Candidus, in Reply to Mr. B. Flower, on the “ Treatment of Infidels.” 351 Truth. Speaking of Mr. Grattan, he says— "I do not forget how associated with that man (pointing to Mr. Curran), when the screech-owl of intolerance was yelling, and the night of bigotry was brooding on the land, he came forth, with the heart of a hero and the tongue of an angel, till, at his bidding, the spectre vanished - the colour of our fields revived, and Ireland, poor Ireland, glittered for a moment in the light of his eloquence, and gloried in the prowess of his victory. Do you not remember, in 1782, how his heart toiled, and his flamed, and his tongue thundered, till "She has no head, and cannot our whole horizon became enriched think she has no heart, and cannot with his splendour, and every peasant on our mountains shouted liberty! feel-when she moves, it is in wrath Do not you remember, in that dread--when she pauses, it is amid ruin— fal death-day of our hopes, when her prayers are curses-her god is a power weilded the thunder-bolt to affright, and treason emptied the treasury to corrupt; how, with the ardour of youth and the wisdom of age he rushed like Chatham from the couch of sickness, awing, animating, . exhorting, convincing; till our very sorrows were mitigated by the sweetness of his advocacy; and even the extent of our loss was for a season forgotten in the splendours of the conflagration! No, Grattan; we never can forget that those things were, and "were most dear to us.' We love you much, but it is because you taught "Truth is omnipotent, and must prevail! It forces its way with the fire and precision of the morning sunbeam. Vapours may surround, prejudices may impede the infancy of its progress; but the very resistance that would check, only condenses and concentrates it; until at length it goes' forth in the fulness of its meridian, all life and light and lustre: the whole amphitheatre of nature glowing in its smile, and her minutest objects gilt and glittering in the grandeur of its eternity!" eve Bigotry. us to love Ireland more. We give you our esteem, we give you our respect, we give you our love, our gratitude, our admiration-we give you every thing and any thing, except our country." Charles Fox. "As he was a great man, I respect him as he was a good man, I love him. He had as wise a head as ever paused to deliberate: he had as sweet a tongue as ever gave the words of wisdom utterance: and he had a heart so stamped with the immediate patent of the Divinity, that its very errors might be traced to the excess of its benevolence. He was a man of genius, of course, he was poor.. Poverty is a reproach to no man; to such a man as Fox, I think it was a pride; for, if he chose to traffic with his principles if he chose to gamble with his conscience, how easily might he have been rich" demon-her communion is deathher vengeance is eternity!-her decalogue is written in the blood of her from her infernal flight, it is upon victims!--and, if she stoops a moment some kindred rock, to whet her vulture fang for keener rapine, and replume her wing for a more sanguinary desolation!" SIR, A June 3, 1815. SI think your pages can scarcely be occupied with a subject of more importance than the rights of conscience, the right of every individual to publish his religious opinions, I shall be glad to take up some more of such moment; particularly as I room in your Repository on a question have regretted not having been more explicit in my last communication (p. 220), which, if I had, perhaps Mr. Flower would not have answered it (pp. 299-301) with quite so much haughtiness and contempt; but it was owing to my desire of compressing what I had to say into as short a space as possible. I have suffered, Sir, a good deal of persecution myself, for joining the sect to which Mr. Flower belongs, and when a minister of that persuasion appeared to me to make light of fine, imprisonment and pillory, and in part to justify it by saying they were only the worst cases, and happened but seldom, to two or three miserable individuals, I thought it my duty to protest against any palliation of such proceedings, as well as the 352 Candidus, in Reply to Mr. B. Flower, on the Treatment of “Infidels." terming the abhorrence that was expressed at it," lamentable wailing." If an individual had been thrown into prison for his Unitarian writings, before the late repeal of the Act against Unitarians, I believe Mr. F. would have been the first to have poured forth his "lamentable wailings," and we should all have joined in, so as to have made the whole kingdom re. sound with them, and with good reason. I do very much regret that I did not quote the whole of Mr. F.'s paragraph, as it has subjected me to the charge of disingenuousness, which I wholly disclaim; for it did not once occur to me to quote the whole, as I could not but suppose and desire that any person who read my remarks, would refer to Mr. F's letter which was written the month before. I certainly was fully aware of the many professions of liberality and dislike of persecution, which were contained in that letter; but as actions speak louder than words, so the general tenor and spirit of a letter speak much plainer than any professions which it contains; and when, instead of the spirit of liberality and