"a meaning unwarranted by the usages of language, on a book to which all parties appeal as "the standard and rule of faith."

We thank your Lordship that with a spirit of candour worthy of your Lordship's respectable character and elevated station, and which we do not always meet with even where it might naturally be expected, and would be most becoming, your Lordship allows, that Unitarians may bet sincere and conscientious in their opinions and interpretations of Scripture, however widely they may differ in your Lordship's estimation from the standard of truth. We trust, my Lord, that the proportion of such is greater than many of our christian brethren appear to apprehend. And we duly appreciate your Lordship's tenderness to our religious feelings..

Your Lordship, however, qualifies the liberality of your concession, by describing the Unitarian as one who "while he rejects its peculiar dog

mas admits the general truth of Christianity." Permit me, my Lord, to ask whether this charge is altogether consistent? Admitting, as your Lordship does, that we conscientiously regard the christian religion as true, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that we conscientiously receive all its peculiar doctrines: that is, in other words, all the doctrines which we verily

and in our consciences believe to be peculiar to the christian religion. And this, my Lord, we most certainly do. It is true that our catalogue of peculiar doctrines may not be quite so large as those of many of our fellow christians, and we reject as gross corruptions of the Christian religion many doctrines which others receive as the glorious peculiarities of the gospel. But the great question, whether we, or our brethren, are right in our conclusions, is to be decided, as your Lordship is fully aware, not by the confident assertions of either party, but by the arguments which they produce, and by the testimony of the Scriptures.

That the Unitarians believe every thing that is essential to salvation, is evident from the unequivocal testimony of the apostle Paul himself, who in the epistle to the Romans (ch. x. 9.) expressly. teaches that, "if we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our heart that God hath raised him from the dead, we shall be saved." Adhering, as we firmly and solemnly profess, to this truly apostolic symbol, we believe all that is essential in the Christian faith. Nor do we see with what reason any of our fellow christians can charge us with rejecting the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. Let others admit whatever additions they may conceive to be neces

sary to the apostolic rule; but let them abstain from censuring and condemning those who think it their duty to adhere to the simplicity of the gospel.

But your Lordship is pleased further to charge the Unitarians with infidelity in a degree, a charge which, in your Lordship's estimation, attaches "to all who refuse their assent to any material "doctrine deducible by the established laws of "interpretation from Scripture."

But I would here beg leave to ask, Whether there be any just foundation in reason, or in scripture, for your Lordship's distinction of degrees of infidelity? He who receives Jesus Christ as a teacher sent from God is a believer: he who does not allow the divine mission of Christ is an unbeliever. What room is left for degrees of infidelity? The apostle tells us that, if we acknowledge Jesus as the Lord, and believe in his resurrection, we shall be saved. When we believe what St. Paul declares to be all that is necessary to christian salvation, are we to be told by our fallible brethren that we are still infidels in a degree? Ignorant indeed we may be: and greatly shall we be indebted to those who are able and willing to instruct us. But while we believe in the divine mission of Christ, and are solicitous to

Ꭰ

be instructed in his doctrine, we humbly conceive that we are not justly chargeable with infidelity in any degree.

But your Lordship states that "this charge at"taches to all who refuse their assent to any ma"terial doctrine deducible by the established laws "of interpretation from Scripture."

Infidelity, in its proper sense, is, I conceive, imputable only to the man who, while he acknowledges that a doctrine is taught by Christ, at the same time refuses his assent to it. But if one, who conscientiously believes in the divine legation of Jesus Christ, rejects a doctrine actually contained in the New Testament merely because he cannot find it there, his rejection is to be imputed to ignorance, not to infidelity: he may even be regarded as an implicit believer; for, the moment he sees that the doctrine is genuine, he receives it with a cordial assent.

But, after all, allow me to ask, How does your Lordship's observation apply to the case of conscientious Unitarians? Do they reject doctrines deducible from scripture by the established laws of interpretation? They reject the doctrine of the Trinity, of the creation of the universe by Jesus Christ, of the incarnation, of the atonement, of original sin, and other popular doctrines con

nected with these. But are these doctrines deducible from scripture by the established laws of interpretation? This is not a point to be assumed as an axiom. So far from it, my Lord, the Unitarians maintain that these doctrines are, not only, not deducible from scripture, but that they are manifestly repugnant to the fundamental principles both of the Jewish and Christian revelations, and to the clearest and most explicit language both of the Old Testament and the New. Many of our fellow christians, indeed, think very differently from us upon these subjects; and much zeal, and much ingenuity and learning are employed in establishing those propositions as sacred truths, which to us appear to be flagrant errors. But in this case, as I have before remarked, the question, which party is most liable to the charge of denying doctrines fairly deducible from scripture, is to be decided, not by confident assertion, but by a calm inquiry into the evidence of the fact.

Your Lordship adds, "and great must be the "force of that prejudice, which can overlook the "inconsistency of arbitrarily imposing a meaning " unwarranted by the usages of language, on a "book to which all parties appeal as the stan"dard and rule of faith."