other of the two characters before mentioned, it will, in the one case, be irreconcileable with just ideas of the divine equity, or in the other, with repeated assurances contained in the christian code; unless the Almighty exercise a constant miracle during the whole time intervening between death and the resurrection, which that he will do we have no evidence whatsoever. The consequence, therefore, is, that the time

between death and the resurrection will pass without any consciousness in the dead, and that as the tree falls, so it will lie, and as death leaves us, so judgment will find us.

I AM Sorry that I was not able sooner to discharge the promise, which I made in ny last, of furnishing you with some further remarks on the Note taken from Dr. Magee's treatise on Atonement and Sacrifice; but I hope that this communication will not yet be deemed too late, or too devoid of interest, to be inserted, whenever you shall think proper. I refer for the Note, and the remarks on it, to No. xix. p. 358, of your Repository. My present remarks are confined to the charge brought against the Unitarians in the latter part of the Note: "From a feeling [modesty] similar to that which has given birth to this denomination [Unitarian] they demand also to be distinguished from the other nonconformists by the appellation of Rational Dis senters."

No false modesty, Mr. Editor, shall prevent me from ac▾ knowledging, that I (speaking for myself individually) do demand to be distinguished by the epithet of Rational not only from a large number of nonconformists, but also from the great body of orthodox Christians throughout the world, whether within or without the pale of any favoured establishment, and I am ready to make good my pretensions to this term as a distinguishing characteristic of the generality of Presbyterian Dissenters, or, as with equal propriety they are sometimes called, Liberal Dissenters.

But permit me first, Sir, in due form to advertise the readers of the profound doctor, that we are not so very modest in our demand to be deemed rational, as to pronounce other men or Christians destitute of rational faculties. This observation Į ain reluctantly constrained to make totidem verbis; because,

though the Doctor has not chosen to speak explicitly concerning the specific nature of the rationality which we modestly arrogate to ourselves, yet I cannot divest myself of all suspicion of there being some lurking insinuation under his ambiguous expression.

Dr. Magee, Sir, might have given some information concerning the assumption of this appellation by the Unitarians. He might have just said, that these men think that their form and modes of worship, and the articles of their creed, are more conformable to the dictates of REASON than those of other Christians; and likewise that they are great advocates for the use of reason in matters of religion, while their opponents openly derogate from its pretensions. If he had said this, he had been honest, and had spoken the truth without doing injury to his own cause. But I shall appeal from Dr. M.'s ununcharitable opinions and unfair statement, evidently dictated by the characteristic prejudice and rancour of the generality of his order-flagrat vitio gentisque suoque-to the good sense of those who have not too much modesty to use their reason; and I shall convince them, I hope, by a comparison of our religious devotions, and our opinions concerning the use of reason, with those of other Christians, that our claim to the distinction of rational is not wholly a modest insinuation, but a very wellgrounded pretension.

All the different denominations of Christians, from the lofty hierarchy to the most insignificant sect, are distinguished by something or other which sufficiently marks their contempt of reason, or that faculty by which alone we judge concerning truth and error in opinion, and right and wrong in conduct; against whom the liberal dissenters, especially the Unitarians, have, much to their credit, frequently protested. Most denominations, if not all, believe in some awful mysteries, which baffle the most vigorous efforts of reason. To believe what they do not understand, is a highly meritorious act of faith. Many of them pretend to hold iminediate supernatural communications with the Deity, which are peculiar to the system of grace, and confined to the elect; nor are the same favoured race unsusceptible of suggestions of a different tendency, and from a very different quarter. The great mass of all these incoherent sects of believers, who yet deem themselves infallible, believe that moral qualities are, by some enigmatical masterpiece of divine policy, transferable from one person to another; but with this distinction, a person is necessarily wicked by another's viee, and he may become good by another's virtue. Some of

them lay a very great stress upon modes of dress and positions of the body in divine worship; they have a great veneration for particular times; and they contract a sacred reverence for certain places and persons, on whom, by uttering a prescribed charm, they confer qualities of a moral denomination, inasmuch as they continue holy ever after, even if it be against their inclination. Many think the performance of certain ceremonies to be of wonderful efficacy, to young and old, in order to obtain admittance into heaven. I know none of these embattled hosts, whose modesty, to say the least, is not equal to that of the Unitarians, and their humility to that of Dr. M. for some are christened the Orthodox, others Evangelical Christians, others Vital Christians, others the Church, &c. &c. And why should I not add, Mr. Editor, that with many the very life and soul of religion consists in a certain twang of voice, a certain affected brogue or slang, an oddness and quaintness of expression, a certain grimace of countenance and uncouthness of gesture, and an eternal affectation of canting piety?

To add to the list of things as irrational as disgusting were not difficult; but, without deigning to prove the irrationality and absurdity of the things above mentioned, permit me to say, that I am not ashamed of the modesty that arrogates to be distinguished from Christians of such a complexion in general, as well as from our brother nonconformists in particular, by the appellation of Rational Dissenters.

