himself are to the cases he disparages; and provided the free constitution of our churches be not interfered with, nothing is or can be gained by the substitution pleaded for. Especially is this true when the form recommended is already in constant use for the purpose indicated, and may, without change of arrangement, be practically employed to any conceivable extent. Mr. Tayler thus expounds his own principle, in consistency with this view of the matter:

"A centre like this admits of the friendly association of very wide diversities of doctrinal belief in the same religious communion. Accepting with equal reverence the life of Christ as a mediation between God and man, different parties, according to their different spiritual wants, as the practical or the mystical element of religion is most predominant in their minds, may dwell more on the human or on the divine side of that life, trace out its ethical relations with mankind, or speculate on the high possibilities of its transcendental connection. with Deity, without thereby dissolving their Christian fellowship. The friendly co-existence of these opposite tendencies within the same religious society would even be beneficial to both by mutual self-restraint and the retention of each within due limits. Leaving untouched the great fact of Christ's divine life, this bond of union would allow the greatest freedom of judgment on the details of his history, and on the criticism and interpretation of the books which record it, without exposing sensitive minds to the continual dread of disturbing fundamentals."

In these sentences Mr. Tayler plainly gives up any superiority as to distinctness and positiveness which his principle might have been supposed to have. He leaves it in these respects not only on a level with that from which he would distinguish it, but in the same position it now sustains toward the religious interest he desires to connect it with.

The vagueness of statement as to the Christian basis of our religious associations which is brought out by the questionsWhat is Scripture? What is Christianity? What is Christ? does not, I confess, at all trouble me. I am persuaded it could be productive of no evil, if the personal responsibility which relates to such questions was fulfilled. Were it the case that those associated on these general terms could individually reply that Scripture, Christianity and Christ, stood toward them in a definite form embraced by their independent faith, a far better result, in its bearing upon united action, would be produced, than could be produced by any sharper definition of the common standard of faith. Mr. Tayler has observed, that "Free inquiry is not a principle at all, properly so called. It is a condition of mental action." It should be added to this, however, that free inquiry is that condition of mental action which preserves the true relation of Christianity to the human mind. It enables the man who exercises it to connect himself with Christianity on its own proper merits without the bias of authority or prejudice, and thus gives to the truth he holds a clearer Christian character

and a higher Christian sanction. To such a Christianity as this no charge of vagueness can be justly applied. Within its own circle of operation, it will be as precise as thought can make it; and when suffered to prevail throughout a community, it will accomplish all the purposes of Christian life and influence by virtue of the power supplied by its freedom as well as of that inherent in its truth. Those who profess it cannot hope to rival orthodox churches in the influence supplied by that theological organization on which orthodoxy prides itself, but the quality may be set against the quantity of their success. It should be kept in mind, in all our speculations upon the condition of bodies which cultivate the kind of Christianity under notice, that there are methods of popular effect, on which the reliance of other Christian bodies is chiefly placed, that they cannot employ. Much unnecessary complaint might be prevented by this remembrance. So much for the Christian part of the position I maintain. Let me now turn to its identification with Unitarianism.

The question whether or not we should call ourselves by the Unitarian as well as the Christian name, is not a question left for our own decision, if we mean to practise simple honesty in the expression of the opinions we really hold. The exemplification of such honesty will fix upon us this name quite irrespective of our choice. Trinitarians will distinguish themselves from us on our openly declaring what our views on the Trinitarian controversy are; and whether we like it or not, we must submit to a separation which necessarily involves our being called Unitarians as the most appropriate designation we can obtain. It will indeed be generally conceded to us as a favour, by reason of our objecting to other names of an offensive character which come more naturally to hand. There are very few of our churches that have voluntarily taken this name as expressive of the principle of their religious association, and it is not, in fact, truly expressive of the principle on which the great body of those churches were constituted. As they became actually Unitarian, however, and plainly declared their Unitarian belief, they were forced, by the exclusion which orthodoxy practises beyond the line of that belief, to submit to a more marked identification with Unitarianism than their views of the abstract propriety of the case contemplated. This they could not avoid, except by denying or concealing their real faith; nor will they be able to avoid it in consistency with fidelity to themselves, as long as orthodoxy adheres to its present claims.

I may, in illustration of what I have just said, take up an instance which Mr. Tayler himself introduces for a dissimilar purpose. I do not think he does justice to Dr. Priestley and his school when he represents them as desirous of departing from the unsectarian basis of English Presbyterianism. His statement on this head is as follows:

"Dr. Priestley's followers were for substituting a sharply-defined Unitarianism for the vague doctrinal system in which they found most of the Presbyterian churches. But a still later generation, sympathizing with the greater breadth of Dr. Channing's theology, felt that the adoption of any specific dogma, especially one cast in so narrow a mould, and infected by so questionable a religious philosophy, as the English Unitarianism of the end of the last century, involved sectarianism, and was an infringement of the broad catholic principle on which the churches of their ancestors had been based."

I am not aware that Dr. Priestley and his followers contemplated more than a clear and consistent utterance of the theological convictions they entertained, and I am sure Dr. Channing and his followers worked toward the same result. It would be easy to shew that the former party were as deeply attached to "the broad catholic principle on which the churches of their ancestors had been based," as the latter party were. It was the unswerving honesty of Dr. Priestley and his followers to the obligations of what commended itself to them as Christian truth, which alone placed them before the world as acknowledged Unitarians; and the same honesty has stamped the character of Unitarians no less decidedly upon Dr. Channing and his followers. This effect always must occur in connection with similar honesty, and its occurrence implies no violation of the broadest catholic principle as constituting the basis of church association.

