« PreviousContinue »
setting them before our minds in some of the most engaging lights possible; as partaking of the same nature with ourselves, liable to the same wants and sufferings, and in the same helpless circumstances; as children of the same father, subjects of the same all-wise government, and heirs of the same hopes. He who prays for others with understanding and sincerity, must see himself on the same level with them; he must be ready to do them all the good in his power; he must be pleased with whatever happiness they enjoy; he can do nothing to lessen their credit or comfort; and fervent desires will naturally rise within him while thus engaged, that his own breast may be the seat of all those good dispositions and virtues, which he prays that they may be blessed with. Resentment and envy can never be indulged by one, who, whenever he finds himself tempted to them, has recourse to this duty, and sets himself to recommend to the divine favour the persons who excite within him these passions. No desire of retaliation or revenge, nothing of unpeaceableness, ill nature, or haughtiness, can easily shew itself in a leart kept under this guard and discipline. How is it possible to use him ill, for whom we are constant advocates with God? How excellent a parent or friend is he likely to make, who always remembers before God the concerns, and interests of his children and friends, in the same mannes that he remembers his own? Is there a more raţional way of expressing benevolence than this? or a more effectual way of promoting and enlarging it? Nothing is more desirable or more delightful than to feel ourselves continually under the power of kind affections to all about us. Would we be thus happy: Would we have our hearts in a constant state of love and good-will? Would we have every tender sentiment strong and active in our breasts?—Let us be constant and diligent in this part of devotion, and pray continually for others, as we do for ourselves.” (Price's Four Dissertations, pp. 207, 221 – 227, 237--239.)
Such was the language of a man, who, whilst (unlike Dr. Priestley and his Unitarian associates) he really possessed, and by the habits of his studies daily strengthened, the powers of accurate thinking, had not rationalized away those just and natural sentiments, which belong to the truly religious character, and which, whilst the highest exercises of mere intellect cannot reach, its soundest decisions cannot but approve. At the same time, how deeply is it to be deplored, that, in certain of his theological opinions, such a man should have departed widely from the truth of Scripture !
I have willingly permitted myself in this extract to wander beyond what the immediate subject demanded: because amidst the thorny mazer of polemics, the repose and refreshment which these flowers of genuine piety present, would, I apprehended, afford to the reader a satisfaction not less than they had yielded to myself.
NO. X.-ON UNITARIANS; OR RATIONAL DIS
PAGE 11. () It is obvious, that the Sect, to which I here allude, is that known by the title of UNITARIANS: a title, by which it is meant modestly to insinuate, that they are the only worshippers of One God. From a feeling sinilar to that, which has given birth to this denomination, they demand also, to be distinguished from the other Non-conformists, by the appellation of Rational Dissenters.
Mr. Howes has observed, (Critical Observ. vol. iv. p. 17.) that the term Unitarian, has been used with great vagueness, by the very writers, who arrogate the name: being applied by some to a great variety of sects, Arians, Ebionites, Theodotians, Sabellians and Socinians; to any sect, in short, which has pretended to preserve the unity of the Deity, better than the Trinitarians according to the council of Nice: whilst by others, and particularly by Dr. Priestley, it is attributed exclusively to those who maintain the mere humanity of Christ. On
this account, Mr. Howes proposed to substitute the word Humanist, as more precisely expressing the chief principle of the sect intended : and this word he afterwards exchanged for Humanitarian, Mr. Hobhouse and other Unitarians having adopted that appellation. (Crit. Obs. vol.
p. 91.)-However as I find the latest writers of this description prefer the denomination of Unitarian, I have complied with their wishes, in adopting this term throughout the present work; perfectly aware, at the same time, of the impropriety of its appropriation, but being unwilling to differ with them merely about names, where so much attention is demanded by things.
For a full account of the doctrines of this new Sect, (for new it must be called, notwithstanding Doctor Priestley's laboured, but unsubstantial, examination of " Early Opinions,") the reader may consult the Theological Repository, the various Theological productions of Doctor Priestley, and particularly Mr. Belsham's Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise. Indeed this last publication presents, on the whole, so extraordinary a system; and conveys so comprehensive a view of all the principles and consequences of the Unitarian scheme, not to be found in any other work of so small a compass; that I think it may not be unacceptable, to subjoin to these pages, a brief abstract of it as described by the author. A summary of the tenets of this enlightened seet, may furnish matter of speculation, not merely curious but instructive; to those who are not yet tinctured with its principles; and to those who are, it may pero haps suggest a salutarý warning, by shewing it in all its frightful consequences.-Unitarianism, it is true, has not yet made its way into this Country, in any digested shape; but wherever there are found to prevail, a vain confidence in the sufficiency of human reason, and a conse* quent impatience of authority and controul, with a desire to reject received opinions, and to fritter away by subtle distinctions, plain and established precepts; there the soil is prepared for its
recept tion, and the seed is already sown.
NO. XI. ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN- UNITA
RIANS AND SOCINIANS.
Page 12. () The doctrine stated in the text is that maintained by all the Socinian writers. It may be found so laid down (Theol. Rep. vol. i.) in the first article, written by Dr. Priestley, under the title of Clemens. It is however to be noted, that Doctor Priestley, his follower Mr. Belsham, and others of the same Theological opinions, disclaim the title of Socinian; and desire to be distinguished by that of Unitarian, for the reason assigned in the preceding number,