conciliation, I see that of reproach and hostility, they pass with me as mere words of course; as some of the ministers of the crown, when they wish to reject a petition, or to oppose a bill to protect the liberty of the subject, always preface their remarks with their respect for the right of petitioning, and their regard for liberty. Mr. Flower's answer respecting his use of the term "Infidel," is, to me, very unsatisfactory, as is also his remark, that the quotation as a motto to my first letter had nothing to do with the subject in controversy, because it only related to the differences amongst Christians, who, it seems, are not to make use of hard names to each other, whilst those who do not believe in Christianity may be reprobated aud called names at pleasure; but as he is so kind as to recommend to me the use of a dictionary, I have looked in Johnson's 8vo. for his own term," reprobation," and I find only two explanations, 1st, The act of abandoning, or state of being abandoned to eternal destruction; 2nd, A condemnatory sentence. If Unitarian ministers in general could make use of such arguments and such terms (but which I do not believe to be the case), I certainly have been very much mistaken in the sect I have joined. I thought it was the duty of Christians not to revile or condemn, nor to make use of any other language than that of sober argument and friendly persuasion, and that in the real spirit of conciliation, and to leave the rest. I happen to have been acquainted with several conscientious unbelievers in Christianity as a special divine revelation; two in particular, whose lives were devoted to the improvement and happiness of mankind; one of them is now dead, and though he would have been reprobated by Mr. Flower as an "Infidel," I have no doubt he will meet with a very different lot from that I have quoted from the dictionary, to which I am referred by Mr. F. for the meaning of his terms Mr. F. is displeased that I say he lays a claim to infallibility; but, Sir, I certainly do repeat the charge, and refer to the first part of his second letter (p. 299), where he speaks about "light and darkness, truth and falsehood," for my justification; and with respect to his use of the word “sure" (p. 95), I reply, that I cannot well conceive any thing more contrary to justice and reason, than to attempt to bring forward a text of scripture as a knock-down argument to those who do not believe in scripture, and where the very point under discussion is the divine authority of scripture; if any thing so forced was attempted on any political subject, Mr. Flower would be the first to inveigh violently against it. I am glad of an opportunity of expressing the disgust I felt on reading what appeared to me, the very uncalled-for and ungentlemanly mention of Mr. Smith's attending two different places of worship (p. 94): on that gentleman's public conduct as a member of parliament, we have a right to make what observations we please, but if he choose to attend ten different places of worship, nobody has the least to do with it but himself; and the publishing such things with a design certainly, so far as it goes, to *I wish to refer your readers to Locke's Essay on Enthusiasm, sec. 12. which is too long to quote here. detract from his character, is intolerance. There are some excellent remarks on this subject in "Systematic Education," vol. ii. p. 373, begining with "Justice forbids all injury to the reputation of others." As my discussion with Mr. Flower has been much more of a personal nature than I could wish (but which it seems impossible to avoid in such cases), I am glad it does not relate to any difference in our own religious or political sentiments; our dispute is, in what manner we are to treat those who differ from us; but I can truly say, I feel not the least enmity against him and am pleased that there is one part of his letter respecting" all civil establishments of religion" in which I most cordially unite and am glad that it is recorded in the Monthly Repository as the sentiment of a Unitarian minister, and I think he has given full proof by the style of his letters, that it would be very dangerous to place power in the hands even of those who profess the greatest regard for religious liberty in its most unrestricted sense. I have been surprised and concerned to see how much the worthy minister of Essex-Street Chapel has conceded on the subject of state religions, in his Letters to the Bishop of London, for which, as he was brought up a Dissenter, I can only account, by supposing it to arise from his long acquaintance with and reverence for the opinions of his venerable predecessor, Mr. Lindsey, who seems never to have lost his attachment to hierarchical establishments. I am, Sir, your and Mr. Flower's sincere well-wisher, and your constant reader, CANDIDUS. Dean Kipling's Letter to Mr. Lingard. [We preserve the following letter as a curiosity. Our readers will, we have no doubt, feel the same sentiments for the writer with ourselves, and agree in opinion, that this is the worst blunder which the learned Dean ever made. ED.] "Copy of a Letter sent lately by the Dean of Peterborough to the Rev. John Lingard, a Papist. < REVEREND SIR, Church of England, and these oftener, the modern Church of England.' That for both these expressions you are amenable to a court of justice, I infer from this extract: Seditious words, in derogation of the established religion, are indictable, as tending to a breach of the peace; as where a person said, Your religion is but a new religion; preaching is but prating; and prayer once a day is more edifying.' 