of true religion, which kindled in them the light of piety and goodness, and to the illustration and diffusion of which, many of them devoted their lives at the cost of the greatest sacrifices? The persons, whose names have just been mentioned, and a multitude of others, whose names have not been mentioned, were remarkable for nothing more than their purity of manners and morals. It is not pretended, that there are no exceptions; but I am confident you cannot select an equal number of names of eminence from any sect, whose biographies and whose works

which I believe to be great and amiable." Horsley's Letters to Priestley, p. 276. Let. XVII.

The following remarks on the character of Lindsey are from a Trinitarian, the Rev. Job Orton, who has been called the "last of the Puritans." They are contained in his Letters to Dissenting Ministers.

"I am exceedingly glad," says he, "to hear, that Mr. Lindsey's chapel was so well filled, especially in the summer season, when the London congregations are generally thin. I have had two or three letters from that worthy and excellent man, whom I much esteem, and hold in the same veneration as I should have done one of the ejected and silenced Ministers a century ago. I have nothing to do with his particular sentiments; but his good sense, learning, piety, integrity, and desire to do good, demand the esteem and affection of every consistent Christian, especially every consistent Dissenter.

"Were I to publish an account of ejected and silenced Ministers, I should be strongly tempted to insert Mr. Lindsey in the list, which he mentions with so much veneration. He certainly deserves as much respect and honour as any one of them, for the part he has acted. Perhaps few of them exceeded him in learning or Piety. I venerate him as I would any of your confessors. As to his particular sentiments, they are nothing to me, any more than Baxter's, or Tombes's, or John Goodwin's. An honest, pious man, who makes such a sacrifice to truth and conscience, as he has done, is a glorious character, and deserves the respect, esteem, and veneration of every true christian, whatever his particular sentiments may be."-See Monthly Repository, Vol. I. p. 304.

Among other English Unitarians, not mentioned above, whose talents and learning have never been disputed, and whose moral character will bear any scrutiny, which the eagle-eyed malice of their enemies can make, may be numbered the following; namely, Bishop Clayton, Abernethy, Leland, Lowman,

bear such uniform and unequivocal testimony to their reverence for divine truth, their amiable and excellent virtues, their christian meekness, charity, benevolence, fortitude, and a faithful discharge of their social and religious duties in every walk of life. Nothing can be more diametrically opposite to the entire spirit of your charges, than the facts, which may be collected, by recurring to the lives and professions of distinguished Unitarians. These facts ought to be known and respected, before the liberty is taken to cast reproach on their moral character, and their religious faith. Is it to be believed, that Watts and Whitby became bad men, when they abandoned their trinitarian sentiments? Is there any evidence, that they were not as virtuous, as pious, and as sincere practical christians, as they had always previously been? Bishop Horsley, that paragon of meekness, candour, and charity, declared “the moral good of Unitarians to be sin." If this indeed be so, if it be really a duty to reprobate their virtues as vices, and to condemn in them what is worthy of the highest praise in others, then it must be confessed, that the charges against them of irreligion, licentiousness, and immorality, as proceeding from their

William Penn, Palmer, Tyrrwhit, Disney, Kenrick, Simpson, Toulmin, Reynolds, Estlin, Dr. Enfield, Bretland, Turner. To these may be added from among the earlier English Unitarians, Elwall, Biddle, Firmin, and Hopton Haynes, the friend and associate of Newton. The rare virtues of Biddle and Firmin have been celebrated by all parties. Bishop Burnet bears the highest testimony to the excellence of the latter. History of his own Times, Vol. III. p. 292. And even John Pye Smith, to whom the virtues of other Unitarians seem not to be virtues, calls Firmin a "mirror of charity."-Letters to Belsham, p. 88.

religious opinions, may admit of a plausible defence, but on no other grounds.

But, after all, what good is likely to be done by such charges? Is it not better to do something for harmony, christian love, and mutual kindness, than to apply the torch and kindle the flame of discord? Would not the cause of piety be more advanced by offering arguments to convince Unitarians of their errors, or persuasions to turn them from their sins, or counsel and advice to diminish, rather than strengthen the prejudices of their enemies, to allay, rather than inflame the passions? Would it not indicate more of the christian spirit to make an effort to rescue and save the beings, who are represented to be diving into the depths of depravity by system, and seeking their ruin upon principle, than it would to employ such force as could be commanded to increase their velocity, and hasten their destruction?

Your sentence of condemnation concerns Unitarians not merely as christians, but as men, as members of society. It regards them as immoral from the influence of their religious principles; and if this be true, they ought to be shunned by all good persons, as dangerous to the peace and order of the community. It would raise against them the inquisition of public opinion, and not only subject them to the prejudices of party zeal, and the caprices of ignorant credulity, but it would banish from them the privileges of society, the affections of friends, the charity and respect of the virtuous and the well-informed. Such a sen tence requires explanation. It is due to truth, jus

tice, and good faith; and especially it is due to the persons who have been injured by this censure, whether intentionally or not, it is due to them, that some testimony should be advanced in its support, and some reasons assigned for so violent an attack on their morals, and their religious character. This is what they have a right to expect and demand.

.

LETTER IV.

Charges against the Opinions of Unitarians.

SIR,

I HAVE perused your Reply to a letter lately addressed to you, respecting certain charges against the moral character of Unitarians, contained in your Ordination Sermon. This Reply is of a nature, which requires a continuation of my remarks. I agree entirely with you, that the cause of truth and righteousness will not suffer, but rather be promoted, by fair investigation and temperate discussion. Without these, few truths, which are of any value, can be rationally and permanently established. It is only the flimsy texture of error, that will crumble and decay at the touch. It is only the counterfeit coin, that will be tarnished by the purifying test. And so with opinions; what is false may be detected and exposed by inquiry and argument; truth will stand

more firm, assume a statelier majesty, and shine with a brighter lustre.

For these reasons I do not regret, that you have imposed on me the necessity of speaking more at large on the subject of your charges against Unitarians. I should consider myself guilty of a culpable indifference and neglect, not to defend, when occasion requires, such opinions, and especially religious opinions, as I have adopted from a conviction of their truth. And if, in addition to this, I should not be prompt to repel unprovoked and unwarrantable attacks on my moral character, I should feel, that I had as little respect for myself, as love of virtue, and regard for religion.

You complain with some warmth of the kind of language used in my letter; you think it harsh and disrespectful. Of this I am not aware. Applied to your general character, it possibly might be so; but it was not thus applied; it was used with exclusive reference to your Sermon. The writer was not obliged to know any thing more of your character, while commenting on that discourse, than he found there displayed; and if he did know more, it was not his duty to let this knowledge betray him into language, which would not express his sentiments, to the exclusion of that, which he was conscious the nature of the subject imperiously demanded.

Besides, you seem to forget the provocation. Or have you seriously persuaded yourself, that there is nothing offensive in charging men, who feel that they are as sincere, as conscientious, as virtuous, and as

}