Do we

The charge, of an extravagant, self-deluding fanaticism, is the last to be fastened on Jesus. Where can we find the traces of it in his history? Do we detect them in the calm authority of his precepts-in the mild, practical, and beneficent spirit of his religion-in the unlaboured simplicity of the language with which he unfolds his high powers, and the sublime truths of religion?-or in the good sense, the knowledge of human nature, which he always discovers in his estimate and treatment of the different classes of men with whom he acted? discover this fanaticism in the singular fact, that whilst he claimed power in the future world, and always turned men's minds to Heaven, he never indulged his own imagination, or stimulated that of his disciples, by giving vivid pictures or any minute description of that unseen state? The truth is, that remarkable as was the character of Jesus, it was distinguished by nothing more than by calmness and self-possession. This trait pervades his other excellences. How calm was his piety! Point me, if you can, to one vehement, passionate expression of his religious feelings. Does the Lord's Prayer breathe a feverish fanaticism? The habitual style of Jesus on the subject of religion, if introduced into many churches of his followers at the present day, would be charged with coldness. The calm and the rational character of his piety, is particularly seen in the doctrine which he so earnestly inculcates-that disinterested love and selfdenying service to our fellow-creatures, are the most acceptable worship we can offer to our Creator. His benevolence, too, though singularly earnest and deep, was composed and serene. He never lost the possession of himself, in his sympathy with others; was never burried into the impatient and rash enterprises of an enthusiastic philanthropy, but did good with the tranquillity and constancy which mark the providence of God. The depth of his calmness may be best understood, by considering the opposition made to his claims. His labours were every where insidiously watched, and industriously thwarted by vindictive foes, who had even conspired to compass, through his death, the ruin of his cause. Now, a feverish fanaticism, which fancies itself to be entrusted with a great work of God, is singularly liable to impatient indignation under furious and malignant opposition. Obstacles increase its vehemence, it becomes more eager

and hurried in the accomplishment of its purposes, in proportion as they are withstood. Be it therefore remembered, that the malignity of Christ's foes, though never surpassed, and for the time triumphant, never robbed him of self-possession, roused no passion, and threw no vehemence or precipitation into his exertions. He did not disguise from himself or his followers, the impression made on the multitude by his adversaries. He distinctly foresaw the violent death towards which he was fast approaching. Yet confiding in God, and in the silent progress of his truth, he possessed his soul in peace. Not only was he calm, but his calmness rises into sublimity, when we consider the storms which raged around him, and the vastness of the prospects in which his spirit found repose. I say, then, that serenity and selfpossession were peculiarly the attributes of Jesus. I affirm, that the singular and sublime character claimed by Jesus, can be traced neither to imposture, nor to an ungoverned insane imagination. It can only be accounted for, by its truth, its reality.

I began with observing how our long familiarity with Jesus blunts our minds to his singular excellence. We have probably often read of the character which he claimed, without a thought of its extraordinary nature. But I know nothing so sublime. The plans and labours of statesmen sink into the sports of children, when compared with the work which Jesus announced, and to which he devoted himself in life and death with a thorough consciousness of its reality. The idea of changing the moral aspect of the whole earth, of recovering all nations to the pure and inward worship of God, and to a spirit of divine and fraternal love, was one of which we meet not a trace in philosopher or legislator before him. The human mind had given no promise of this extent of view. The conception of this enterprise, and the calm unshaken expectation of success in one who had no station and no wealth, who cast from him the sword with abhorrence, and who forbade his disciples to use any weapons but those of love, discover a wonderful trust in the power of God and the power of love; and when to this we add, that Jesus looked, not only to the triumph of his pure faith in the present world, but to a mighty and beneficent power in heaven, we witness a vastness of purpose, a grandeur of thought and feeling, so original, so superior to the

workings of all other minds, that nothing but our familiarity can prevent our contemplation of it with wonder and profound awe. I confess, when I can escape the deadening power of habit, and can receive the full import of such passages as the following:-"Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest". "I am come to seek and to save that which was lost"-" He that confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven"-" Whosoever shall be ashamed of me before men, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of the Father with the holy angels"—"In my Father's house are many mansions, I go to prepare a place for you;”— I say, when I can succeed in realising the import of such passages, I feel myself listening to a being such as never before and never since spoke in human language. I am awed by the consciousness of greatness which these simple words express; and when I connect this greatness with the proofs of Christ's miracles, which I gave you in a former discourse, I am compelled to exclaim with the centurion, " Truly this was the Son of God."

(To be continued in our next.)

Remarks on the Charge of Persecution brought against Faustus Socinus, in reply to the Rev. Edmund Kell; with a Postscript in reply to the Rev. B. T. Stannus.

