as applied to Unitarians and their doctrines. There is nothing in the term, taken alone, of which they can see reason to be ashamed. Could they admit their system to have been the work of a human master, they would not blush to own themselves the disciples of the great men that bore the name of Socinus, who were distinguished alike by their brilliant talents, their exemplary virtues, and their devotedness to the sacred cause of religious truth and religious freedom. But the author knew full well that words have often a magic influence; and that an epithet, happily chosen, will sometimes more avail in confounding and defeating an adversary than a long array of arguments. "Men," he lately wrote, before he had cancelled his first thoughts to make room for his "Second," "men are swayed by sounds. The term Socinian is considered as in itself a term of reproach.' "The title is now used to stigmatize the proper Unitarians, though they are not strict Socinians." 66 They compassionate the ignorance, or despise the hypocrisy, of those who affect to consider a scheme of doctrine which, whether it be apostolical or not, was coeval with the apostolic age, as the heresy of a modern speculation." * Our author has yet another grave charge to prefer against the Unitarians. In his present view of their principles, they are, it seems, DEISTS! The imputation is again and again, in various forms of phraseology, repeated. "Unitarianism," we are told," occupies the same ground with Deism, as defined by Lord Herbert, of Cherbury," p. 93. "What the Deist could "are no "It would appear not do, they" (the Unitarians) "cannot do who wield the Deists' wisdom." They are philosophical Theists, who," it is added with a sneer, doubt the people with whom wisdom will die."" P. 97. that the Unitarians (absit invidia) are Deists, who are almost persuaded to be Christians."" P. 101. "The Unitarians stand on nearly the same ground with the ancient stoics and the modern philosophical sceptics." P. 102. We almost feel it necessary to apologize for wasting a word on this hackneyed subject. To attempt at this time a serious refutation of a calumny so groundless and barefaced, were to give it the semblance of an importance which it does not possess. Our readers may, however, be gratified by the perusal of what Mr. Elton could himself write in condemnation of this absurd and odious imputation only four years ago; and what he continued to circulate up to the very hour of the publication of his "Second Thoughts." "I have now, Sir, done with your arguments; your general abuse will not detain me long. You attempt to identify as with infidels, because infidels find their way into our religious meetings; where, however you may shew white eyes and lifted palms, I acknowledge that we rejoice to see them. It was your business to prove that they continue infidels. Unbelievers, who, in ninety-nine instances out of a hundred, have become so from the shock offered to the heart, as well as the reason, by the unworthy notions of God, the irreconcileable contradictions, and the demoralizing tendency of your perverted Christianity, would naturally have their curiosity excited by a sect confessing Christ, yet rejecting the traditions which had made the word of God of none effect.' They would naturally repair, if they wished to know what these things mean,' to a church where the shackles of one man's faith are not imposed on the judgment and understanding of another, but every man is exhorted, by those who stand to him in Christ's stead,' to be fully persuaded in his own mind.' But why they should repair thither, if they meant to persist in their infidelity, you offer no reason; you think the public will be satisfied (and * Appeal, &c., as above, p. 3. perhaps you are right) with the sort of logic, that Unitarians are infidels, and therefore infidels will of course flock to them. * But every man, who regards the meaning rather than the sound of words, will perceive that the Unitarian is an infidel in a different sense from the Deist; he is an infidel because he believes Christ rather than men: the Deist is an infidel because, as the natural or (merely) rational man, he receiveth not the things of the spirit of God:' 1 Cor. ii. 14; but such a Deist would not be found in a Unitarian assembly, for he would be perfectly indifferent as to what he could merely regard as another form of a credulous superstition: and in fact, Sir, the rage of your zeal must both have blinded your perceptions and beclouded your memory, or you must have known and remembered that the infidels of every country are found to mix, not in obscure and despised conventicles, but in churches and cathedrals: they enrol themselves under