INTELLIGENCE. DOMESTIC. Correspondence in the Times News- The Clergyman's Letter. To the Editor of the Times. I was much pleased to find you taking an interest in, and giving so good a report of, the proceedings of the Bible meeting, at the Mansionhouse. There are, however, one or two observations which you make in relation to those proceedings, in your journal of yesterday and to-day, respecting which, I shall merely offer to your consideration one or two queries. 1st. Do you not think that the repeal of the Act in reference to Socinians, afforded Mr. Carlile the only show of defence which he made on his trial? And was there not-I appeal to you as a member of the Church of England-was there not some truth in his defining a Socinian to be a Deist in a cloak? Was there not, also, some point in his question, "Where were your bishops and Christian advocates when the abovementioned Act was repealed?" I may just add, on this head, that I wish no sect of religionists to be called to account for their principles; but, still I think the permitting the Act to remain as originally passed, while it would have been an effectual barrier to infidelity, would not have operated in any thing like persecution, with regard to the persons against whom it was levelled. It might have been suffered to remain suspended as a sword over their heads, not, indeed, to be ever employed against them, but to shew that the Legislature, though it did not punish, at the same time disapproved of their tenets. 2dly. Does it not strike you, as a defect in the law of the land, that a blasphemer, after conviction, may carry on, and most profitably and shamelessly too, the nefarious trade for which he has been convicted by then, of repealing a statute, or part of a jury? Where was the wisdom, one, by which, in the case of Eaton, his whole stock was seized and destroyed after his conviction; and will it not be wise in Parliament to revive the said statute, or provide in some other way for the remedy of such a grievance? I am convinced religion is in no danger, so far as the enlightened and reflecting are concerned; but ought not provision to be made, both that the Infidel should not be suffered to outrage the public feeling by continuing to sell what his country has condemned as blasphemous; and that the ignorant and unthinking should be defended from exposure to the seduction and the plausibility and the impiety of blasphemous publications? With regard to the statement made by the clergyman with whom Mr. Cunningham differed, allow me to remark, that the former has been very recently in what are called the disturbed districts, and gives, as the result of his observations, the somewhat alarming view of the progress of infidelity which his speech exhibited. Were it not that Bible meetings are not to degenerate into debating clubs, I am confident he could have produced to the meeting sufficient reasons for what he asserted; and I doubt not that he satisfied Mr. Cunningham's mind at the close of the meeting, that his opportunities of information had been such as to render considerable regard due to his opinion. The gentleman in question is not in the habit of forming opinions hastily, nor publishing them rashly. I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant, A CLERGYMAN. Nov. 6. Remarks of the Editor of the Times. We insert a letter from "A Clergyman," which treats of the late meeting at the Mansion-house, and subjects springing out of it. Our correspondent asks us several questions, to which we have before stated our opinion that the Socinians ought to reply. Carlile, a mere blasphemer, mingled himself with them, and claimed, no doubt, the protection of the Act made in their behalf. But then our correspondent forgets to mention, that the Chief Justice declared again and again the utter inapplicability of the Act to a man in Carlile's situation. This defendant, therefore, might, we presume, (if the Judge is to be considered as the authoritative interpreter of the existing laws,) as well have urged the Riot Act, or the Statute of Frauds, in his defence. Carlile's merely urging the Act is no proof that the Act could, by a sane understanding, be considered as sheltering him. But if Carlile slandered the law, may he not also be considered as slandering those in whose favour it was really passed, when he said, that a Socinian was a Deist in a cloak," or some. thing to that effect? It is obvious at first sight, that an Act may be so framed as to allow of the reasonings of sincere men on the interpretation of the admitted truth of Scripture, which would not tolerate the borrid, blasphemies of Paine and Carlile. Mr. Aspland's Two Letters. SIR, As you declare in your paper of this day, that the Unitarians ought to reply to the questions of your correspondent, "A CLERGYMAN," I trust you will allow me space for a short answer. Humble as my name is, I shall subscribe it, that you may know who is responsible for the statements which I am about to give. Unitarians, Sir, have been so long accustomed to hard language from their theological opponents, that nothing of this kind can surprise them; otherwise, they might wonder at the readiness of your