THE UNITARIAN DOCTRINE,

la a Letter addressed to the Editor of the Kent Magazine;

TO WHICH IS ADDED

A further Correspondence occasioned by his Stricture thereon;

AND THE

UNITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT,

Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

TOGETHER WITH SOME

OBSERVATIONS

ON THE NATURE OF THE JEWISH SACRIFICES,

AND ON THE

Doctrine of the Atonement.

CONCLUDING WITH A FEW

REMARK S

ON THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,
As distinguished from his Deity.

PRINCIPALLY A COMPILATION

BY DENSYLI.

ROCHESTER;

PRINTED BY CADDEL AND SON.

1814.

Christianity has offered itself to man's acceptance by an appeal to his reason and judgment; appeals so strong, that the rejection of them is necessarily vicious, and therefore deserving of punishment. What! though superstition on the one hand, and enthusiasm on the other, the one by closing the avenues of reason, the other by appealing to inward and visionary inspirations, have both rendered Christianity unreasonable, still the Saviour of the world reasoned surely, when he appealed to his works as a test of his authority and mission. The Bereans surely reasoned when Paul applauded; and he has ordered us to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.

What then becomes of the charge that Christianity has nothing to do with reason; the unblushing renewal of which seems to call for a repetition of its exposures? Like a thousand others, directed against the same object, it will not bear the touch; but crumble at once, when handled, into dust and nothingness. The Religion, which is our guide and our hope, expects no blind irrational credulity from its votaries. Conscious of her strength, she courts examination; for she has built her house on the rock of truth.-(Vide British Critic for March, 1821.)

A

BRIEF STATEMENT,

&c. &c.

No fact is more notorious, than that the religious opinions of the Unitarian Christians are grossly misrepresented, and which arises in numerous instances from the most palpable ignorance and prejudice and the opposition they experience from others, it may be well apprehended, is called forth by motives of a less pure and worthy nature. Whatever, therefore, was the object of the Editor of the Kent Magazine, in publishing in his first number, a most unwarrantable and unjust attack on the Unitarians, is best known to himself; but, at all events, it excites a suspicion, that he was actuated by views not altogether free from a personal and interested nature.

Although the Editor professed to have been educated on liberal principles, he commenced his career as an Author, by inserting the following illiberal sentence in a letter, which he addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury : -There are some "Infidels among us, who to avoid the odious name of Atheists, "would shelter and screen themselves, under the new name of "Deists or Unitarians."

In consequence, therefore, of this unjust and calumnious remark, Densylı' addressed a letter to the Editor of the Kent Magazine, having for its object, a defence of the Unitarian doctrine, which was published in the number for June 1824, with the Editor's stricture thereon. This led to a further correspondence, which is contained in this miscellany.

66

66

To the Editor of the Kent Magazine,

SIR,-In your address to the Inhabitants of Kent, inserted in your first number, you state that the Magazine will be "distinguished for the uniformity of its excellence, and for the candour "which will at all times be manifested." I regret, however, that in your first publication, you should have departed from the principles of candour, and have resorted to those of misrepresentation, by inserting the following observation in your Let er to the Archbishop of Canterbury :-"There are some Infidels among us, who, to avoid the odious name of Atheists, would "shelter and screen themselves under the new name of Deists or "Unitarians." But, as I am not disposed to believe that you would wilfully be guilty of a misrepresentation, and that you have denominated the Unitarians, Deists, or Atheists, under an erroneous impression of their religious opinions, I will beg to state what I believe they are, in the hope that the principles of candour on which you profess to act, will induce you to insert this Letter in your next number, so that publicity may be given thereto, with the view to remove the impression your representation may have made on the minds of your readers, that the Unitarian doctrine is Atheistical and Antichristian.

The Unitarian Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ;* that he is that prophet, whom Moses, as recorded in the 18th chap. of Deut. foretold should be raised-that he was divinely inspired to reveal the will of God to mankind-that he had the power to work miracles in attestation of the Divinity of his mission-that after his death and resurrection he ascended into heaven-and that he is the Mediator between God and man.

And as a proof that their doctrine is in unison with the Sacred Writings, I refer you to the Evangelist John, who assures us, that whosoever believes Jesus to be the Christ is born of God; and to St. Paul, who says, that if thou shalt with thy mouth confess the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thy heart, that God

Our Saviour should uniformly be designated the Christ-Jesus being his name, and Christ his office-from the Greek wordChristos, to anoint.

has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. This being the belief of the Unitarian Christians, surely it is illiberal, un. just, and uncandid in the extreme, to stigmati: e them with such reproachful and odious epithets, as Infidels and Atheists. And perhaps, you are not aware, that of all the sects into which the Christian world is divided, not one can be produced, the members of which, more strenuously maintain the Divine Mission of Jesus, or more ardently and successfully oppose the unbeliever. This praise, even some of their most determined adversaries allow, that to Unitarian writers, the public is indebted for some of the ablest works, in defence of the Divine origin and authority of Christianity.

Permit me to hope, that whenever you may again have occasion to animadvert on the religious opinions of others, you will bear in mind, and be actuated by the benevolent and truly Christian sentiments of that highly esteemed and respected Metropolitan to whom you addressed your Letter; who, on the 21st May, 1812, on the motion of Lord Sidmouth, relative to the Protestant Dissenters said, that "However he might lament what he con"ceived to be the errors of the Protestant Dissenters, it was to "be recollected, that the Bible was the foundation of their "religious belief, as well as that of the Established Church, and was, or might be, in the hands of every member of the empire: ❝ and it was to be recollected, that the best of interpretations, were but the interpretations of men, and that the best of men " were liable to err."

"

I cannot conclude this Letter without assuring you, that I am not opposed to the discipline of the Church of England. Nevertheless I cannot avoid declaring, that I should feel much rejoiced, were her Creeds to undergo a revision, particularly that which is ascribed to St. Athanasius, but which is now generally supposed to have been written by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, about the latter end of the fifth century.

I am, &c.

13th May, 1824.

'DENSYLI.'