the religion, whatever it be, established by law and countenanced by fashion. Neither Hume nor Gibbon would have been found in a meetinghouse: connecting with religion a certain creditable public decency, they would go to church in England, or to mass, with Voltaire, in France. But towards Dissenters they would entertain sentiments of dislike and a sort of resentment; because Dissenters shew plainly that they are in earnest. Bolingbroke, who, in his philosophical works, undermines revelation, (and is, by the bye, one of the most strenuous sticklers for the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures,) had no objection to religion as a state machine, or an engine for the regulation of popular morality and civil order; but he was a sour enemy to Nonconformists: and thus, Sir, it is at present, and thus it ever will be. "The Unitarians, in particular, so far from being acceptable to the Deists, are regarded by them with an evil eye; because, while removing what they deem the hay and the stubble' of Christianity, they cling to the foundation; because they have rescued the Scriptures out of the hands of the Deists, into which the superstition of the orthodox had surrendered them, and contended, with Locke, for the reasonableness of revelation. Surely, Sir, you have mistaken the matter, and your recollection, as usual, fails you; or you must remember that it was not with an Unitarian, but with an episcopal defender of the Trinity, that the importer of Paine's bones formed a defensive and offensive alliance that so far from coveting any companionship with Unitarians, he raised against them the STUPID CRY that they were no Christians; and has entitled himself to the gratitude of the British Reviewer, by declaring them OUTLAWS."+ Mr. Elton subjoins, as confirmatory of his own views on this subject, Mr. Aspland's excellent observations, first inserted in the Times newspaper, and afterwards published in the former series of this work, Vol. XIV. p. 708. Our author has yet one serious objection to urge against Unitarianism. He distinctly intimates (p. 95), that the tendency of its principles is unfavourable to morals; and he insinuates, in no very covert terms, that, generally, Unitarians are not so pure and exemplary in their moral conduct as orthodox believers. He wishes, indeed, to be understood as referring to principles and not to persons. He admits that he has found, during an intimacy of some standing with Unitarians, especially with the more eminent of their ministers," "instances of active, benevolent usefulness and moral integrity." These instances, however, are introduced as exceptions to the general rule, and are expressly ascribed to the extraordinary operation of "the grace of God." It affords us pleasure to record this concession, qualified as it is by the author's present theological creed. But we will add another more direct and satisfactory testimony which he wrote when his "See Locke ad locum, Paraphrase on Paul." Plea, &c., as above, pp. 170-173. mind was capable of taking a more calm and dispassionate view of the case than it is under its present apparent excitement. "Mr. Wilberforce observes on the few claims of the Unitarians to purity of life; and Mr. Wardlaw speaks of the superiority of his brethren in the devotion of the closet, the family, and the sanctuary;'in sobriety, justice, holiness, temperance, fervency of spirit for the glory of God and the good of man,' and other graces. To these they answer nothing: the lives of Unitarians, who have adorned the gospel of God their Saviour,' are on record before men; and to the Searcher of hearts they appeal in secret from the judgment of the Scribe and the Pharisee."* To this we shall subjoin the reply of Mr. Elton to an accusation similar to his own, preferred by a writer who had himself upon "second thoughts" deserted the Unitarian standard, and become an 66 accuser of the brethren." "As to the insinuated immoral tendency of Unitarian principles, we may reply to Mr. Scott in his own words, respecting the judgment passed on his own sect: To adopt every childish cavil, every vague report, every seandalous falsehood, and industriously to propagate them, as if these afforded refutation of all the ARGUMENTS, AUTHORITIES, and scriptURAL TESTIMONIES with which we support our sentiments, is no evidence of a candid, liberal mind, or of a sincere desire to know the truth.”