"I was now, from my coming to London, in the focus of unitarianism, and could not but act with unitarians, without taking a position for which I was not then prepared. I had rejected trinitarianism; but I could not make up my mind to reject christianity, though there was a considerable tendency to its rejection in my habits of thinking and reasoning; and my discourses and writings were for some time unitarian, merely as unitarianism is a system of negation. Indeed, my mind was often so unsettled, that I knew not what to think; and it was frequently so reckless, that I cared not what I said or wrote. Such was particularly the state of my mind, when I published, by request, 'A Discourse, delivered at Southampton, before a Society of Unitarian Christians,' &c. I preached the said discourse in a state of mind bordering on distraction with doubt and perplexity, (which was too frequently the case when called to preach unitarian lectures;) and when I wrote it out for the press, I may truly say, such was the desperation of my spirit, that I neither feared God nor regarded man.

"As my great difficulty was concerning the divine origin of christianity, or the credibility of the gospel, unitarianism, instead of relieving me, only added to my distrust and disquiet. On the other hand, the more I became acquainted with infidelity, both as theoretically and practically exhibited to my reflection, the greater was my dread of it, as a gulf of religious and moral perdition. I had experienced the religious and moral power of the gospel, and had witnessed it in others; and this kind of evidence was often an anchor to my soul, both sure and steadfast, when other evidence seemed to fail; but I never had any convincing proof of the religious and moral power of unitarianism; on the contrary, I had much convincing proof of its utter destitution of all spiritual and moral efficacy. The consequence was, I gradually lost all confidence in it, and all affection for it, and kept aloof from it as much as I well could; and was so heartless in the cause, that some who had known me as a preacher, both in Scotland and in Derbyshire, said I was not like the same person. Indeed, I was not the same person: my soul had been smitten with a curse, that caused a ruin and desolation, which, in pensive mood, threw a gloomy horror around my understanding, that appalled my reason, with all its daring hardihood." p. 14, &c.

Extreme mental disquietude, and over exertion in intellectual labour, to which he betook himself as a refuge, now threw him into a very dangerous illness; and after an almost miraculous, though at first but partial recovery, (the mental cause of the malady not having been removed,) he was gradually more dissatisfied with unitarianism, and kept himself more aloof from it. Previous to describing the progress of his withdrawal from it, he gives an account of some particulars in which he dissented from its advocates even while he remained in connexion with them; from which we extract the two following very remarkable and impor

tant statements:

"I never admired, recommended, or used the new, alias unitarian

version of the New Testament. I always thought it a poor party thing, got up with as little ability as candour, merely for a theological purpose. The only one of all the unitarian brethren (in the ministry) I have ever heard approach my own opinion respecting the new version, is Mr. Aspland; and he is likewise the only one of them who ever seemed to coincide in opinion with me respecting the great author and finisher of the humanitarian faith, Dr. Priestley. He has long been considered unsound; and he made no small noise, about two years ago, as if actually abandoning unitarianism in toto. It is at least seven or more years since he proposed that we, the London ministers, should meet to discuss certain subjects, alleging that we had gone too far, and ought to retrace our steps; and when he appealed to myself, whether humanitarianism did not put a very forced construction on some parts of the New Testament, and particularly the first chapter of the gospel according to John, I promptly admitted that I thought it did." pp. 19, 20.

What does Mr. Aspland say to this? After this public charge, a public explanation appears to be requisite. He has not come openly forward, like Mr. Gilchrist, to confess his errors: has he been engaged in silently retracing his steps? To what extent does he think that unitarians have gone too far? With respect to the unitarian improved version, Dr. Carpenter, in his curious specimen of the genius of his sect for scripture interpretation, called " Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel," confesses that there is no ground for rejecting as spurious, as is done in that version, the first two chapters of Luke: he therefore sets himself to prove, that, though genuine, they do not teach the doctrine of the divine conception!

The other passage to which we have referred, relates to sounder unitarians.