1 Haw. 7. Besides, the Church by law established in this country, is so inseparably interwoven with the British constitution, that whatever is calumny upon the former must be calumny upon the latter. If, however, you shall assure me, in the course of a few days, that within a reasonable time you will publish a vindication of this defamatory language, I will defer to prosecute you, not only till sufficient time has been granted for that purpose, but also till an opportunity has been allowed the public to peruse my reply to it. By a vindication is here meant complete proof of the position-That the structure of the Church of England, and the materials of which it is composed are new and modern. Should it appear to be the general opinion, when the reasonings of both shall have been maturely considered, that your vindication is complete, I will then make a recantation and cease to be a member of the Established Church. If, by the generality of your readers, it shall be thought defective, you will be summoned to answer for your offensive demeanour in WestminsterHall. It may justly be presumed, that, before you ventured to issue forth your detractions, arguments to establish the position above mentioned had been prepared with sedulity and judiciously arranged. I therefore shall add, that by a reasonable time' you must understand a few months only. 'T. KIPLING. "We have thus complied with the desire that the above letter should be published. But we trust the dean, for whom we have the highest respect, will re-consider the subject. Our Church is a Church of mildness, of long-suffering, of forbearance for conscience' sake. We are quite sure IN your Strictures on Professor the dean will be able, in his reply, to Marsh's Comparative View, occur these words once, the new VOL. X. 2z refute the position "that the structure of the Church of England and the ma 354 Mr. Frend's Reply to Mr. Belsham, on the Term “ Unitarian.” terials of which it is composed are new and modern." But we venture to suggest, that the refutation will be a sufficient triumph to that Church, and a sufficient punishment to Mr. Lingard, without calling in aid the strong arm of the law." Courier, Wednesday, May S1, 1815. SIR, the least indebted to either of these excellent characters for any information upon the subject. Indeed I was scarcely acquainted with their names or writings, till I had left the Church established by law. But I consider it as one of the advantages of my life, that the change of my religious sentiments led me to an intimate connex. ion with Mr. Lindsey, and to a con AM not surprised at the embar-siderable degree of intercourse with rassment felt by Mr. Belsham on Dr. Priestley. My knowledge, howthe sense which he has fixed to the ever, of them must excuse me from term "Unitarian;" but I do own that approving the use that Mr. Belsham his mode of defending it is not what I has made of their names; and though should have expected from a person I cannot speak so positively of both of his well-known penetration and as I can of one, I really think myself acuteness. Let us suppose that the justified in asserting, that they would Bishop of London had replied in a be among the first to reprobate the similar manner: I use the term (we argument derived merely from their will suppose his lordship to have said) supposed authority. manner as my Lord Dr. and the in the same Bishop of Rev. Mr. have done before me, and till an Act of Parliament is passed to the contrary, I shall, in spite of any remonstrances to the contrary, continue to speak of the Unitarians in the same manner. Is this argument? Is this propriety? Mr. Belsham would have replied to his Lordship. "Sic volo; sic jubeo; stat pro ratione voluntas." These are words, my Lord, that may be used indeed by an individual, but he must not hereafter pretend to appeal to reason in any discussion. Mr. Belsham states, that he uses the term "Unitarian" in the same manner as it was done by Dr. Lardner, Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Priestley. To this statement I must beg leave to object, being convinced that it will not hold with respect to two out of the three, and as to the third, I have my doubts, whether even Dr. Priestley uses the term Unitarian according to Mr. Belsham's plan. To settle this point might lead to a discussion as frivolous and as useless as that into the opinions of the early fathers respecting the person and character of our Saviour: and, if it were true that such was the opinion of the three above-mentioned and much-esteemed writers, I am sufficiently well acquainted with the body of Unitarians, to affirm that they would not bow even to such authority. I became an Unitarian, as did several of my friends, without being in and which may But, Sir, the subject that has been brought before you, insignificant as it is, as far as Mr. Belsham and myself are concerned, becomes of great importance in another point of view; we must be upon our guard