† 66 At parting, Mr. Elton is careful to remind the Unitarians, and to urge it against them as a demonstration of the erroneousness of their system, that the number of their worshipers is small; that the unsoundness of their creed "speaks intelligibly in the echoing silence of the recesses" of their temples, at the very time that the courts, in which the crucified Redeemer is proclaimed, are thronged with feet that wear the pavement of the sanctuary." P. 109. According, then, to the author's "Second Thoughts," the popularity of a creed is a presumption or a conclusive demonstration of its correctness; and numbers constitute, it seems, an infallible criterion of truth! Tried by this test, where would Mr. Elton's own semi-orthodoxy stand when put in competition with the authorized formularies of the self-designated orthodox churches of Christendom? If the fact be, as he states, that Unitarian preachers have to speak to the "echoing silence" of empty temples, can he account for it by no other reason than the falsehood of their doctrine? As an argumentum ad hominem, or an argumentum ad verecundiam, if it be nothing better, we will refer him to the following passage in one of his recent publications: "You attempt to identify us with the world. It seems we are of the world, and the world heareth us.' Your zeal, Sir, always outruns your recollection. Have you forgotten our echoing walls' and deserted_pews'? That we have some congregations in some parts of the kingdom? That an extension of our principles is not to be apprehended? You are right, Sir, in your conjecture, if it mean that we shall not gain proselytes from the world. We hold out no pious compromise to the covetous or the licentious; we have no flattery for human depravity-no covering mantle of vicarious or imputed righteousness: we have no salvo for allowed sin-no gate of faith, at which the unreclaimed reprobate may knock, in his death-cold fit of apprehension, and slip easily into heaven. From our pulpit, Sir, though we proclaim that there is one God and Father of all,' we proclaim also that 'what a man sows, that shall he reap.' The ear of the world is not tickled by such preachers as these. The world knoweth its own, but these are not of them." Appeal, &c., as above, p. 193. + Idem, p. 223. We had marked for observation some other parts of Mr. Elton's book, but we must not trespass on the patience of our readers; and we confess ourselves heartily tired of our irksome and painful task. From the respect we had always entertained for him on account of his talents, and the sacrifice he is said to have made in embracing and publicly professing Unitarian sentiments, we cannot but view his "secession" with regret. Our concern is infinitely increased when we behold the anger and the disdain with which he looks back on his late associates, and read the vituperative abuse, the coarse revilings, and the gratuitous calumnies, which he has unsparingly heaped upon their principles, their motives, and their character. Deeply as they may feel, but chiefly on his own account, the injuries which, with such intemperate zeal, he has endeavoured to inflict upon them, the Unitarians will greet him in return with no evil thought or word or wish. They will leave him to his own musings, with the sincere and earnest hope that he may derive from his new creed and profession all the peace, satisfaction and joy which religious principles, conscientiously embraced and honestly reduced to practice, are capable of imparting. Mr. Elton" recognizes," it seems, "the PLAGUE SPOT on the walls of the Unitarian temple, and therefore he passes from its portal."* Such may possibly be the terrific aspect which, on a "second" view, it may present to his sickly imagination. To our eyes the edifice exhibits a more fair and attractive exterior, tempting our willing steps to tread its courts, to join the exercises and share the delights of those who wear the pavement of the sanctuary." As they are displayed to our vision, its walls are “salvation, and its gates praise." + MR. GILCHRIST's pamphlet, although on many accounts an extraordinary production, will not require more than a brief notice. Indeed, were it not our wish to evince that we are alive to what is transacting in the religious world, we should pass it by in silence, rather than encourage the supposition that we attached importance to its contents, by inserting its title in the pages of our Review. The author alleges (Preface, p. v.), that there is "internal evidence," in his work, "of his possessing sufficient fortitude to bear much severer criticism, with equanimity," than to be accused of egotism. We have no inclination to ascertain by experiment what may be his exact capacity of endurance. We much doubt, however, whether it were in the power of any censor, religious or literary, to pronounce upon him a judgment half so severe, and, to a sensible mind, half so agonizing, as he has in these pages passed upon himself. Mr. Gilchrist, not being able to discover