"I never entertained such low and degrading notions of the person, and office, and character of Jesus, as those of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham. Indeed, I had no conception that such notions were really expressed in printed words, till I resolutely read the 'Calm Inquiry' through, within these twelve months. In the most skeptical state of my mind, the character of Jesus presented something higher than the beau ideal of human excellence; and frequently my mind has been strengthened, and my heart warmed, when contemplating it; and I have been disposed to exclaim, what need is there of other evidence of divinity, than that which is presented in Him who is styled the Son of God!" p. 21.

After his illness, Mr. Gilchrist describes the state of his mind thus:

"I was now convinced, not only of the desirableness, but of the necessity for some system of religion; and I was equally convinced that the gospel was that alone which can be worthy of all acceptation. It was to be this; or I was to have nothing but atheism; I mean, the atheism of Hobbes. Mere deistical reasonings could

with

never satisfy my reason: the common herd of infidel reasoners, Hume, and Gibbon, and Voltaire in front, never gave me any trouble: it was the intellectual leviathan that filled me with dismay. But my mental habits had, in process of time, undergone considerable change of modification, and I had become less confident in principles naturally allied to atheism, and less satisfied with the dry light of the understanding; and my deep conviction of the necessity of religion to human well-being, was a firm foundation, not only for faith to rest upon, but for the right exercise of reason. I had long experienced the mental disquiet connected with skepticism, however partial; and I had witnessed the ruinous moral consequences of infidel and atheistical principles in the very persons who were their boldest champions." pp. 29, 30.

This last observation is a most impressive one; and it is afterwards illustrated by an incidental mention of a person of very superior attainments, and possessing some commendable virtues,—of "Anthony Robinson, who is known to some as an author, and who would have, perhaps, attained literary celebrity and usefulness, but for a skepticism which both distracted and paralyzed him. He wrote with great asperity in reply to the celebrated sermon on Modern Infidelity by the eloquent Robert Hall; and, in a long conversation which I once had with him, I was struck with the sudden and extraordinary change from the plaintive tone of his melancholy mind, to a sort of indignant hostility, when I induced him to discuss the merits of that distinguished writer. I never saw a more striking instance and illustration, than Anthony Robinson, of the deplorable wretchedness attendant on skepticism, acting on a powerful and sensitive mind."* p. 35.

Various affecting occurrences tended to increase Mr. G.'s desire to shake off unitarianism; but he was "ingulfed in unitarian opinions, and influences, and connexions; and the state of his health seemed to render much mental effort impossible." He was now, however, providentially prevailed on by his baptist friends to deliver a lecture on the perpetuity of baptism as a christian ordinance; and this, he says, it was

"which determined my purpose, and armed me with resolution to abandon unitarianism at all hazards. I had to make research among the writings of the antiperpetuitists, alias unitarians;† and their writings convinced me that their opinions and arguments were logically consistent with nothing but a universal rejection of christianity; and that, for the same reason, and in the same manner that they rejected baptism, they might reject every thing peculiar to the gospel.

* There is an account of this gentleman in a late number of the (Unitarian) Monthly Repository, which, though drawn with a very partial hand, sufficiently corroborates the above statement. Edts.

† Most unitarians hold that baptism is now unnecessary; but some, however, as will presently appear, continue the use of it. Edts.

"But, if such was my conviction as to unitarian writings in opposition to baptism, how shall I describe the effect produced on my mind by reading Mr. Belsham's Letters in defence of infant baptism! If I were simply to relate that a sleepless night was the consequence, the reader would form a very faint conception of the sensation produced. I was really in doubt whether Mr. Belsham's secret purpose was not to undermine and shake the credibility of the gospel. I remember, some time back, sitting, at a public dinner, by the side of an academic of some note, and a unitarian too, who remarked, that many of his friends in the church would not admit that Mr. Belsham was any thing but a concealed unbeliever; and he added, with a significant manner, whether he be, or not, what they think, I will not take upon me to say. I attributed this, at the time, to disaffection; but now my own mind was in the same state. I said to myself, whether unitarians reason for or against the perpetuity of baptism, their reasonings are virtually subversive of the gospel." pp. 38, 39.

