or outward relation, he will be acquitted....  They believe all the articles of the Apostles’ Creed....  They believe the law of Christ contained in the four gospels to be the only and everlasting rule, by which they shall be judged hereafter....  They thankfully lay hold of the message of Redemption through Christ.’[361] Some of the Unitarians, we are told, even excommunicated and deposed from the ministry such of their party as denied that divine worship was due to Christ.[362] Of Unitarians such as these, if they can be called by that name, and not rather Arians or Semi-Arians, the words of Dr. Arnold may properly be quoted:  ’The addressing Christ in the language of prayer and praise is an essential part of Christian worship.  Every Christian would feel his devotions incomplete, if this formed no part of them.  This therefore cannot be sacrificed; but we are by no means bound to inquire whether all who pray to Christ entertain exactly the same ideas of His nature.  I believe that Arianism involves in it some very erroneous notions as to the object of religious worship; but if an Arian will join in our worship of Christ, and will call Him Lord and God, there is neither wisdom nor charity in insisting that he shall explain what he means by these terms; nor in questioning the strength and sincerity of his faith in his Saviour, because he makes too great a distinction between the Divinity of the Father and that which he allows to be the attribute of the Son.’[363] This was certainly the feeling of Tillotson[364] and many other eminent men of the same school.  If an Unitarian chose to conform, as very many are accustomed to do, they gladly received him as a fellow worshipper.  Thomas Firmin the philanthropist, leader of the Unitarians of his day was a constant attendant at Tillotson’s church of St. Lawrence Jewry, and at Dr. Outram’s in Lombard Street.  Yet both these divines were Catholic in regard of the doctrine of the Trinity, and wrote in defence of it.  In fact, the moderate Unitarians conformed without asking or expecting any concessions.  Latitudinarian Churchmen, as a party, entertained no idea of including Unitarians in the proposed act of comprehension.  For his own part, said Burnet, he could never understand pacificatory doctrines on matters which seemed to him the fundamentals of Christianity.[365] So far from comprehension, Socinians were excluded even from the benefits of the act of toleration; and more than thirty years later, in 1697, a severe Act of outlawry was passed against all who wrote or spoke against the divinity of Christ.[366] Until about 1720, Unitarians scarcely took the form of a separate sect.  Either they were scarcely distinguishable from those who professed one or another form of Deism, and who assumed the title of a Christian philosophy rather than of a denomination; or they were proscribed heretics; or they conformed to the Church of England and did not consider their opinions inconsistent with loyalty to it.