MR. BELSHAM'S STRICTURES UPON MR. B. CARPENTER'S DEFENCE OF ARIANISM IN HIS LECTURES,

SIR,

LETTER III.

To the Editor of the Monthly Repository.

My worthy friend's third Lecture professes to treat on " Different Religious Systems," and here he introduces "a few observations on the writings of Mr. Wilberforce" and myself, which he informs his readers" have been the principal cause of his' publication."

In Mr. Wilberforce's Practical View of Christianity, my friend finds "much to approve and even to admire." But he confesses (p. 22.) that when he had finished and shut the book, "he felt that it left upon his mind an unfavourable impression of the Author of his existence." "Has God (saith he with great propriety) created an order of beings amongst whom vice and misery are more prevalent than virtue and happiness! and will be more prevalent through eternal ages? O distressing and horrid thought! Nothing short of demonstration shall convinceme of its truth, and against such demonstration I would wish. to close my eyes in everlasting sleep." And after reasoning upon the whole very justly and conclusively against this dismal doctrine, the worthy author adds, (p. 31.) "With such ideas of the creation of God we ought rather to grieve than rejoice, when any addition is made to the number of God's rational offspring here upon earth. And yet I have heard that Mr. W. indulged no common degree of joy when à son was born to him ; though if I do not mistake the system of this gentleman, there is. a probability that his son will not be delivered from that deeprooted corruption which is implanted in his nature, and from that eternal misery to which it will conduct him if he is not delivered from it."

Ail this I hold to be perfectly just, and highly important. But will my friend now say, that with these sentiments he cannot feel solicitous to make proselytes to his own system?" It is allowed that the gentleman upon whose book he animadverts, admits all the primary doctrines of religion, and that he is himself an eminent example of christian virtue. Is it then of no moment that his mind is clogged and embarrassed with a system which represents the benevolent Ruler of the universe as a merciless tyrant, and which teaches him to look with horror and dread upon his infaut offspring? And would not that instructor act the part of a kind, friend who would relieve his mind from those painful feelings which must occasionally oppress him, by con

vincing him of the error of his system, and by inspiring him with more just and honourable conceptions of his Maker? The supposition which my friend makes of the effect of this rigid system upon the mind of a parent is by no means imaginary, as I myself can bear witness, from facts which have fallen under my own observation.

Surely then it must be the indispensable duty of every one who forms just conceptions of the character of the Almighty, to oppose to the utmost all these injurious and pernicious representations of the divine government, and to diffuse as far as possible those rational and elevated views of the attributes and of the administration of the divine Being, which are the strongest motives to virtuous practice and the best balm and sweetest consolation of human life.

My friend having finished his animadversions upon Mr. Wilberforce's system, now proceeds (p. 36.) to honour me with his attention. After a handsome concession in my favour in the argument with Mr. W. he professes to discuss my sentiments upon some other points. "It is (says he) with some reluctance that I publicly controvert the opinions of a much esteemed friend: but such is his love of truth and free discussion, that I am persuaded it is unnecessary to make any apology to him on this account."

Most assuredly my friend has no occasion to apologize to me for the freedom which he uses in canvassing the doctrines which I assent to and defend. Truth I am persuaded is our common and only object. This is only to be elicited by enquiry and discussion; and if I am under an error in any of my opinions, and I do not profess infallibility, I shall be truly thankful for better information. I am not yet" persuaded that nothing new to me can be advanced on either side the question," and therefore have no right, even upon my friend's own principles, " to make up my mind and enquire no further.”

After this introduction, however, I was somewhat disappointed at not finding any argument alleged, against the doctrine which I had supported. My worthy friend in allusion to Mr. W.'s assertion that Socinianism as he calls it, is the half-way house between Christianity and Deism, and also to another hacknied comparison, attributed without authority to an amiable and devotional writer; that "Socinianism is the frigid zone of Christianity," is pleased to represent me as living in a large and cold house in the frigid zone, while Mr. Wilberforce is scorching in a grand and gloomy mansion in the torrid: whereas my friend of course resides in a pleasant habitation in the temperate zone, where he enjoys" visions of angels," and all sorts of fine things.

But what has all this to do with the argument for or against the proper humanity of Jesus Christ?

My friend adds, (p. 40.) "Here a question arises of some importance whether the system of Mr. W. or of Mr. B. be best adapted to promote religious and moral excellence ?" He chuses to decide in favour of the former, arguing, as he says, " from observation and from fact:" but what these observations and facts are, my good friend has not thought proper to state. He tells us however, that " Mr. Fuller wrote a book to prove the superior efficacy of the Calvinistic system when compared with the Socinian, and " I thought (says my friend) when I read it, that he had established his main point.' "Dr. Toulmin, (continues he) has endeavoured to parry these home thrusts, by shewing that the first preachers of Christianity converted multitudes, although their sermons, (so far as they are recorded,) contain no doctrines different from those of the Socinian, i. e. the Unitarian Creed. I think that he has also proved his point, but without disproving what the other has advanced." Mark this, gentle reader. The doctrine of the apostles was strictly Unitarian. But this doctrine is not so efficacious for moral purposes as Mr. Fuller's Calvinism. I thank my friend for his honest and liberal concession. I, for one, shall adhere to the doctrine of the apostles, whatever becomes of Calvinism and its heart-withering terrors. And I have no doubt that the plain simple doctrine of the New Testament will still be found abundantly efficacious for moral purposes, and will ultimately triumph over every opposing system of human folly and puerile superstition.