against the admission of a precedent, hereafter be attended with very dangerous consequences. Mr. Belsham has, with a stroke of his pen, driven out of the body of Unitarians, a large number of persons, among whom are myself and several of my friends, who have given decisive proofs of their adherence to the great doctrine, that to us there is only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. This simple faith Mr. Belsham does not think sufficient, and he has assigned other marks by which Unitarians, according to his decision, are to be distinguished. Next year, perhaps, another Unitarian may have found out some point in theology which he thinks equally necessary or unnecessary to the faith of an Unitatarian. He may think it necessary that our children should be sprinkled by way of baptism; and that adults should have his peculiar notions of liberty and necessity. Another may insist upon the annihilation of the devil. A third blot out the history of the creation and of the fall, as unworthy of these enlightened times. A fourth treat the Book of Revelations as a mere rhapsody of human invention, and insist upon our doing the same; and thus we, who declare that we make the scriptures the rules of our faith, may find our selves by degrees, involved in discussions as voluminous as those on the synod at Dort or the Council of Trent. No! the Unitarians I am acquainted with will not consent to this. They will set their faces against such dictation, and maintain the right of private judgment. I cannot conclude without observing, that I know a gentleman who calls himself a Calvinistic Unitarian, and I believe there are many of his opinion. By this I understand that he interprets scripture according to the principles of Monsieur Chauvin, except in what relates to the unity of God; and for my own part, I conceive that he has as full a right to the title of Unitarian as Mr. Belsham or myself, this right not being abrogated by his opinions on other subjects. Indeed it would be very hard upon Unitarians, if they were to be judged by the opinions which some of the body may choose to promulgate. I agree with Mr. Belsham as far as the divine unity is concerned; but beyond that, our views of scripture are in many respects widely different; and if to be a Unitarian it is necessary to adopt my good friend's opinions on these points, I am very willing, and I am in this respect not singular, to give up my pretensions to be enrolled among his Unitarians. I SIR, Ever, Sir, your's, W. FREND. HAVE no wish to interfere with the question at issue between Mr. Frend and Mr. Belsham, respecting the term "Unitarian," but their letters on this subject have revived in my mind, that surprise which the common application of the word has, I believe, often produced in the minds of thousands. Some time ago, I was struck with Mr. Aspland's explanation and defence of that application, in his Reply to Mr. Norris, on the Bible Society. It did not appear to me to comport with that gentleman's known discernment and frankness. have not his pamphlet in my possession at present, therefore I cannot quote his words. But, if I am not mistaken, he considered the term as justly descriptive of the sect, of which he is so active a member and so bright an ornament. And he defended, I think, the usual appropriation of it, I on the ground that the word is not opposed to the belief of three Gods, but to the belief of three persons in the Godhead. In this last statement I perfectly concur with the respectable author, and it might serve to justify his view of the matter, if there were no Christians in the world but such as believe the doctrine of three persons and those who are in the habit of styling themselves Unitarians. But as this is far from being the case, the appropriation of the term to one particular class only, of those who dissent from the Athanasian hypothesis, cannot reasonably be considered as descriptive or proper. Were not such men as Chandler, Price, Towgood and Worthington, Unitarians, precisely according to Mr. Aspland's accurate definition of the term? But it would be extremely incorrect to represent these men as forming a part of that class of Christians who are usually called by that name. And where shall we place such men as Doddridge, Orton, Palmer, cum multis aliis, who never contended for that scheme to which Mr. Aspland says the term is opposed, and yet were decidedly hostile to the distinguishing sentiments of those whom it is employed to designate? All who are not Trinitarians have an equal right to be considered and designated as Unitarians; but as many of this description, both of high renown and inferior name, do not belong to those who claim to be so called, I cannot, in justice and truth, acquiesce in their claim. There is a most obvious and palpable inaccuracy in it. It appears, therefore, to me, that Mr. Aspland has totally failed in his attempt to justify the prevailing use of the term; and indeed, that it cannot be justified at all,—not as opposed to three gods, because there are none who hold that sentiment,-not as opposed to three persons in the Godhead, because many who dissent from that tenet, still agree with the majority of Christians on other points, and differ most of all from those who would be denominated Unitarians. PASTOR. |