But let any one compare the following passage, from _Mr. Belsham’s_ first letter to a former Bishop of London, with his exposition of the Unitarians’ Creed, as it is given at the end of that _lucus a non lucendo_—his “Calm Inquiry.” “That the Unitarians believe _everything that __is essential_ to salvation is _evident_ from the unequivocal testimony of the Apostle Paul himself, who in the Epistle to the Romans, x. 9, expressly teaches that if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in our heart that God hath raised him from the dead, we shall be saved.” Here then we have a professed believer in the _simplest creed_—but will it “justify his call into the ministry?” Take again the case of the _Baptist_, agreeing with us I believe on all the essential doctrines of Christianity, admitting the _necessity_ of _Baptism_, but differing from us only on a question of _time_. With our views on Infant Baptism should we be justified in admitting him into the ministry? and if not, what becomes of liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment? Might not the professed believer in this simple creed and the Baptist, under the contemplated restrictions of the principle complain with you “that the same invasion of Christian liberty remains? Fines, and imprisonment, and the pillory, have vanished; _exclusion_ remains (to them) in the same unabated force.” {29} Let us then remove the corrective remedy of Subscription to Articles of Faith, and where shall we stay the progress of the gangrene? How shall we exclude “the naughty seducers?” “_I consider that by in any way expanding the sense and meaning of Subscription_, _a boon would be granted_, _and a great benefit conferred upon the scrupulous and tender consciences of those who are among_”—it might be asked how they came there—“_or may become the brightest ornaments of the establishment_.” But if these ornaments can only be secured at the risk, I do not say with the “_intention_” of letting into the ministry together with them, men who hold things _contrary to sound doctrine_, however exemplary may be their lives, however brilliant their acquirements, still should they be in error concerning the Faith, shall we not have purchased them at too high a price? Brighter ornaments we may never hope to see than that army of martyrs, those profoundly learned and eminently pious men, the sanctity of whose lives, the fervour of whose holy zeal in the cause of Christ have shed an undying lustre on the religion they professed when living, and who being dead yet speak—and in the accents of encouragement to the _tenderest_ conscience, seem to breathe a _crede nobis_,—the Church in the holy communion of which WE lived and died, proffers nothing to be received as an article of faith, that is “not _agreeable_ to the word of _God_,” nothing as a point of discipline “that is _contrary_ to it.”