But, Sir, I can produce a still stronger claim, by virtue of which the Unitarians may justly claim to be distinguished from the Orthodox, by the epithet Rational. From their own mouth let them be judged. I will state in their own words the respective sentiments of the Orthodox and the Unitarians concerning

reason.

The sentiments of the Orthodox concerning reason:

"If, on the contrary, our pride of understanding, and selfsufficiency of reason are not made to prostrate themselves before the awful, mysterious truths of revelation, we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of christianity." Dr. Magee's Sermon on Atonement, p. 21.

The Doctor grievously accuses the Unitarians of "glorying in having brought the high things of God to the level of man's understanding." Id. p. 13.

Hear what the great Orthodoxarch Calvin says: "In the knowledge of God and our salvation, and in framing a rule of life, the most wise are blinder than moles." Again: "The highest perfection [acumen] of human reason, as far as it re

lates to the knowledge of God, is mere darkness." And he says that by the carnal man (1 Cor. ii. 1.) is meant such as rely upon natural reason. Calv. Instit. L. 11. cap. ii. § 18—20. Once more: permit me to quote a passage from the last number but one of your Repository, written by an orthodox son of the Church. The point is not what the divine Being can be according to our pre-conceived notions of possibilities or probabilities, but what he is said to be, and to do in scripture :"—i. e. (if words retain their usual acceptation) whatever the bibleuncriticized, or not "Socinian-tortured," says, must be understood in the most literal and obvious sense of the words, without the presumption of consulting our reason and notions of things. Our pre-conceived notions, i. e. whatever notions may heretofore have appeared to us to have been the best grounded in truth and reason, must be blindly renounced if the bible contradict them. Therefore, whatever previous notions we may have entertained concerning the Supreme Divinity, we must believe that he REPENTED, that he SMELLED A SWEET SMELLING SAVOUR, that he was wroth, &c. &c. because the scripture says that he did and was so. But, says my opponent, this language is figurative,-this is-No, no, Sir; no reason, if you please, no pre-conceived notions, no "Socinian torture." Besides, Sir, you must believe the horrid doctrine of transubstantiation itself, because the scripture positively asserts it. No, say you, Because-Yes, you can reason when it suits your purpose.

In fact, Sir, (for to cite more witnesses were useless), it is well known, that it is a common practice with the orthodox to disparage reason as blind and carnal, and that they scarcely ever cease to vilify the best gift of the benevolent Creator, and the most distinguishing characteristic of man.

I shall now state the sentiments of the Unitarians concerning reason, but I shall give only a few instances, as our opponents have been ever disposed to give ample credit to our professions in this particular:

"As we cannot in reason, we are not obliged by revelation, to carry our faith one jot beyond our understanding." Again:

"Where the mystery begins, religion ends." Foster's Ser

mons.

"Be not backward, or afraid, my brethren, to make use of your reason in matters of religion, or where the scriptures are concerned."

Again:

"Distrust all those, who decry human reason, and who re

quire you to abandon it wherever religion is concerned. When once they have gained this point with you, they can lead you whither they please, and impose upon you every absurdity which it is expedient for them that you should embrace." Priestley's Address to the Professors of Christianity. p. 2. 3.

Believed the doctrine of the trinity without understanding it, which, in fact, is no belief at all." Priestley's Hist. of Early Opin. v. iii. p. 232.

See excellent remarks on this subject in Letters to Wilberforce, by A Layman. Let. 1. p. 28-37.

I believe, Sir, that it is a notion generally entertained by the Rational Dissenters, and I may add, by all consistent rational men, that no proposition can be possibly believed, except all the terms of it be understood; that propositions which assert things incompatible with one another, are not mysteries, but palpable contradictions and absurdities; and that if in the bible. itself, such contradictions were to be found, the pretensions of that part to a divine origin, would, ipso facto, be unavailable— because there cannot, in the nature of things, be a stronger evidence for it, than there is against it, viz. its dissonance with the only principle in man which can reason and judge.

I ask Cler. Dunelm, or any other person, How is the volume of inspiration proved to be entitled to credit? If not by the sanction of reason, human reason, (for alas! we have no other), let them inform us by what other evidence. But if reason be the only criterion of its truth, are we not necessarily obliged to renounce the belief of its infallibility whenever it contradicts the dictates of that reason? except indeed our reason be of such a nature as to be capable of proving the same things to be at the same time both true and false. Admit to Cler. Dunelm, the inspiration of the scriptures, and set aside the rules of criticism, and he is ready to meet you; and equally so is the most ignorant enthusiast that disgraces christianity.

I now hope, Sir, that the observations I have made, have quite expelled the sarcasm of the Doctor's awkward irony; that the same analogy of language, which designates the worship of one God by the term Unitarian, will signify the worship of three Gods by the term Trinitarian; and that to the title of Rational Dissenters and Christians we have a just claim, and might, if pride were allowable, be proud of the distinction. As to our modesty, I am afraid we are deficient in that virtue for lack of good example. But I hope we shall never follow another example, exhibited on every side, an example of spleen, malignity, prejudice and unappeasable rancour, vented in every possible