praise, exercises but little Christian feeling towards those unhappy recusants, who scruple to believe and pray according to the rules of England's pure and primitive Church! Alarmed by the progress which Unitarian sentiments were making under the able ministry of Mr. Hunter, but, at the same time, fearful of meeting the enemy hand to hand, he attempted to stifle the obnoxious principles by the very common, but not very honourable, methods of secret calumny and public vituperation. He denounced Unitarians as "heirs of certain perdition, wretches of whose salvation there could be no hope;" warned his hearers against associating with such heretics in the ordinary intercourses of social life, and parents against allowing their children to imbibe the first principles of literary knowledge from Unitarian teachers; describing persons of this persuasion as "rejectors of the authority of Scripture, and deniers of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Mr. Hunter, deeming it his duty to repel such charges, addressed a mild expostulation to the reverend calumniator, requesting either an acknowledgment or denial of these uncharitable imputations.

The following was Mr. Dalton's courteous reply:

"To Mr. Stephenson Hunter.-Sir, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, and, in reply, to state, that I have, and with God's blessing ever shall continue, to warn my people against Unitarianism, commonly so called, as an unscriptural and ungodly heresy.-I remain, Sir, &c. HENRY DALTON."

This letter, and the slanders which it virtually admits to have been promulged by the writer, were animadverted on by Mr. Hunter, in an able pamphlet: "Unitarianism the Religion of the Bible, addressed to the hearers of the Rev. Henry Dalton.” The writer gives a clear and scriptural explication of the Unitarian Christian's faith, vindicates him from the charge of denying either Jesus or his Gospel, and claims for him, at least honesty of intention, if not purity of creed.

"You have heard, my Christian brethren, Unitarian Christians charged with contempt or disregard for the authority of the Scriptures. But of all the calumnious charges with which they are assailed, this is perhaps the most unfounded. Abandon or disregard the Scriptures! This would, indeed, be theological suicide. The Unitarian uses, with regard to himself, the words which the great Chillingworth applied more generally, the Bible, the Bible alone, is his religion; the only recognised rule of his actions, and the only standard of his faith; his support in adversity, and his consolation in sorrow; the source of the purest

happiness he enjoys on earth; and the basis of all the hopes which he entertains for eternity. He holds no doctrine which he cannot express in the clear and intelligible language of revelation, and he rejects none, but such as he considers opposed to the testimony of the Sacred Writings. The Church of Scotland may refer inquirers after her religious principles, to her Confession of Faith; the Church of England may direct them to her creeds, and homilies, and articles; and the Methodists may desire them to consult the writings of John Wesley; but the Unitarian can only refer them to the Bible. For it he has no substitute; to it he bows with the humblest deference; and to it he clings as the anchor of his hopes."—p. 6.

"The real origin of the charge which is brought against Unitarian Christians, of rejecting the authority of the Scriptures, is this:-Though they treat the Sacred Writings with as much respect and veneration as any other class of professing Christians, they will not receive human interpretations of them with equal respect. They read and understand them for themselves. They receive the inspired Writings as an infallible rule of faith and practice, but they will not place creeds of human composition on the same footing."—p. 8.

"Unitarians hold their opinions firmly, because they are convinced of their truth; and they endeavour, by every fair and Christian means, to convince those whom they believe to be in error; but to denounce them as the enemies of God, ungodly heretics, heirs of certain perdition,' because they cannot see with their eyes, nor worship by their creed, is a degree of spiritual pride and unchristian intolerance, which modern evangelicism retains entirely to itself, and to which Unitarian Christianity desires ever to remain a stranger.” "And should not the motives by which the Unitarian must necessarily be governed, in the adoption of his distinguishing opinions, secure to him at least the respect and forbearance of his fellow-Christians? He can have no motive for his dissent from the popular faith, save a sincere love of truth. The professors of another creed may be dazzled by the rewards which a zealous defence of it may secure for them; but the reward of the Unitarian's zeal, like that of the great Master whom he serves, has generally been only contempt, and reproach, and persecution. No rich living, no high patronage, no popular applause, sustains him under the trials and labours of his humble ministry; no mitre hovers in the distance, to animate his zeal and invigorate his exertions. If he look for a reward, it must be in a higher state of being; if he seek applause, it must be the soul-sustaining approval of conscience, pronounced upon his humble exertions in disseminating the spirit and doctrines of the Gospel."-p. 4.

To this sober and dignified appeal to his reason and his charity, Mr. Dalton replied in a pamphlet, entitled, " Unitarianism Unmasked." We have rarely perused 28 pages more unworthy the pen of a Christian or a man. What

are we to think of a minister of the Gospel of peace and brotherhood, who angrily rebukes a joint-labourer in the vineyard of the Lord, for having dared to address his fellow-men, as Christian Brethren? Mr. Dalton-the good, the pious, and the charitable-ex-chaplain of the most holy of our temporal lords, blushes not to charge a brother minister with presumption or hypocrisy, in giving to the readers of his "Address," the title of fellow-Christians! But hear his own words:

"Are we to compliment each other into Christianity? So indeed it should seem, since we are gravely told, that the Trinitarian and the Unitarian have, after all, so much in common, that they should complacently look upon each other as Christian brethren; or, at most, consider themselves as different classes of Christians. To all this affectation of Christian charity, it is sufficient to reply, that if we, my beloved flock, are consistent Trinitarians, we cannot thus lightly [charitably?] hold OUR faith. We cannot, without the greatest absurdity, recognise Unitarianism as having any right or title to the fellowship of Christianity. We cannot consent meanly to betray the bulwarks of our faith; we altogether deny, that Christian fellowship or brotherhood can subsist between those who have not, nor even profess to have, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.""-p. 5.

