242 RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT. 



church both the Arian and Socinian heretics." This is new to us. 

 Can the Reverend Gentleman be serious, when he insinuates that 

 these " heretics " have not crossed the borders of the church ? Im- 

 possible. He must know that the Church of England numbers with- 

 in her communion, a host of Arians and Socinians. He must know 

 that she has done so ever since she was a church. Nor can he be 

 ignorant of the fact, that Arianism and Socinianism (particularly the 

 latter) are at this moment making the most rapid progress within the 

 boundaries of the church. And if they are either to be expelled, 

 or their further progress stayed, the " dignitaries ecclesiastical " are 

 the last persons to whom we would look for such a consummation. 

 They are notoriously much more tinctured with Arianism and Socini- 

 anism than the inferior clergy. We think it scarcely admits of doubt, 

 that a large majority of the present bishops are Socinians, or, to em- 

 ploy the term by which the class of Christians meant to be charac- 

 terized, proper to be designated : viz. " Unitarians." 



The Doctor, who seems determined to give the English bishops 

 credit for every thing, next informs us that they have distinguished 

 themselves above all other men as the successful defenders of Chris- 

 tianity against the attacks of infidels. Here again the Rev. Gentle- 

 man speaks without a book. We hold that not only the greatest 

 number but the most triumphant defences of Christianity, for which 

 the Church can claim credit, have been produced, either by the infe- 

 rior clergy or by lay members. It is a singular fact, too, and one 

 which but ill assorts with the Scotch divine's assumed union of 

 " orthodoxy" with the " ponderous erudition of bishops," that those 

 of the bishops and clergy generally who have most distinguished them- 

 selves by these works on the evidences of Christianity, have belonged 

 to the class of Christians whom he brands with the epithet of Socinian. 

 Bishops sButler, Watson, and Dr. Paley (not to mention a host of 

 others) are instances in point. 



But so far from the bishops having any right to monopolize the 

 credit of being the only defenders of our faith, we deny that the 

 Church has any exclusive claims to such credit, even when she adds 

 her "clergy and lay members generally to her dignitaries." Reli- 

 gion is, in this respect, under infinite obligations to the despised 

 dissenters ; and here again, though the writer makes the admission 

 with a sort of regret, chiefly to those whom Dr. Chalmers calls Soci- 

 nians. It will suffice, in proof, to mention the names of Dr. Lardner, 

 Leland, Leslie, and Priestley. 



Dr. Chalmers, in the plenitude of his zeal to eulogize the English 

 bishops as the great and only champions of Christianity, does great 

 injustice to his own church. Who wrote the most triumphant ex- 

 posure of the sophistry of Hume, in his Essay on Miracles ? Was 

 it not Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen? Who wrote the second best 

 reputation of the errors of the infidel just mentioned ? Was it not 

 Dr. Beattie, of Aberdeen ? And have not the clergy and lay mem- 

 bers of the Church of Scotland, in various other instances, done 

 themselves immortal credit, by their vindication of Christianity when 

 vilified and misrepresented by infidels? 



There is a distinguished minister of the Church of Scotland, whose 



