PART II.

CHRISTIAN NAME AND CHARITY.

LETTER I.

Import of the Christian Name, and the Evils of confining it to particular Sects.

SIR,

In the present letter I am to inquire into the grounds, on which you deny to Unitarians the name of Christians. At first view, this subject does not seem to be of much importance. Names do not alter things, and whatever any one may choose to call us, we shall still be the same. But many things derive their importance as much from their consequences, as their nature. Although names are nothing in themselves, yet when they misrepresent our motives, sentiments, and characters, they are not so trifling, or unworthy of consideration, as might at first be imagined.

Our reputation in the world depends on the opinion of others. If this opinion be perverted, or ill

founded, it will not alter our characters, but it will weaken our influence, destroy our usefulness, and thus diminish our happiness. Now this result is to us a real injury, and the more to be deprecated, as coming from so unjustifiable a source, as false opinion. And besides, although we are not made worse, others are, because they are prompted to indulge thoughts, give currency to reports, and be guilty of conduct, which adds nothing to their own virtues, nor to the good order of society. It is obvious, then, that there is some virtue in names, and that it is the duty of every man, who values his reputation and his rights, to assert his claims to such titles, as shall truly represent his character.

No name is more honourable, none is more endearing to every sincere follower of Christ, none is cherished by him with more sacredness, than the name of Christian. It is a bond of union and love, which unites the hearts of those, who are enlightened by the same truths, engaged in the same duties, encouraged by the same promises, and pressing forward with the same hopes. This bond you have attempted to sever. A large portion of the followers of Jesus, who humbly and earnestly study his Gospel, who rely implicitly on his word, who desire to bring themselves wholly in subjection to his laws, who consider him to have been commissioned from heaven to make known the will of God and the terms of salvation to men, and whose choicest consolations are derived from their faith in the divinity of his character, and the truth of his doctrines,-a large portion of

these, you would exclude from the privilege of uniting under his name, and deprive them of the consolations, blessings, and enjoyments, which such a union is calculated to ensure. Few christians, who feel the power of the religion they profess, and are sensible of their own imperfections and proneness to error, would be willing to pronounce such a sentence of exclusion. Few would presume to institute such a tribunal upon the consciences and hearts of their fellow men, and place themselves in the judgment seat of Him, before whom all "must stand or fall," and who alone has power to judge.

It is not my purpose here to inquire into the origin of the name christian. It was first applied to the disciples of Christ at Antioch; but whether it was originally adopted by themselves, or given by others, we are not told; nor is it of any moment. The present application of the term is the only thing with which we are concerned.

In its general use it has two significations; one relating to the faith, the other to the practice, of those to whom it is applied. You say that Unitarians cannot be "regarded as christians in any correct sense of the word." The two senses here mentioned, it is believed, are the only ones in which the word can with any propriety be used. The latter of these, indeed, is acquired and forced, and is comparatively of modern origin. It is sanctioned, however, by custom. In its correct use, the word is employed exclusively to designate those, who believe in Christ as the Messiah, and who profess to receive him as their Master

and Saviour. Why are you entitled to the name of Calvinist, or any other person to the patronymic of the leader, whom he professes to follow? Is it not from this circumstance only, because you profess to receive him as a leader? And so it is with the name of christian. All, who look up to Christ as their head, and acknowledge themselves believers in him, and subjects of his kingdom, are entitled to the christian name.

The question is therefore to be settled, whether Unitarians are among this number? You say they are not, and explain yourself in a sort of abridgment of the second, eighth, and tenth Letters of Andrew Fuller. But neither his statements, nor yours after him, have any weight on my mind. They are mere assertions, where nothing but plain facts, and manly argument, could be of any value. You cannot be ignorant, that in the sincerity of our hearts we believe in the truth and divine character of the religion of Jesus, as firmly as you, or any of your brethren; that we consider, and have infinite joy in believing, his religion to be a revelation from God; that we believe him to have performed miracles by divine power; that we receive as sacred and true every word he spoke; that his commands carry with them in our view the same authority, as the commands of God; that our hope of immortality rests wholly on the veracity of his word, and a belief in his resurrection; that we look for salvation only on the conditions he has made known; and that we believe faith, repentance, and holiness essential to all, who would

be his true followers, and be partakers of the rewards he has promised. With this knowledge of our sentiments, the question may well be asked, by what authority you have denied to us the name of christian? If those who have this faith, and cherish these feelings, and hold fast these hopes, are not to be called Christians, tell us what they are to be called.*

In regard to the second, or popular sense of the term, I shall not say much in this place, because it comes under topics, which will be particularly discussed hereafter. Good men, who are zealous in acquiring a knowledge of the doctrines and duties of the christian religion, and in conforming to the precepts of Christ, are called Christians. And are there no such among Unitarians? The person, who strives to obey the laws of the Gospel, who is habitual in the exercises of piety and devotion, loves and aids his neighbour, subdues his passions, resists temptation, proscribes hurtful pleasures, hates vice, condemns and shuns the ways of the wicked, bears up with fortitude in adversity, submits cheerfully to the will of God, is penitent for his past sins, relies on the promises of Christ, endeavours to imbibe his spirit, and walk in his steps,-every such person is cordially

Hartley has given a very concise, and in my view, a very correct definition of the term Christian. "To believe the christian religion, is to believe that Moses and the prophets, Christ and his Apostles, were endued with divine authority, that they had a commission from God to act and teach as they did, and that he will verify their declarations concerning future things, and especially those concerning a future life, by the event; or, in other words, it is to receive the Scriptures as our rule of life, and the foundation of all our hopes and fears." Hartley's Works, Vol. II. p. 71.