exclusive type, often conspicuous by a fervent but excessively narrow form of piety, and illiterate almost on principle on account of their disparagement of what was called ’human learning.’[352] The General Baptists, many of whom merged, early in the eighteenth century, into Unitarians, were less exclusive in their views.  But the Baptists generally viewed the English Church with suspicion and dislike.  In many cases their members were forbidden to enter, an any pretext whatever, the national churches, or to form intermarriages or hold social intercourse with Churchmen.[353] Yet some may not have forgotten the example and teaching of the ablest defender, in the seventeenth century, of Baptist opinions.  ‘Mr. Tombs,’ says Wall, quoting from Baxter, ’continued an Antipaedobaptist to his dying day, yet wrote against separation for it, and for communion with the parish churches.’[354] When Marshall, in the course of controversy, reproached the Baptists with separation, Tombs answered that he must blame the persons, not the general body.  For his own part he thought such separation a ’practice justly to be abhorred.  The making of sects upon difference of opinions, reviling, separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithful, because there is not the same opinion in disputable points, or in clear truths not fundamental, is a thing too frequent in all sorts of dogmatists, &c., and I look upon it as one of the greatest plagues of Christianity.  You shall have me join with you in detestation of it.’[355] He himself continued in communion with the National Church until his death.

Unitarians have always differed from one another so very widely, that they can hardly be classed or spoken of under one name.  Their opinions have always varied in every possible degree, from such minute departure from generally received modes of expression in speaking of the mystery of the Godhead, as needs a very microscopic orthodoxy to detect, down to the barest and most explicit Socinianism.  There were some who charged with Unitarianism Bishop Bull,[356] whose learned defence of the Nicene faith was famous throughout all Europe.  There were many who made it an accusation against Tillotson,[357] and the whole[358] of the Low or Latitudinarian party in the Church of England.  The Roman Controversialists of the seventeenth century used to go further still, and boldly assert[359] that to leave Rome was to go to Socinianism; and the Calvinists, on their side, would sometimes argue that ’Arminianism was a shoeing horn to draw on Socinianism.’[360] A great number of the Unitarians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were themselves scarcely distinguishable from the orthodox.  ’For peace sake they submit to the phrase of the Church, and expressly own Three Persons, though they think the word person not so proper as another might be.  If the Three Persons should be defined by three distinct minds and spirits, or substances, the Unitarian will be lost; but if person be defined by mode, manifestation,