clerical correspondent to accept Mr. Carlile as an authority against them. The object of this gentleman in representing Unitarians as Deists is obvious; but as the learned Chief-Justice would not admit his doctrine with regard to them to be law, so neither will any one, not blinded by bigotry, allow it to be moral truth. He contended, I believe, that the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity is Deism, confounding, probably, the original with the actual meaning of the term. According to its etymological sense of a belief in God, or one God, the Unitarians are Deists or Theists, and so are all Christians; but in its present received sense of a belief in God, to the exclusion of the Divine mission of Jesus Christ, the Unitarians are not Deists, nor has their system any affinity with Deism. The charge of Deism "under a cloak," is a calumny, which they can answer only by appealing to their lives and characters. You are aware, Sir, that Deism and Atheism are terms of reproach, which have, in all ages, been employed to serve unrighteous partypurposes. The Pagans accused the primitive Christians of Atheism; - the Roman Catholics represented the first Reformers as disguised Deists; the Reformed charged the admirable Grotius with being little better than a Heathen; and the Jacobites did not hesitate to stigmatise the venerable and pious Archbishop Tillotson (quem honoris causa nomino, semperque nominabo) as an atheistic infidel. In such company, the Unitarians of the present day feel little anxiety concerning the coarse and calumnious epithets that are heaped upon them; though they may be allowed to Jament, that at this late period of Christian history the disciples of Christ have learned so imperfectly their great Master's divine lesson of charity. It will be found upon inquiry, that the Unitarians have taken, at least, their share of labour in the defence of "the common salvation." Their ministers have been always accustomed to discuss and enforce zealously, from the pulpit, the evidences of Christianity. The work of Socinus that is best known is his Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion. This book was translated into English in 1731, by Combe, a dignitary of the Church of England, with a recommendatory preface by Bishop Smallbrook, and a dedication to the then Queen. Several volumes of Dr. Priestley's works are devoted to the same subject; and I question whether any book be so well adapted to remove the prejudices, and conciliate the affections of a sceptic of superior intellect as bis Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever. And (not to multiply authorities, though many more names might be cited) who is it that is universally appealed to as (by way of distinction) the Champion of Christianity? Is it not Dr. Lardner? That same Larduer who is justly considered as the leader of the modern English Unitarians, and whose Letter on the Logos Mr. Charles Butler, of Lincoln's-Inn, points out, in his "Historic Account of Confessions," as the Unitarian symbol, or confession of faith. Who that knows this but must smile at the folly of charging Unitarians with Deism? But there is more than folly, there is injustice in the charge, and injustice that may be mischievous beyond its immediate effects upon the persons injured. In the present feverish state of the public mind, when the prevalence of scepticism, even amongst the common people, who are swayed more by names than by arguments, is so generally admitted and so deeply deplored, can it be desirable to swell the list of unbelievers, by classing under that denomination the numerous body of Christians, of all ages, who have been more or less dissatisfied with the doctrine of the Trinity? Would Christianity lose nothing in public opinion, if it could be successfully maintained, that Dr. Lardner, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Mr. Locke, and Sir Isaac Newton, who were none of them Trinitarians, were, on that account, not real Christians? Where are the men to fill the void that would be created by this depopulating bigotry? Unitarians Deists! What, then, is it to be a Christian? Is it essential to this character that a man should hold" whole and undefiled" the creed of St. Athanasius? The truth is, Sir, that the Unitarian encounters reproach for his scrupulous adherence to the Scriptures, and especially to the words of his acknowledged Master, Christ. He will not give his "assent and consent" to creeds of human invention, but confines himself to the confession of faith laid down in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; hence he is reviled as a heretic, and condemned as an unbeliever. His creed is the New Testament. He judges, indeed, by the best lights that biblical learning can supply, of the correctness of the text or of translations of this Sacred Volume; but he makes no alterations in it, and he adopts none which are not abundantly justified by the most learned authorities in every church; and if in the critical question, for instance, of the genuineness of the three witnesses' text, 1 John v. 7, 8. he should err, he errs with many divines and scholars usually reputed sound, and