We have next an affecting picture of the temporal sacrifices which he was to be prepared to encounter, "with a family to share his fortunes," in acting upon his new formed determination. This was a most severe trial, and his not shrinking from it does the greatest honour to his conscientious integrity. At Worship street, indeed, he was in possession of a trifling endowment, which he might justly retain, as it was never intended to be applied to the support of unitarianism; but all income from other sources he was likely to lose, including the charge of a congregation at Newington Green. As he truly observes,

But

"Public recantation, or the abandonment of a party, is attended with much odium and worldly disadvantage, unless there be some other party to hail and embrace the renouncer, who is of course considered by his former brethren as an apostate, and deserter. there was no party to welcome and embrace me; for I could not pay court to any party, or submit to the terms on which I could hope to be admitted as a member, or encouraged as an ally. It is become a kind of axiom, that he who is of no party, has all parties against him. I had to calculate on having both the unitarians and the trinitarians opposed to me." p. 41.

He began, however, openly to discover the alteration in his views in his public discourses, from which he gives several extracts. Most of these we regard as excellent, and would gladly present specimens of them to our readers; but we must hasten to close this article, and must confine our remaining quotations to his concluding statement respecting "what his present theological opinions are;" making, upon each article, a few observations.

"I refuse," he says, "to be called a unitarian; but I do not profess, on the other side, to be a trinitarian, (and sincerely deplore that the term exists;) though I believe I am as much a trinitarian as

Calvin himself, Baxter, and many other great and good men, at the farthest possible remove from the unitarian principles and spirit; and from which I would willingly escape to an immeasurable distance. I cannot entertain the notion of three persons in the godhead, because I cannot perceive any real distinction between three co-equal persons and three gods. But I am not disposed to make this a subject of disputation. I am willing to walk in peace with all sincere christians, however trinitarian their faith may be, and to leave them in undisturbed possession of their opinions concerning the adorable and inscrutable nature of God. If they will not bear with me, and leave me in undisturbed possession of my opinion on such an awful subject; if they will reject me as a stubborn heretic, wholly unworthy of the kingdom of Christ; I can only mourn in secret that such a cause of disunion among the disciples of Jesus should exist, and wait patiently till it be removed; in pleasing anticipation of that better state of the church, when all that love our Lord Jesus Christ shall see eye to eye, and strike their harps in sweet accord, without one jarring sound." p. 77.

"If, by "a trinitarian," Mr. G. means what is commonly so denominated, we are satisfied that he is greatly mistaken in supposing that he, who declines to profess himself one, is as much so as Calvin, &c. Mr. G. "cannot entertain the notion of three persons in the godhead;" but Calvin did: and the whole system of his theology cannot stand a moment, unless the existence of three divine persons, of different and contradictory attributes, be admitted and supposed. But if Mr. G. understands the trinity to consist of three divine essentials, in one person; as of the essential divinity, or divine soul, the divine humanity, or divine form, and the divine sphere of emanation, acting upon, and filling created recipients; he is truly as much a trinitarian as Calvin, or as the most tenacious tripersonalist, while he is free from their mistaken apprehensions. But in this case, while his love of peace and aversion to disputation are highly commendable, we apprehend he would find it as difficult to unite in communion with trinitarians, commonly so called, as with unitarians; as being influenced by equal, though opposite errors. But he adds, what appears still further to separate him from both,

"I am not a trinitarian in the sense that seems to my understanding to be tritheistical; but no man can hold the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ more firmly, or more truly, than I do. I believe him to be not only truly and properly man, but also truly and properly God; for God is with, by special and intimate union, and dwelleth in the man Jesus Christ. And though I reasoned at one time against the notion of two natures in the person of Christ, and was disposed, like too many unitarians, to ridicule it, I am as fully convinced as I am of any truth of christianity, that it is an all important doctrine of the gospel." p. 78.

According to this statement, it would appear that Mr. G. be