book can mistake the meaning of the author. To all this I presume that as a writer intending to be understood I had an inde feasible claim. I never pretended that my definition was the only one which had ever been given of the word Unitarian. I never authoritatively imposed it upon others. I never was angry with any one for using the word in a different sense. And though after all that has been said, I still remain decidedly of opinion that if truth and distinctness of ideas be the object in view the more restricted definition is the most convenient, yet if others think differently they are at full liberty to act according to their judg ment, only adhering strictly to the definition with which they set out in order to avoid quibbling and verbal controversy. Upon this subject, Sir, I shall trouble you no further.

With Arianism I make no compromise any more than with Trinitarianism: from which, in its highest state as held by Dr. Clarke, I think with the Bishop of St. David's, its practical difference is very trifling. Nor indeed is the difference very considerable as it was held by Dr. Price and those who are called lower Arians: only that they contend for what appears to me to be a great inconsistency, namely, that the Son is not to be worshiped, though he is the Lord our Maker, Preserver, Governor and Judge. But though I shall ever protest in the strongest terms against this enormous corruption of the Chris tian doctrine, I should be sorry to be suspected of entertaining the slightest