My friend designates the body of Christians who assert the proper humanity of Jesus Christ by the name of Socinians, at the same time professing, (p. 42.) that he does not use the word as a term of reproach." We however, do not answer to that name, nor do we approve of being distinguished by it. In the first place, because the doctrine we hold is not borrowed from Socinus, but is known and universally allowed to have been coeval with the apostles. And, further, we differ very materially from the opinions of that very great and good man, and his immediate followers, who strangely imagined that Christ, though a human being, was advanced by God to the government of the whole created universe, and was the proper object of religious worship. It is the part of candour to give to every party and denomination of Christians the appellation which they themselves prefer: though not perhaps in every respect strictly appropriate. We call ourselves Unitarians, or, to distinguish ourselves from other classes of Christians who assume that name, proper, or, original Unitarians; and we regard ourselves as entitled to this distinction from prescription,

from the reason of the thing, and now from the custom of the language. Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi.

My worthy friend and our Arian brethren in general, dispute our exclusive claim to this distinction, and I have often been disposed to smile to see how dexterously they elude the arguments of their opponents by raising a cloud of dust about a verbal question which has no connection with the main point in dispute. In the present stage of the controversy it is incumbent upon the learned Arians to shew that the doctrine of a created Logos occupying the place of a human soul in the body of Christ had any existence before the fourth century: or to explain how the universal church for three complete centuries could remain in total ignorance of the person of its founder. Instead of which, till my friend's book appeared, we have heard nothing from the Arians for the last twenty years but loud exclamations against the Unitarians for appropriating to themselves that honourable name. And I have myself been pretty much schooled upon the subject, as if I had invented and propagated an invidious distinction, though I have done nothing more than taken up the word as I found it, and used it uniformly in the sense which appeared to me the most proper, leaving to others the option of using it in whatever sense they think fit. I admire the policy of our Arian brethren, and to do them justice I must own that they have in some measure succeeded amongst persons who attend more to sound than sense, in bringing a degree of odium upon a cause which they could not casily refute. I rejoice however that Unitarianism is become an honourable distinction, and I sincerely wish that our Arian brethren might become Unitarians, not in name and in word only, but in deed and in truth. In the mean time I will take leave to state the grounds upon which I think that the assertors of the proper humanity of Jesus Christ are exclusively entitled to the distinction of Unitarians.

The era of the reformation produced many Anti-trinitarians who were in general branded with the title of Arians, though it appears from the brief memoirs which have been transmitted of their opinions and sufferings, that a considerable proportion, and probably, the majority of them denied the pre-existence of Christ. The advocates of this doctrine who were after a ds distinguished by the name of Socinians, became very numerous in England at the close of the seventeenth century. At

*See Mr. Lindsey's Historical View of the state of the Unitarian doctrine and worship.

that time they had in general ceased to offer religious addresses to Jesus Christ, and had adopted the truly rational and scriptural doctrine, that the Father alone is the proper object of religous worship. In consequence of this essential deviation from the doctrine of Socinus, they disclaimed the title of Socinians, and assumed that of Unitarians. Thus the word Unitarian, when it was first naturalized in the language, usually signified a person who, admitting the divine mission of Christ, maintained that he was a proper human being, who had no existence previously to his birth, and that he was not the object of religious worship. And this was the sense in which the word was generally understood. Arianism at that time was not in fashion. But at the beginning of the eighteenth century the writings of Whiston, Clark, Emlyn, and other learned and eminent men, brought Arianism into repute. The Arians of that age however, not wishing to be confounded with the Socinians, did not greatly affect the title of Unitarians: though the word is sometimes used by Whiston, who at the same time seems to have preferred the title of Eusebians. Among the dissenters it does not appear that the title of Unitarian is zealously, if at all claimed, either by Chandler, Benson, Pierce, or Grove, who were all Arians and worshippers of Christ: Dr. Price eagerly challenged this distinction; he annexed a new and arbitrary definition to the name. He describes an Unitarian to be one" who believes that there is but one God, and one object of religious worship." A sense which the word had never borne before: and by which he excluded not only all the old Socinians, but all the Arians likewise who had lived before him: for to maintain that Christ is the Maker, Supporter, and Governor of the world, and yet that he is not the object of religious worship, was a perfect, and as I think, a strange and unaccountable novelty in theology. This new definition, and extraordinary assumption of Dr. Price, has been the source of much verbal controversy, and I am sorry to add, of no small degree of animosity ever since. Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Priestley in their writings adhere to the original and simple sense of the word Unitarian, as denoting a person who

See Allix's Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians, published A. D. 1699. This argument is directed not against the Arians but against the assertors of the proper humanity of Christ, who denied that he was the proper object of religious worship. Of these he says, Pref. p. 14:-" They do now affirm the adoration which is paid to Christ is idolatrous: thus renounc ing Socinus's principles, who looked upon it as an essential piece of Christianity. So that they can no longer be called Socinians, and themselves affect the name of Unitarians." The Unitarian tracts published at the same period were writ ten by persons of the same description.