A record of personal experience may set this matter forth more distinctly than any reasoning can do. Ever since my connection with Unitarianism, I have been strongly impressed with the consideration that Christianity, as distinguished from Unitarianism, is and ought to be practically treated as the true foundation of our church union. I have, acting under this impression, frequently refused to employ the Unitarian name beyond the bounds of the controversy to which it properly belongs. There are many circumstances under which I should still persist in that refusal. I have, however, been so situated, over and over again, that my refusal to make use of this name, when its appropriateness was doubtful to my own mind, subjected me to a charge of cowardice or insincerity. In such cases I have not hesitated to throw off the moral imputation, at the risk of some want of correctness in defining my religious position. The consequence is, that there are now instances in which, for the honour of my own character, I adopt the name of Unitarian where I should have shrunk from adopting it at the beginning of my course. Experience has taught me, what it must teach every one in my situation, that as to taking or refusing this name we are not our own masters, if we determine to preserve that godly simplicity which answers to our actual belief.

Is it right to cultivate this simplicity in favour of Unitarianism? That is the true question to be considered. And how a

man professing Christianity at all, can give other than an affirmative answer to that question, is strange indeed to me. It is strange how such a man should presume to decide which among the Christian truths he holds, is unworthy of his open confession. The very idea of such a decision applied to any part of Christianity, is inconsistent with the nature of the truth on which it is brought to bear. The moral claims which all truth has upon the action of those who believe it, are irrespective of any calculation of consequences, and to descend to this calculation is to step out of the region of conscience. But here we are saved from the occasion of calculation by the relative importance of Unitarianism being pressed upon us, in the very circumstances which call for our action in its favour. The orthodoxy which so insists upon the broad distinction between Trinitarian and Unitarian views as to fix Unitarianism in a position of decided separation which no honest effort of its adherents can overcome, has thus declared in the strongest possible terms its sense of the importance of the truth on this subject. The declaration answers to the necessity of the case. What is manifested in fact

has its root in principle. Though we may think that this root is watered by prejudice so as to gain an unnatural expansion, we are bound to take up the question of difference between ourselves and others as it is really presented to us, and to cultivate the fidelity which is imposed upon us in that form. We cannot otherwise discharge our duty either to God or to man.

The circumstance that so many shelter themselves under an orthodox profession, although their real opinions and feelings are alienated from the system under which they seek refuge, ought, instead of producing a relaxation of effort, as it often does, to stimulate to a more vigorous discharge of the duty devolving upon us. While the opposite profession remains, the truth we hold suffers by the compromise attempted. The attempt restrains that truth from being clearly exhibited and efficiently applied; and it is incumbent upon us to state and defend it in exposure of the spirit of false accommodation as well as in resistance to the enforcement of unqualified error.

No one who seriously considers the subject need doubt that it is the known and felt importance of the Unitarian controversy, and not a persuasion of its insignificance, which gives rise to the evident reluctance to make open confession of Unitarian belief. That controversy is so important, that to rank ourselves on the Unitarian side of it is to forfeit Christian countenance and respect to an incalculable degree. Therefore men, in opposition to the plain result of their own convictions, persist in repudiating the name. Therefore they prefer dark and doubtful indications of those convictions to an open exposition of the truth concerning themselves. They will not face the odium which openness of speech and conduct would bring upon them.

To persons of the class last alluded to, I do not address myself; but to those of us who have been hitherto distinguished by the profession of Unitarianism, I say, that the evils and disadvantages which that profession entails upon us are as nothing in comparison with the honourable status it wins for us. On the whole question of religious truth with which our Unitarianism is identified, we are "the salt of the earth," and "as a city set upon a hill." Sad, indeed, would it be for the religious interests of our country, if we were to renounce our distinctive profession on account of any pain and difficulty connected with it. That pain and difficulty are our appointed lot, as much as any other particulars of our position; and if, as is the case, this position is one of restricted influence compared with that of the religious sects and parties around us, it is so by virtue of the stricter and more self-denying responsibility to which we have been called and found faithful.

What can be more important in the whole circle of religious truth than the views we entertain with regard to the nature of God, and the moral principles which regulate human salvation? What can be more obligatory in connection with religious duty than the rendering of sole allegiance to Him whom we believe to be the only Object of worship? Much of Mr. Tayler's objection to the Unitarian name is founded upon a separation of it from those Christian acknowledgments with which, throughout our churches, it is carefully connected, and to which it gives a distinctive value they could not otherwise possess. The mere term Unitarian Christian is a sufficient correction of the most plausible deficiency he points out.

Though much still remains unsaid, I must, perforce, bring this long letter to a close. I shall do so by simply indicating a point which seems to me, above all others, needful to be attended to, in order to the success of the personal remedy for which I have pleaded. It must originate in the cultivation of a more decidedly religious character than prevails among us. To do a religious work we must first be religious men. The temper and habit of our lives must be moulded and directed by religious principle, and all the exercises proper to religion must be practised with that conscientious diligence which springs from a feeling of the supreme value of this highest interest of man. When such a character as this is distinctive of the members of our churches, those churches will rise to a position which will secure for them the influence legitimately due to the truth they hold, and whatever services are prescribed by the necessities of that truth will be fulfilled by these members with the certainty and completeness attendant upon a labour of love.

I am, yours faithfully,

JOHN GORDON.