denomination have argued with quite as much zeal on the other side. Dr. Chandler had a controversy with Mr. Bourn on the subject, in which he maintained eternal punishment. Dr. Cogan confutes the destruction scheme with his usual acuteness and force;* Dr. Estlin has written expressly against it;† and several articles have appeared in the Monthly Repository with the same bearing. The doctrine was not believed by Locke, Newton, Priestley, Jebb, Lindsey, nor any of the more celebrated early English Unitarians. It is an injurious insinuation, therefore, to impute this doctrine to Unitarianism, or to intimate that it is oftener attached to persons of this belief, than to those of the various shades of Trinitarianism.‡

But in any case it could hardly be supposed, that it would be held up as defective in moral influence, especially by a believer in eternal torments. It supposes a full measure of punishment to be inflicted on every soul, before it shall be put out of being, and that the term and degree of this punishment will be in proportion to the guilt of past sins. The only immoral influence, which it would seem to have, is, that it casts a shadow over the divine goodness, in representing God as destroying a portion of his spiritual

* Cogan's Theological Disquisitions, p. 361–439.

+ Estlin's Discourses on Universal Restitution, p. 68.

Miss Hannah Adams has failed in her usual accuracy in attributing this doctrine to the Polish Socinians, as is plain from the testimony of B. Wissowatius before quoted. Hannah Adams's Dictionary of all Religions, 4th ed. p. 274.

creatures, towards whom he has declared his love to be unchangeable, and whom he has power to bless with everlasting happiness. This scheme is scarcely less opposed to reason, and the best feelings of man, than the doctrine of eternal misery, and its advocates profess to build it exclusively on the Scriptures.

So far as terror is a motive to good action, as Dr. Priestley has observed, this doctrine must certainly take precedence of all others. What idea can be more dismal, painful, and appalling, than that of ceasing to exist, after suffering the acutest misery for an indefinite length of time? Where is the man, however abandoned in wickedness, however lost to a sense of virtue and duty, who, with all his crimes on his head, would not feel infinitely more comfort in the certainty of a future existence, although he must suffer the just punishment of his sins, than he would at the gloomy thought of falling into nothing, and of being forgotten even by his God? Do you believe a doctrine can be preached more terrible to the sinner, than that which puts him beyond the reach of infinite mercy, goodness, and love? If the conduct of men is to be regulated by terrific representations of the future, and if the doctrine of eternal punishment has any tendency to restrain them from vice, this must act with double force, as it is doubly awful in its nature and its prospects.

PART V.

SENTIMENTS AND MORALS OF CELEBRATED ENGLISH UNITARIANS.

LETTER I.

Theological Sentiments of Newton, Locke, and Watts.

SIR,

In the closing remarks of your Letter, strong disapprobation is expressed, that Unitarians should presume to rank Newton, Locke and Watts, among their numbers. You intimate a belief, that in using this freedom with the two former, "those illustrious men are treated with great injustice ;" and "against placing the pious, the heavenly-minded Watts in such company, you feel constrained to enter your solemn protest." As I had enumerated these men among others, who were not believers in the trinity, and as you have been so prompt to question the accuracy, and even the justice of this enumeration, I propose to devote a few words to a consideration of this topic.

among

It may be premised, that Unitarians do not recur to great names as affording any proof of the truth of their opinions. Error is not confined to the ignorant and unwise, nor is infallibility the prerogative of greatness. In religion we look for proof nowhere but in the Scriptures. The authority of great names ought, doubtless, to have its weight, not in convincing us in opposition to the word of God, but in confirming us in the conclusions to which we have come by a careful inquiry. Justice to ourselves, as well as to the cause we support, compels us to recur often to the names of distinguished Unitarians. It is the delights of our adversaries to impress it on the public mind, that our insignificance must necessarily prove us heretics; that our opinions are too novel to be true; and that the voice of all the learned, and wise, and good, speaks loudly against us. This string is harped upon incessantly. No matter how false and discordant its notes, so long as their tone is sufficiently high, and they produce the desired effect on the multitude. Prejudices grow out of these errors. We desire to lessen the evil by removing the cause. We wish our brethren to be enlightened, to know the truth, and to have as few occasions as possible for uncharitableness and reproach. We are influenced by a double motive, therefore, in referring to distinguished names; first, the natural desire of showing that our faith has been embraced and supported by wise and excellent men; and secondly, the hope of softening the roughness, and tempering the violence of those, who indulge in

a license of obloquy and disparagement, which, we are willing to believe, is more the result of ignorance, than of a wicked disposition.

Let it be further observed, that in the cases of Newton and Locke, the labour of proof belongs to Trinitarians. These men have always been classed with Unitarians; they have been perpetually quoted on that side of the question, nor have I ever heard of their authority being brought forward in favour of the trinity, or even of orthodoxy. Prove from their writings, or from the writings of their cotemporaries, or from any well established facts, that they were Trinitarians, and the point will be settled. The persons, who manifest so lively a concern for what they profess to deem the injured reputation of these great men, have exhibited no proof to this effect. Until this be done, Newton and Locke must be considered Unitarians, as they always have been. I am not disposed, however, to decline an investigation of some of the positive evidences of the fact. The inquiry must necessarily be confined to a nar

row space.

Sir Isaac Newton was one of the first, who formally engaged in proving the spuriousness of the famous text of the three heavenly witnesses, 1 John v. 7; and also in showing that the received reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, is a corruption.* This subject was

*In regard to 1 Tim. iii. 16, Newton was of the same opinion as Dr. Sa muel Clarke. Instead of God manifest in the flesh, he believed the true reading to be, He who, or that which was manifest in the flesh. "All the old versions," says Dr. Clarke, " have it qui or quod. And all the ancient Fa