may plead in bar of unchristianizing censures the arguments and admissions of the present erudite Bishops Tomline and Marsh. Christianity, Sir, is the religion, not of a party, but of the universal church; and the rule for determining what constitutes a Christian is, that of quod semper, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique creditum. Is it asked, what have all Christians, in all ages and all places, believed? I reply, in the words of a competent and impartial judge, Mr. Butler, before quoted, (Life of Fenelon, p. 235,) “ All Christians believe, 1. That there is one God: 2. That he is a being of infinite perfection: 3. That he directs all things by his providence: 4. That it is our duty to love him with all our hearts, and our neighbour as ourselves: 5. That it is our duty to repent of the sins we commit: 6. That God pardons the truly penitent: 7. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments, when all mankind shall be judged according to their works: 8. That God sent his Son into the world to be its Saviour, the author of eternal salvation to all that obey him: 9. That he is the true Messiah: 10. That he worked miracles, suffered, died, and rose again, as is related in the four Gospels: 11. That he will hereafter make a second appearance on the earth, raise all mankind from the dead, judge the world in righteousness, bestow eternal life on the virtuous, aud punish the workers of iniquity." These articles of faith, which "may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture," constitute the creed of the Unitarian; and it is for any impartial man to say whether, believing thus, it be either just to him or serviceable to the interests of Christianity, that he be denounced and proscribed as an enemy of the Christian faith. There are two or three other points in the Clergyman's letter and your remarks, to which, with your permission, of which your known liberality will not allow me to doubt, I shall call the attention of your readers in another letter; and, in the mean time, I am, Sir, your humble and obedient servant, ROBERT ASPLAND. Hackney, Nov. 9. LETTER II. To the Editor of the Times. I thank you for your prompt insertion of my letter of yesterday, and proceed, with your indulgence, to make a few further remarks upon the Clergyman's Letter. With the ground of Mr. Carlile's defence, Unitarians, as such, have no concern. His pleading the 53rd of the King, (the Act for relieving those that do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity from certain pains and penalties,) no more implicates them in his cause, than his appealing to the Toleration Act would have identified with himself the whole body of Protestant Dissenters. It is sufficiently clear that this statute protects the Unitarian Christian in the conscientious avowal of his opinions and observance of his worship: whether it have any collateral operation, it is not for him, but for courts of law to determine. But it is very strange that the Act should be considered by either Mr. Carlile or the Clergyman as commixing Deists and Unitarians; when the true state of the case is, that they were confounded in the 9th and 10th of William and Mary, but are separated by Mr. Smith's Bill, which takes Unitarians from under the operation of the statute, but leaves all other persons contemplated by it in the precise condition in which they stood before. The Clergyman seems to be dissatisfied with the Legislature, the Ministers, and the Bench of Bishops, on account of the Unitarian Protection Act; and if he thinks it a bad measure, he has a right to express his dissatisfaction, and even to call (as he actually does) for its repeal. Let him not, however, deceive himself. The restoration of pains and penalties against impugners of the doctrine of the Trinity would not at all affect the case of unbelievers. The law, as it now stands, is, we see, sufficient for their conviction and punishment; but if it were not, what possible connexion could there be between the repealed clauses of the 9th and 10th William and Mary, which relate only to Antitrinitarians, and the seizure and destruction of the stock of Deistical booksellers? Having, on Mr. Carlile's authority, confounded Deists and Unitarian Christians, your correspondent seems to suppose that to harass and terrify the latter would awe and silence the former. Does he not know, then, that the Age of Reason was first published when the statute which he would recall from oblivion was in full force? I appeal, Sir, to his Christian justice and candour, and call upon him to say, whether the Unitarians have more part or interest in the circulation of irreligious books than himself. He may rest assured that they feel as much disgust as he at the daring falsehoods and the ribaldry of the Age of Reason. From their pens proceeded some of the earliest answers to it: and the Unitarian Society has, from its institution, made a point of distributing tracts in defence of Divine Revelation; and by means of it, thousands upon thousands have been circulated of Dr. Hartley's chapters " on the Evidences of Christianity;" of the answer to the question, Why are you a Christian? by