decidedly as I disapprove and reject the peculiar opinions which it advocates, without cherishing an earnest wish to resemble the author of it in many things, and to be a follower of him, 66 so far as he was a follower of Christ." No, Sir, I will give to no such man as Thomas Scott, or Mason Good, nor yet to any man whatsoever, of the baseness of whose motives I have not convincing proofs, the opprobious name of apostate or renegade. “A sneer,” it has been justly observed, " is not an argument, and where it tells at all it is generally against the person that uses it." In a page quite full of these favourite ornaments of your work (p. 67*) you say that if Locke was a Trinitarian, "my boast is gone, and my eulogium will speedily follow." You are mistaken, Sir, quite mistaken, I assure you. My eulogium would not follow. The admiration which I feel for the genius and character of that illustrious man, if I know

At the bottom of the page referred to, you seem to have reached the top of your ladder of contempt, for you there compare us to the prating coxcomb so amusingly described by Horace in his ninth satire, whose insignificance nothing could more convincingly prove than his conceit. "Noris nos; docti sumus." Such it seems are we, at once shallow and self-satisfied. If it be so, you are determined that we shall not escape unpunished; "naso suspendis adunco ignotos." I will not say, as Dr. Parr did, on hearing of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, "Qui suspenderunt suspendantur." The charge of vanity and conceit has been not unfrequently brought against us by our opponents. It is curious that no one should have urged it more vehemently than the late Archbishop of Dublin, who, though a man of learning and of talent,-quiescat in pace! was by no means remarkable for his diffidence. It would be folly to pretend that Unitarianism exempts its professors from this vice of a self-ignorant mind. Those of them who are unhappily pre-disposed may not improbably find food for it in the reflection, that they have, as they think, discovered the fallacy of opinions, which the great majority of their fellow Christians continue to hold sacred: but that there is any necessary connection between Unitarianism and conceit, or that the respectable defenders of our system are more generally chargeable with it than others, cannot, I am sure, be proved. The "heresy" of Locke and Lardner, (you will excuse me for mentioning my two favourites again—I am neither fearful nor studious of an alliteration) was neither "shallow nor conceited." Closely allied to conceit, but of a darker and more anti-social character, is spiritual pride. To this vice our system, perhaps, administers less food, and of this probably exhibits fewer examples than yours. But such comparisons I say it from my heart-are odious. In every system the vices and frailties of our nature will find something to prey upon. If Christianity itself cannot keep them out, how can any form of Christianity be expected to do so!

E

any thing of myself, is altogether independent of my knowledge of his Unitarianism. "Profound, truth-loving, virtuous, and pious," (the epithet "every way excellent," though not dictated by party feeling, I give up, as, perhaps, injudiciously warm,) Locke certainly was; and God forbid that any base sectarian prejudice should ever extinguish or abate my admiration of any character, to which such epithets can be with truth applied! I do not think that the excellent Rector of Aston Sandford was profound. I cannot believe that he was, as he avowedly thought himself, divinely inspired* to interpret the scriptures, or to pronounce upon the essentiality or non-essentiality of the doctrines which he derived from them, but I believe him to have been, like Locke, truth-loving, virtuous, and pious, and therefore, though he was not only a Trinitarian, but a Calvinist, he shall have my sincere eulogium, and if you wish, be your boast at the same time. I have my doubts, however, whether you will accept him in that character. You say indeed (p. 104) that you "sincerely love the pious and evangelical members of the Established Church-thinking your differences very minute in comparison with your agreements, and raising no barrier to the most unrestrained friendship." But how, may I be permitted to inquire, do you reconcile this warm tender of affection for this particular class of the clergy with that rigid morality which has led you to denounce Locke as perjured," on the supposition of his anti-trinitarianism,to censure Lindsey's ten years' hesitation with such unrelenting severity, and to pronounce a minister of the Church of Scotland a "faithless hireling," merely because he preached a sermon as unlike what a sermon ought to be as any self-styled modern Unitarian could preach."+ Are

66

66

"As surely," says Mr. Scott," as I believe God's promises to be faithful; as I believe him to be a God that heareth prayer; so surely do I believe that flesh and blood hath not revealed to me the doctrines I now preach, but God himself by his Holy Spirit."-Force of Truth, p. 64.