in his copious etymological vocabulary, a definition more true to history and to fact, states (p. iii.) Unitarianism to be, "the theological opinions of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham." Of Dr. Priestley, in particular, he says, in a parody not distinguished certainly by correct feeling or good taste, that he was "the author and finisher of the Unitarian faith." Both these eminent men rank, indeed, deservedly high among Unitarians. Their theological opinions, however, it is no disrespect to them to state, are no more to be considered as the standard of Unitarianism, than are the theological sentiments of Mr. Gilchrist to be regarded as the authorized creed of the General Baptists. At the head of his title-page Mr. Gilchrist has stamped in broad characters, "Second Thoughts," &c., p. 109. + Isaiah lx. 18. "UNITARIANISM ABANDONED." This is the superscription which he has placed over the portal of his work to announce to the curious what may be found within. We think it right to apprize our readers, that the words are deceptive. They awaken expectations which must end in disappointment. He who may be drawn by them to enter the inclosure will find, indeed, Mr. Gilchrist's 66 reasons for ceasing to be connected with that description of religious professors who designate themselves Unitarians;" but he will also soon discover, from the author's own explicit declarations, that he never held the doctrines of Unitarianism, and, therefore, could not have "abandoned" them. He distinctly affirms (p. 19), that he "never was in unison" with Unitarians: he "was always a sort of Nonconformist in opinion among them, a heretic among heretics, and a disbeliever of those very things which are received by them almost with universal consent." The plain fact is, and he is not at all solicitous to conceal it, that through the greater part of life he has been more of an unbeliever than of a Christian of any class or denomination. Throughout his work he takes great pains to shew, that from an early period, when he read "Sandeman's Letters," his mind was painfully agitated by conflicting tendencies to orthodoxy and infidelity: not to the infidelity of the common herd of shallow reasoners, such as Hume, Gibbon, and Voltaire, (pp. 29, 30,) but to ATHEISM, the Atheism of that "intellectual Leviathan," Hobbes. His "great difficulty," the reader will observe, was not as to Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, but "concerning the divine origin of Christianity, or the credibility of the Gospel." "There was," he openly avers, "a considerable tendency to the rejection of Christianity in his habits of thinking and reasoning." His mind was often so unsettled that he knew not what to think, and it was frequently so reckless that he cared not what he said or wrote." (Pp. 14, 15.) Thus wavering and, as he writes it, skeptical, was the state of his mind when he first assumed the external profession of Unitarianism, and became an Unitarian minister at Chatham! After this statement, the confession that follows, strange and humiliating as it is, need not, perhaps, excite surprise: "Chatham was the grave of my piety. It had been declining and dying before, but now it might be considered as dead and buried!" (P. 11.) 66 At Chatham he made no progress in the acquisition of Unitarian sentiments. The Unitarian books which he now read served only to inspire him with contempt for the authors, and to "shake his confidence yet more in the word of God." (P. 13.) Yet, with his faith thus tottering, and his piety entombed, he accepted an invitation to be the minister of the Unitarian Baptist congregation meeting in Worship Street! He had now " rejected Trinitarianism," but had not "made up his mind to reject Christianity.” (P. 14.) Being placed in the "focus of Unitarianism," he "could not but act with the Unitarians, without taking a position for which he was not then prepared:"—that is, we suppose, without acting upon his honest convictions, and ceasing to be the minister of a religion which he all but disbelieved. "His discourses and writing were," however, "for some time Unitarian," but "merely as Unitarianism is a system of negation." Up to this period, then, it is quite clear from his own account that he was not actually an Unitarian and, though professedly an Unitarian minister, could preach Unitarianism no further than it was 66 a system of negation," or just as he might have preached Mahometanism, or his favourite Atheism of Hobbes. In 1814, Mr. Gilchrist preached at Southampton, before the South of England Unitarian Society. The discourse delivered on that occasion is now before us. Were we to judge of his creed from its contents, we should |