emy Taylor] who, with a noble candor and generous openness, pleads the cause of Liberty of Prophesying,' and who never was censured for it by any man worth the mentioning, though probably he was reviled by those who called Tillotson an Atheist.' If these two excellent prelates,' he continues, ‘and Erasmus, and Chillingworth, and John Hales, and Locke, and Episcopius, and Grotius, and many who shall not be named, had been contemporaries, and had met together freely to determine the important question, What makes a man a Christian, and what profession of faith should be deemed sufficient,' they would probably have agreed, notwithstanding the diversity of opinions which they might all have had on some theological points. There have been others indeed, who on such an occasion would have given us an ample catalogue of 'Necessaries,' the inference from which would have been, that it must needs be a very learned, and a very subtle, and a very ingenious thing to be a good Christian; for some of these 'Necessaries' are of so refined a nature, that the understanding can hardly lay hold of them, or the memory retain them.'

Such is the language of Dr Jortin, who, as it is well known, was a Trinitarian. It is worthy of notice that of the eight individuals he mentions in such marked terms of respect, two, Chillingworth and Locke, and I believe I may add Episcopius, were Unitarians. All three, together with John Hales, were denounced as Socinians by the bigots of their time, and one of them, Chillingworth, it seems, has been recently brand

ed by a writer in the 'Spirit of the Pilgrims,' as an infidel. But Jortin was more liberal. Though a believer in the trinity, he did not withhold the christian name, nor withdraw his esteem, from those who rejected it. He was no exclusionist, nor was Bishop Watson, nor Dr Parr. These men, and we might name many more from the ranks of Trinitarians, knew nothing of the arbitrary test which the conductors of the above mentioned work have seen fit to set up, and according to which, half at least of the ablest defenders of the truth of Christianity must be adjudged infidels. I fear that Professor Stuart himself would not stand this test, for if I understand his views of inspiration, they would not satisfy the writer of one or more recent articles in that work.

That the result of a conference between the above named individuals, partly Unitarian, and partly Trinitarian, would have been such as Dr Jortin supposes, I think there can be no doubt.

bigots, narrow and exclusive.

Such men can never be

Several of them were

in advance of their age, were the champions of civil and religious liberty, and afforded evidence of their sincerity by suffering in its cause. Locke was compelled to fly from his country, and for years lived a wanderer and an exile, sometimes in concealment, it being unsafe even in Holland for him to appear abroad, the king, (Charles II,) having discovered his retreat and demanded through his embassador that he should be arrested and sent back.*

*Some account of this disgraceful business, and of the share which Bishop Fell, 'the base priest who then filled the see of Oxford, and

Episcopius, another of the eight, a celebrated Arminian of Holland, was on account of his opinions, and his efforts in favor of religious toleration, expelled the Synod of Dort, deposed from the ministry, and banished from the territories of the Republic; and Grotius, for a similar cause, was condemned to perpetual imprisonment.

Of such men it may truly be said, the 'world was not worthy.' But bigots of all ages are the same. They measure all by their own diminutive standard. They cannot bear that others should see further, or more clearly than themselves.

The spirit of bigotry, certainly, is not extinct at the present day. It is matter of deep regret that so large a portion of it still exists in the christian world. All good men must lament that any, professing to be followers of the meek and merciful Jesus, should so far forget their fallibility and weakness, as to venture to dogmatise on subjects which lie beyond the reach of the senses; that they should so far forget charity, as to permit themselves to denounce as blind and infidel, destitute of all piety and virtue, those whose views do not in all respects coincide, or whose fervors do not rise to the same pitch, with their own. What claim, I ask, has a person to set himself up as a judge of the faith and character of his fellow Christians?

He undertakes, it may be, to sum up the amount

deanery of Christ Church,' had in it, may be found in the Edinburgh Review No. 99. The materials are taken from Lord King's Life of John Locke, recently published in England.

of faith and piety in the world; he talks of two great classes of men, saints and sinners, the regenerate and unregenerate, and he does not hesitate to pronounce confidently to which of those classes any individual belongs. He attaches great importance to particular abstract doctrines, and refined and shadowy distinctions, of the truth of which, as he affirms, or insinuates, he is made certain by a sort of supernatural illumination, but which persons, who have not been thus favored, are compelled to own themselves unable to comprehend or admit. These latter are then denounced by him as lacking spiritual discernment; as being men of obdurate minds, who are not yet recovered from the consequences of Adam's sin, and who by pride of intellect and rooted depravity of heart, inseparable it is asserted, from the 'natural man,' are rendered incapable of receiving the things which be of God.' But what claim, what commission, I repeat the question, can he show, authorising him to pronounce thus dogmatically concerning the faith and condition of his fellow Christians? Who has constituted him a master and judge?

He alleges, perhaps, certain impressions, private feelings, or confident persuasions, as furnishing evidence that he is infallibly right. Evidence to whom? Not to others, surely, who may think that those impressions and feelings savor strongly of fanaticism or imposture. Not to himself, unless he has so much confidence in his understanding and heart, as to believe himself incapable of delusion or mistake.

But admit that he has no hesitation of judgement on points of an abstruse nature, and no suspicion of the state of his affections, how is he justified in going about to inspire distrust of the soundness of other men's faith, or of the sincerity of their piety and goodness? perhaps to impair their influence, and render their names odious and hateful to their fellow Christians? They reject, it may be, certain doctrines or views which he deems fundamental or important. But what then? They are not responsible to him for their opinions. To their own master they must stand or fall. Their creed is a matter between themselves and their God. The Father of the universe alone knows to what influences untoward or happy, they have been subjected, what degree of penetration and skill was originally granted them, what opportunities they have enjoyed, and how they have used them. It is his prerogative, and not man's, to judge.

The advocate for uniformity, and zealot for certain favorite hypotheses, may think that he is promoting the safety of his fellow Christians by bringing them over to his opinions, and that benevolence therefore, authorises, and even requires him to interfere. But before he sets about converting others, would it not be as well for him to inquire whether his own conceptions and feelings are not somewhat too narrow and confined? Let him pause for a moment, and for once try whether he cannot conceive it possible, that persons may be on the road to heaven and happiness, though they may not choose to walk in the little by-path which he fan