4. That "God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness;" that the Lord Jesus "is ordained of God to be the judge of the living and the dead;" that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Acts x. 42. xvii. 31. 2 Cor. v. 10.

5. That "love is the fulfilling of the law;" that for a man "to love God with all the heart, with all the understanding, and all the strength, and his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices;" that christians should "walk in wisdom towards them that are without, redeeming the time;" and "above all things have fervent charity among themselves." Rom. xiii. 10. Mark xii. 33. Col. iv. 5. 1 Pet. iv. 8.

The first of these articles is stated by the apostle, as the faith of christians, in contrast with the faith of the heathen world.

The second contains the glad tidings of great joy, as stated by our Saviour.

The third is what the apostles of the gentiles "first of all," or among the chief things preached to the Corinthians-what Peter preached to the Jews-and what our Saviour taught respecting the general resurrection.

The fourth contains the doctrine of which Paul told the Athenians, that God had "given assurance to all men," in raising Jesus from the dead-what Peter said that Jesus commanded the apostles to preach and to testify-and what was abundantly taught by Paul in his epistles.

The fifth contains a summary of christian duty, as taught by Christ and his apostles. [Christian Disciple.

Eighth Letter to the Rev. Dr. Miller. On the Morals of celebrated English Unitarians.

SIR,

In

my

first letter I incidentally mentioned the names of several persons, whose lives and characters, it was thought, afforded no feeble testimony to the incorrectness of your charges of immorality and irreligion against unitarians. I was so unfortunate, however, as to select a few names to which you have taken great exceptions. Among these you specify Clayton, Hoadly, Chillingworth, Law, Blackburne; and your principle of selection would embrace Dr. Samuel Clarke, and all others, who were unitarians, and at the same time belonged to the English Church. You are amazed, that any one should refer to such men as examples of morality. "I am astonished," you say, "and know not how men, whom I am compelled to consider as honest and sincere themselves, can so far suffer their zeal to triumph over their prudence, I had almost said over their moral sense, as to claim such associates." It is presumed, that all your readers, who know any thing of the characters of these persons, have been equally astonished, that your own "zeal should so far triumph over your prudence," as to suffer you to arraign before your individual judgment, and condemn, with a latitude of censure amounting almost to reprobation, men, who have been universally admired for their talents, and revered for their virtues.

Since you have thus ventured, in terms the most serious, to impeach the characters of persons, who have always been considered not less an ornament to the christian profession, than worthy examples of the good

influences of the unitarian faith, it becomes my duty to examine the fact in regard to their morals and lives, and also to inquire into the grounds of your impeachment. If, indeed, it can be made out, that these were bad men, and used religion only as a cloak for worldly and wicked purposes, as you would seem to insinuate, then it must be confessed, that the argument in favour of the moral tendency of unitarianism is rather weakened than confirmed by appealing to their example. But if the contrary be true, and they be ascertained to have been exemplary, and pious christians, it will follow, that you were mistaken, more vehement than accurate, and that the argument is sound.

As the only mode of settling the question in this shape, is by an appeal to their writings and cotemporaries, it can hardly be supposed, that my limited plan will allow me to go into a full investigation. I can only touch on a few prominent particulars. They shall be such, however, as will be conclusive. The truth is, you cannot select an equal number of men of so much eminence from any period of history, who were more distinguished for their excellence and christian virtues. Had you thrown your shafts at random, they could not have been more unfortunate in the direction they took, or the objects on which they chanced to fall. It is a fact, which you have not attempted to controvert, and which I am persuaded you will not, that these men were remarkable for their practical goodness. Why then are they loaded with charges so heavy and offensive, why so much abhorrence expressed of their very names, why are they libelled and proscribed as men, who were a disgrace to their profession, who are to be reprobated and condemned as malefactors, and whom no honest man in defence of a good cause can "claim as associates?"

You answer, that in belonging to the Church of Bugland, they subscribed to articles which they did not believe. It follows, that they were hypocrites, and their goodness a show for their own convenience and interest. As the burden of your charges rests on this point, it shall be examined with some attention.

The question is, whether these men did not obey the dictates of conscience, and conform to the decision of their judgment in the course they pursued. If so, it would have been criminal to act differently. They are not to be judged by a rule, which any individual, not acquainted with their motives, may imagine he should prescribe to himself under similar circumstances. By this mode of judging, you would admit no man to be conscientious, or sincere, or to act rightly, till he should be guided by your rule. You have denounced these men as hypocrites, immoral, and irreligious, on principles by which every man in the community might, in a greater or less degree, come under the same ceusure. When you can prove by a man's conduct, that he aims to promote selfish interests and unholy purposes by a sacrifice of every thing, which can dignify and adorn the human character, or that he disregards all the laws of right reason and of revelation, which concern him as an immortal and accountable being, you may then, and not before, discover some show of justice in such a sentence of condemnation, as you have passed upon these men. In the present case, no such proof can be exhibited. No motives can be urged, which could have induced them to dissemble. The whole tenor of their lives is a standing witness to their uprightness, and whatever may be thought of their views of subscription, it is contrary to every principle of justice and charity, of conviction and belief, to suppose that in a case of the

greatest possible moment, they forsook the integrity, which had uniformly guided them in concerns of infinitely less importance.

It is well known, that very different opinions have been entertained by different persons, respecting the nature and terms of subscription. Some have contended, that the articles ought to be explicitly believed in their literal sense by the person subscribing, while others have considered them as designed to secure the peace and union of the Church, without intending to impose a belief, or a pretended belief, in particular dogmas. In the present connexion it will be sufficient to hint at three general modes, in which the subject has been viewed.

First, it was a very early opinion, that the articles were intended not so much to be articles of faith, as of peace. Such was the opinion of Laud, of Sheldon, and many others of that period. Some general forms were necessary to keep the Church together, and although the framers of the articles made them express their own belief, yet the object to be attained was a unity of action, an agreement of order, a resolution and promise to submit to the authority, and support the institutions of the Church.

This was the sense in which the subject was understood by Chillingworth. He publicly professed not to subscribe the articles, as articles of faith, but of peace. To this effect he speaks in the following words; "For the Church of England I am fully persuaded, that the constant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, shall be saved; and that there is no error in it, which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace, or renounce the communion of it; this, in my opinion, is all