John Canne, who lived upwards of a century ago, and whose edition of the Bible, with marginal references, is still held in high and deserved repute, was reproached by a high churchman with indulging a similar aversion to these uninspired parts of the sacred writings. Dr. Grey, endeavouring to depreciate the memory of this excellent man, sarcastically remarks—“ This Canne, because no human inventions were to be allowed about the worship of God, cut out of HIS BIBLE the contents of the chapters and the titles of the leaves, and so left THE BARE TEXT_without binding or covers!!" Mr. Brook who mentions this singular circumstance in his Lives of the Puritans, subjoins an apologetic paragraph which deserves to be here transcribed." Admitting this to be the fact, surely it was not in the power of bigotry itself to account what he did a very great crime. It was no violation of any existing Ca. nons, Constitutions, or Act of Parliament, nor could it be followed by any very evil consequences so long as he preserved the whole of the sacred text UNADULTERATED." I shall only add, that amidst the incessant jarrings of Christendom every consistent Protestant (Trinitarian and Unitarian) must cordially unite in the diffusion of the sacred records to the remotest regions of the earth. They constitute our surest guide to holiness and happiness in this preliminary state of being, and the knowledge which their pure and unadulterated contents impart will be absorbed in the full and uninterrupted effulgence of eternal day. I am, Sir, I Yours repectfully, Hackney, July 4, 1815. SIR, T is remarked by one of our most popular authors, (The Freeholder) that controversy with an irregular writer is something like duck-hunting. When you have the animal in full view, he suddenly dives under water, and presently appears where least expected, by which means you sometimes are wearied out in the pursuit, without attaining the object. This remark forcibly struck me on reading in your last Number [p. $51] the letter of Candidus. It is now become absolutely necessary to remind your readers of the original grounds of the present controversy. In your Repository for Jan. last, (p. 25) two infidel writers thought proper to revile all those who attempted to defend Christianity in this country, as" cowards," and to which courteous term has since been added (p. 280) that of "braggadocios;" and to affirm that their “cruelty, baseness, and detestable cowardice," were so shocking, as to excite "deep detestation and horror." Infidels were likewise represented as having "great gags put in their mouths; their hands bound behind their backs, and threatened with fine, tortures, imprisonment, perhaps death, if they uttered a syllable.” That it was known, "the more strong and unanswerable their arguments, the more certain would be their personal ruin." One of the writers alluded to added-He was "sure that any man of a free and generous spirit must scorn the conduct of all such defenders of Christianity." Now, Sir, I confess that on reading such language I felt, not unbecomingly I hope, for the honour of Christianity and of its defenders; all of whom, from Bacon, Milton and Locke, down to the present day, were thus grossly calumniated. I therefore thought proper to enter a protest against such calumny. I likewise, although in language the most decided, expressed my abhorrence of all penal laws in matters of religion, ridiculed the manner in which infidels were represented to be restrained; and I concluded with expressing my certainty as to the grand facts of Christianity, in the language of the primitive Christians, naturally supposing that I had, when professing my faith ás a Christian, the same right to the word sure, as the infidel, when expressing his scorn and detestation of the defenders of Christianity. I have now, Sir, stated the sum and front of my offence. For this I am held up to your readers, as a character equally contemptible and odious, as one claiming infallibility; as a persecutor and a hypocrite, whose professions are only to be regarded as those of certain state hypocrites, "ere words of course," used for the purpose of deception: and what renders this portrait truly curious is, it is drawn, not 420 Mr. Flower's Defence against the Charges of Candidus. Your correspondent justly feared "the charge of disingenuousness," when my paragraph which he had mutilated, leaving out the part which contained a complete refutation of his charges, was by me fairly brought before your readers-He, however, in spite of meridian evidence of their falsehood, dares to repeat those charges and seems determined, if possible, to brand me with a mark of perpetual infamy, by holding me up to the world as an instance, that those who profess the greatest regard to religious liberty only want the power to persecute. Whether this be "disingenuousness" or something worse, I leave to the judgment of your readers. by an infidel, but by a Christian-a palliating, and justifying persecution.” Unitarian Christian, and, to complete the climax,-a candid Christian. Candidus, in repeating his charge against me of being a persecutor, says, in reply to my solemn and repeated declarations to the contrary, that "actions speak louder than words," and he takes due care to inform us, "that he has suffered a good deal for joining that sect to which I belong." Now, Sir, I cannot but think this boasting might have been as well spared in an anonymous writer, as no one but himself, unless by some other means than your Repository, can know any thing about the sacrifices alluded to; but I hope, as I am not unknown to some of your readers, and to the friends of civil and religious liberty in more than one part of the kingdom, I may challenge any one to point out a single action of my life inconsistent with my professions on the present occasion. I deem it an honour that some of my services in the cause of religious liberty, however feeble, have not been deemed unworthy of record in your miscellany: but my words and actions are alike disregarded by Candidus. I am pronounced unworthy of credit-I claim infallibility-I am a persecutor and a hypocrite. Had I taken up my pen at the moment of first reading these gross misrepresentations, I should probably have pronounced them wilful; but momentary indignation gave place to pity-pity for the writer who can perceive no difference between reprobation of opinious, and persecuting the holder of them. I am again charged with " making light of fine, imprisonment, and the pillory, and in part justifying it." I am obliged on this occasion to repeat language which has already proved so offensive to your correspondent. "Darkness is not more opposite to light" than this statement is opposite to truth. I made light" of the language, and the language only which infidels had used on this subject. I declared that the prosecution even of two or three "miserable and abusive writers," by our gothamite Christian statesinen during the past half century, was "most unjust, and most contrary to the letter and sprit of Christianity." I termed all such prosecutions folly and wickedness united." This is " making light of, and My explanation of the term infidel, is to Candidus "very unsatisfactory." As he has not however ventured to impeach its correctness, I can only lament the state of mind of that man who is obliged to seek for satisfaction from some other source than that of truth. 