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

SIR, I have always been at a loss to conceive why the modern Unitarians should be so eager to adopt and propagate the charge brought against Faustus Socinus by his enemies, of being accessory to the imprisonment of Francis David. My friend, Mr. Edmund Kell, is one of the last men whom I should have expected to do an act of injustice either to the reputation of the living, or to the memory of the dead. In his tract entitled "Unitarians not Socinians," he nevertheless asserts, that Socinus "* was himself accessory to the imprisonment for heresy of Francis Davides, a Unitarian, who died under the confinement.” The only authority referred to for the proof, is Toulmin's Life of Socinus. This excellent work I have again examined with a view to this particular point, and beg leave to state the evidence which it furnishes, at the same time expressing my wish that any of your readers, who are able

to throw further light upon the subject, would favour me by so doing. The substance of what I have now to mention, I have frequently advanced in conversation, but have always been told, perhaps rather by intimation than expressly, that my zeal and prejudices as a Unitarian, naturally made me unwilling to admit a heavy charge against a great leader of the Unitarians. On the contrary, Sir, I am conscious of no other feeling in this case but a desire of truth and justice. I think it improper that an odious accusation of this nature should be repeated year after year, in conversation and in print, against Socinus, because I think it ought not to be uttered without satisfactory evidence against any individual.

It is well known that Socinus was encompassed by rancorous enemies, who eagerly watched opportunities of wounding his reputation. Of all the accusations which they were able to invent, the most serious was that to which the present observations refer. But it is remarkable that with all their zeal to defame Socinus, they have transmitted to posterity no proof or testimony upon this point, but mere surmises, mere unsubstantiated suspicions. The only author, quoted by Dr. Toulmin, as having put the accusation into a definite form, so as to show how far and in what manner Socinus participated in the persecution of Francis David, is Reland, who speaks thus:

"It is a vain endeavour to go about to justify Socinus from the persecution exercised on the person of Francis David. Blandrata had enough interest and influence with the Prince of Transylvania to hinder the imprisonment if he had pleased, and Socinus could easily have brought Blandrata to temper and mildness.”

The amount of Socinus's guilt, according to this representation-a representation derived from his adversaries, is, that he did not use his influence with Blandrata to induce him to persuade the Prince of Transylvania to set David at liberty. It is taken for granted that Socinus had extraordinary influence with Blandrata, and Blandrata equal influence with the Prince; and it being likewise assumed, that Socinus purposely avoided using his influence in this indirect manner for the liberation of David, all other suppositions are put out of the account, and a surmise is raised into a serious accusation.

Dr. Toulmin gives at length the answer of Socinus to the charges in question, contained in his Preface to the

Dispute with Francis David, and then expresses his own candid and judicious conclusion from that answer, in the following terms, which I the rather quote, because Mr. Kell's reference to Toulmin alone as the authority for the alleged fact, would incline one to suppose, that he admitted the truth of the charge without any doubt or

reserve.

This," says Dr. Toulmin, "is what Socinus offers to prove his innocence in the business of Francis David. It is clear from it, that several aspersions were thrown on him which were evidently false; and this renders suspicious at least the charge against him, of being accessory to the imprisonment of Francis David. The fate of this man, every generous mind will lament, and think it cruel and undeserved. But if the above apology be to be credited, it was brought upon him, not by the instigation and counsel of Socinus, but by his own conduct; and by a conduct not wholly fair and upright: an attention to Socinus's advice would have saved him from the calamity that befel him. Nay, Socinus solemnly protests he consented only to his suspension, and knew not that his imprisonment was a measure determined. And why is not his avowal of his innocence to be regarded? The appeal of a man of his general character, to God the searcher of hearts, seems sufficient to overbalance the unsupported charge and rash suspicion of enemies, who appear by the very manner and style of the charge, to wish to cast an odium upon his name and memory." - Toulmin's Memoirs of Faustus Socinus, p. 94.

In regard to the general question of religious toleration, Socinus certainly rose far above the prevailing spirit of his age. He did not, however, go so far as many of the friends of religious liberty do in the present day, in as much as he adhered to the opinion, that imprisonment might in some cases be proper to prevent individuals from propagating pernicious opinions. The same principle is, if I mistake not, even yet maintained by many Protestants and by some Unitarians in our own country. But if a certain Protestant or Unitarian thinks it right to imprison those who endeavour to propagate atheism or infidelity, does this justify any one in asserting, that that Protestant or Unitarian was accessory to the imprisonment of Carlile or of the Rev. Robert Taylor? Certainly any one would repel with indignation a charge which had