Clarke, an American divine; and of Bishop Law's Refler tions on the Character of Christ. I wish not, Sir, to be disrespectful to your correspondent, but you must allow me to express my astonishment that any Protestant clergyman of the present day should propose to revoke exploded pains and penalties against his fellow-christians for a difference of faith. If, in his opinion, they be erroneous, let him point out their error, and let him defend the truth with all his ability and zeal. As a Christian, he must believe that in fair argument the advantage is on the side, not of error, but of truth. If arguments cannot prevail against Unitariaus, what can? Your correspondent is scarcely of Dr. South's mind, that they were fitter to be crushed by the civil magistrate than to be merely confuted:" did I believe him to be so, I would only refer him to the rebuke of a distinguished member of his own church, Dr. Jortin, who says, in reference to South's ill-natured rant, "Such is the true agonistic style or intolerant spirit-such the Courage of a champion who challenges his adversary, and then calls upon the constable to come and help him!" Your correspondent, indeed, protests against the imputation of persecution; he would only have the sword suspended over the heads" of Unitarians; he would revive the penal statutes merely in terrorem. This explanation is idle. "If these statutes," said Mr. Fox, "are too bad to be put in practice, they ought not to be suffered to exist." He that wishes for their recovery shews by that wish that they could not be safely trusted to his hands. The Clergyman will not, I am persuaded, find many of his own, or of any profession, who long for the revival of laws which punish a difference of faith and worship with civil incapacities, fines, outlawry, imprisonment and death. The Unitarians, I can assure him, have no fears with respect either to their fellow-countrymen or to the government of their country. They repose securely upon the law of the land, strengthened especially as that law is by liberal public opinion, and by the tolerant disposition of the illustrious family now upon the throne of these realms, to whom they, in cominon with all the Dissenters, have been always warmly attached, and under whose sway they feel that it would be disloyal to entertain a doubt of their own safety, while they conti nue to conduct themselves as faithful, peaceable and useful subjects. The alarm that now prevails with regard to the spread of Deism, appears to me somewhat extravagant; and I cannot but applaud your attempt to quiet the fears of Christians. If their religion be, as I believe it is, divine, it has within itself the principle of life, and will come out of every contest more fresh and vigorous. The assaults of unbelief may be necessary, under Divine Providence, to bring men to a personal sense of religion, and to separate the pure word of God from human traditions. This view was taken of the Deistical controversy, which began with the French Revolution, by the most able and successful apologist of Christianity which that eventful period produced: I refer to Bishop Watson, who thus expressed himself in an episcopal charge-"The time, I think, is approaching, or is already come, when Christianity will undergo a more severe investigation than it has ever yet done. My expectation as to the issue is--that Catholic countries will become Protestant, and that Protestant countries will admit a further reformation." Nothing, in my humble judgment, can give even a momentary triumph to infidelity, unless it be the angry zeal of Christians in prosecuting its advocates, and placing them on the vantage ground of suffering for their principles. This is, I am aware, an unpopular sentiment; but I trust I may be permitted to say with the inmortal Chillingworth, "I have learned from the ancient fathers of the church, that nothing is more against religion than to force religion." With what truth and eloquence, and with what an evangelical spirit, is this doctrine illustrated and enforced by Bishop Lowth, in his celebrated Visitation Sermon. Suffer me to make one quotation from it, peculiarly adapted to these times : "Christianity itself was published to the world in the most enlightened age; it invited and challenged the examination of the ablest judges, and stood the test of the severest scrutiny: the more it is brought to the light, to the greater advantage will it appear. When, on the other hand, the dark ages of barbarism came on, as every art and science was almost extinguished, so was Christianity in proportion oppressed and overwhelmed by error and superstition and they that pretended to defend it from the assaults of its enemies, by prohibiting examination and free inquiry, took the surest method of cutting off all hopes of its recovery. Again, when letters revived and reason regained her liberty; when a spirit of inquiry began to prevail, and was kept up and promoted by a happy invention, by which the communication of knowledge was wonderfully facilitated, Christianity immediately emerged out of darkness, and was in a manner republished to the world in its native simplicity. It hath always flou |