In the remainder of the pamphlet, which thus auspiciously commences, Mr. Dalton endeavours to establish his former charges, that Unitarians reject the Bible, and deny Christ; and attempts to prove that the Scriptures contain ample authority for the doctrines of the Trinity, Supreme Deity and worship of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In this portion, however, there is nothing new; and Mr. Hunter, in a second address, 66 Unitarianism Vindicated," has but to fight a battle in which many before him have triumphed.

He informs his opponent, that the title of his pastoral letter, Unitarianism Unmasked," is peculiarly inappropriate:

"Unitarian Christianity wears no mask, assumes no disguise, seeks no concealment, but proclaims its principles to the world; courts inquiry, and flourishes just in proportion to the strictness of the scrutiny to which it is subjected."-p. 4.

Mr. Hunter explains why he had denominated his readers, fellow-Christians:

"I called you fellow-Christians, and I still address you as Christian brethren, because I regard you as worshippers of the same God, servants of the same Divine Master, and heirs of the same promises as myself. I called you Christian brethren, because I believed you to be so, notwithstanding our differences of opinion; for I am convinced, that you as sincerely and conscien

tiously believe the principles you profess, as I do mine; and that such sincerity will ever recommend the virtuous Christian to the favour of Him who looketh on the heart, and requireth truth and sincerity in the inward parts."—p. 6.

Mr. Hunter then proceeds to vindicate Unitarian Christianity, from the charge of failing in veneration for the authority of the Bible. His vindication is complete, and equally satisfactory is the reasoning by which he exposes the falsity and unscripturality of the doctrines of Trinitarianism; and from a review of the passages adduced by Mr. Dalton, in proof of these doctrines, proves that they are utterly inconsistent with the great and leading truth of the Bible and Bible Christianity, that "there is but one God, THE FATHER.”

Towards the close of his pamphlet, Mr. Hunter proposes the following queries:

"Mr. Dalton calls himself a Trinitarian; will he have the goodness to state, for your edification and mine, which of all the Trinities he holds? Am I to consider him a Nominalist or a Realist? Does he embrace the Ciceronian Trinity, or the Cartesian Trinity, or the Platonic Trinity, or the Aristotelian Trinity, or the Trinity of the Mobile? Does he believe with Dr. Wallis and the University of Oxford, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are no more three distinct intelligent persons, than the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, are three Gods? Or with Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London, that the three persons of the Trinity, are as much three distinct infinite minds, as Peter, James, and John, are three men? an opinion which the University before mentioned, decreed to be false, impious, and heretical. Does he believe with the Athanasian creed, that the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty, and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty? Or with Dr. Burnet, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are created beings, and are Gods only by the indwelling of the Father's Godhead? Or with Bishop Gastrell, that the Father includes the whole idea of God and something more; that the Son includes the whole idea of God and something more; and that the Holy Ghost includes the whole idea of God and something more; while all together, they make one complete God and nothing more? Or does he believe with Bishop Burgess, that the Father is a person, but not a being; the Son is a person, but not a being; and the Holy Ghost is a person, but not a being: and that these three personal nonentities make one perfect being? As it is evident, that each of these Rev. and Right Rev. Fathers believed in a Trinity of his own construction, perhaps Mr. DALTON will inform us which of them held the true orthodox Trinity, and how many of them were 'infidels and blasphemers""?-p. 26.

To these questions, Mr. Dalton has not yet vouchsafed

a reply. He has shrunk from a controversy which he himself provoked; he has been driven from the arena of open and avowed discussion; and if he has since taken refuge under the shelter of a fictitious name, he has the satisfaction of knowing, that such is consistent conduct in one who has covered himself with a robe of shame, by vending misrepresentations and disseminating slander.

To the prayer with which Mr. Hunter closes his "Address," we most cordially say, amen. "May He who rules amid the hosts of heaven and the powers of earth, make this and every such discussion, subservient to the development and establishment of truth."

G. F.

An Appeal to the Members of the Bible Society, by the
Rev. J. W. Philips.

Correspondence between the Professional Committee.
Brief Remarks upon Doctor Fletcher's Defence, &c.
The Bible Society Question, &c. by the Rev. S. C. Wilks,
A. M.

Two Letters on the Constitution and Proceedings of the
Bible Society, by C. S. Dudley.

The Lawfuless of the Constitution of the Bible Society, from "the Christian Observer."

IT appears desirable to give a little attention to some of the numerous pamphlets that have been written on this subject, that those Unitarians who have not had the opportunity of seeing them, may learn in what light they are viewed by other denominations. The anti-christian spirit which pervades these publications, appears well calculated to lead the Unitarian to rejoice that "he has not so learned Christ," and to feel an increased attachment to his own opinions, from the conviction, that they never create similar feelings of bitterness towards those who are opposed to him. The Bible Society, which for twenty-eight years has met with but few interruptions to its prosperity or peacefulness, bas during the last year been divided on the question, whether it is, or is not expedient to allow Unitarians to continue members of it. The proposition to expel them was rejected by a vast majority; and the Secession Society, which in consequence was formed, has already suffered from dissensions among themselves.

The virulence, bigotry, and intolerance which were ex