+ I am not satisfied with your apology for the introduction of this sarcastic illustration into your sermon on the death of Mr. George. Sorrow and sarcasm have no natural relationship; and the "religious history" of your truly amiable friend might have been quite as fully and faithfully given, and in a

you not aware that the so-called-for I do not like your contentious prefix " self-styled"-Evangelical clergy, are for the most part no believers in baptismal regeneration, and yet constantly administer the ordinance of baptism by a form in which the truth of that doctrine is undeniably assumed ? Are you not aware that they seriously object to the use of the burial service of the Liturgy over the remains of notoriously immoral characters, and yet do, notwithstanding, thus habitually use it? Are you not aware that they have their doubts as to the propriety of applying the epithet "Most religious" to the sovereign for the time being, whatsoever his character may be, in despite of which doubts, however, they give him this appellation in an act of solemn prayer to the God of Truth, every Lord's day during the session of Parliament? Have you never heard that they deem these, and in all probability several other sentiments and expressions in the book of Common Prayer unscriptural and untrue, though there is not one of them who, if beneficed, has not willingly and heartily, "lubens et ex animo," subscribed to an article declaring that the book of Common Prayer contains nothing contrary to the word of God,"or who, if unbeneficed, does not, by his constant use of the forms of the Liturgy, without omission or alteration, pledge himself, in the sight of God and man, to a serious approbation of their contents? If these facts are not familiar to you, I beg to refer you to a work entitled "Ecclesiæ decus et tutamen," by the Rev. John Riland, Curate of Yoxall, Staffordshire.* "I will at once," says this gentleman, (p. 265) "concede my own inconsistency, as a minister of the Anglican Church, in continuing to receive its emoluments, perform its services, and rank among its ostensible supporters, while I have drawn up and published, what it is conceived will be considered as the largest and heaviest indictment ever presented by a clergyman against his

spirit more like his own, without the introduction of a remark that was sure to touch a jarring chord in the breasts of some sincere mourners for him.

See also a Letter to the Bishop of Salisbury, by the Rev. William Tiptaft, on the resignation of his living in the Church of England, just pub. lished.

brethren and himself. The jury of my country will however judge, when they have heard the cause, whether my crime does not consist in the act of having written more than others, and in having clothed with words the thoughts of a thousand bosoms." In subsequent passages (pp. 267, 273) this writer shelters himself under the authority of the Rev. Thomas Scott, author of the Force of Truth, and of the Rev. John Newton, the friend of Cowper, from the writings of both of whom he produces passages which fully prove that they not only regarded, but denounced, as erroneous and unscriptural, portions of that book to "all and every thing contained in which" they had subscribed "their unfeigned assent and consent." Now you say that "a man must be a faithless hireling who has solemnly pledged himself to the opinions of a system on which he subsists, and yet not only virtually renounces but professedly assails them." Doubtless we should sincerely love all men, and I do not therefore blame you for "sincerely loving these pious and evangelical members of the Established Church.” I question, however, whether they will thank you for telling them what you think the truth in so harsh and unceremonious a style, and conferring upon them so unpleasant an epithet. But what is my opinion of their conduct, you have a right to inquire. Of their conduct, considered in itself, I reply, my opinion does not perhaps widely differ from your own. The commencement of a Minister of the Gospel's public life with a deliberate subscription to an untruth, however small,-the employment, in the solemn service of Almighty God, of words and expressions of which he who utters them does not approve, and still more of such as he positively disapproves,-this without doubt appears to me sinful, and I could not escape the bitter condemnation of my conscience, if I were to be guilty of such conduct. So strong is my feeling on this head, that I could not consent to employ any liturgy, though, on some accounts, I should give a preference to a service at least partly liturgical, unless I was left at perfect liberty to make any changes in it, at any time that my views of truth and promptings of con* See Letters, p. 105.

science might dictate. The compulsory conformity of the Church of England,—the plan of placing the faith of her sons on the book of Common Prayer, as on a bed of Procrustes, and then cutting it down, or stretching it out, as may be found needful; this, I agree with you I believe, in wholly condemning; but I cannot agree with you in denouncing as "faithless hirelings," the unsound members of the English, or Scotch, or any other Church. To their own Master they stand or fall. Of their conduct, its nature and tendency, as they appear to me, I will freely speak, but not of themselves. In the Church of England, if I was to follow your rule, I could not expect to find a single truly pious and virtuous man. Her system you know, and every one knows, not to be of a piece throughout, but to be composed of heterogeneous materials. How then could any man, with the eyes of his understanding wide open, and his conscience completely awake, honestly pledge himself, as all the clergy do really or virtually pledge themselves, to an equal approbation of sentiments and opinions that do not harmonize? "Never," says the Rev. John Riland,* "have the arts of evasion, sophistry, palliation, and management, been more notoriously developed than in attempts to explain away the strictness of subscription to the liturgy, articles, and homilies. It is quite needless to exhibit here the threadbare evidence of this fact. Indeed the very nature of the case proves the thing; from the necessary consequence of offering to an immense body of men, whose opinions are infinitely diversified, and incapable of being combined into any system beyond a few undisputed generalities, a series of formularies, embracing a vast and complicated variety of positions brought together at different periods, and by collectors of discordant sentiments." This is the testimony of an evangelical clergyman. Dr. Paley, a divine of a different school, is well known to have held a similar opinion as to the absolute impossibility of "the exact agreement of so many minds in such

See "Ecclesiæ decus, &c." p. 266.