66 I beg leave to repeat, notwithstanding the additional dissatisfaction of Candidus, that the quotation prefixed to his first letter had nothing to do with the subject." It was referred, by the author, to Christians, and to Christians only. Candidus adds, “ it seems that they are not to make use of hard names to each other while those who do not believe in Christianity may be reprobated and called names at pleasure." Who, Sir, let me ask, has used "hard names and called names at pleasure?" The defender of Christianity who has merely reprobated infidel opinions in language not so severe as he, who, if Candidus be a Christian, he must acknowledge had the undoubted right to use such language, our Lord and Saviour, who is appointed to be our Judge, or he who is offended at any expressed reprobation of such opinions? I do earnestly exhort your correspondent seriously to reflect on the diametrically opposite decision to that of our Saviour which he has presumed to pronounce respecting infidel opinions. I have carefully avoided saying any thing respecting the persons of infidels, or of entering on the discussion whether there may not, owing to extraordinary circumstances, be instances, exceptions to the general rule; but, it is impossible even for the most superficial believer in Christianity not to recollect the awful doom denounced by him who "cannot lie," against unbelievers in general. Who is to decide on this great point?-Our Lord, our Saviour, our final Judge, or Candidus ?* Although I hope your correspondent has in one instance at least profited by the hint I gave him of the expediency of now and then consulting a dictionary, he has given himself unnecessary trouble on the present occasion. I do reprobate infidel opinions in the full meaning of the terms he has quoted from Dr. Johnson; and as long as I consider the gospel as the greatest and best gift of God to the world, and as without it I must, in such a state as the present, be classed with those who "are of all The following remarks, the author of which will not be suspected of bigotry or fanaticism, deserve the serious attention of Candidus, and of any others who may like him have no doubt," of the safe state of those who reject Christianity. "The serious and impartial inquirer, after due attention to the proper evidence will see ample reason to admit the divine mission and character of Jesus Christ, who by his doctrine and his miracles, and especially by his resurrection from the dead, has brought life and immortality to light; who hath instructed us in the practice of virtue, and left us an example that we should follow his steps; and whose second appearance we are taught to expect at the destined, but unknown period in the revolution of ages, to raise the dead, to judge the world, and to reward every one according to his works. The virtuous inquirer will readily admit the sufficiency of the scriptures, and will regard the writings of the apostles and evangelists as containing a faithful and credible account of the Christian doctrine; as competent, if studied with diligence and attention, to supply him with all needful information upon the most important subjects, and able to make him wise unto salvation." men the most miserable," I shall as a Christian, who considers consistency as one of the best proofs of integrity, continue to "reprobate," to "pass a condemnatory sentence" on the opinions of those men who despise the author of Christianity as a fanatic, or reprobate him as an impostor. I have no where "reviled" infidels: this charge therefore of Candidus, like all his other charges brought against me, has not even the shadow of evideuce to support it. It is the use of the term which has so offended him, and which although explained according to its most obvious meaning, instead of satisfying, still puzzles and displeases him. Unbelievers in ge neral, 1 should suppose, are not ashamed of a name which this candid Christian is so sorely offended that any one else should apply to them. I Candidus repeats his charge, that arrogate to myself infallibility; in support of which he refers to my speaking about "light and darkness and truth and falsehood: he cannot well conceive any thing more contrary to justice and reason, than an 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 readers have referred to what I said is its divine authority." I hope your about "light and darkness, truth and falsehood;" and I have little doubt of their cordial approbation of the application I have made of those significant terms: but where, in the course of my correspondence (or indeed on any other occasion) have I "brought a text of scripture as a knock-down argument to those who deny it?" and as to my discussion with your correspondents Chiron and Thomas respecting the truth of revelation, there was not even the most distant allusion to it; but as Candidus could not answer my arguments, still resolving in one instance to be the victor, he has conjured up shadows for the pleasure of combating them. I adopted the language of scripture as merely expressive of my faith as a Christian, and the passages in which the word "sure,” which has proved an unpardonable offence in the judgment of this candid Christian, (while the same word has been used by infidels when reviling the defenders of Christianity, without 422 Mr. Flower's Defence against the Charges of Candidus. reproof) are the express language of the disciples of our Lord, the writers of the New Testament. 1 cannot, however, notwithstanding the reproaches heaped upon me, alter my tone. The confidence I have expressed has been produced by a perusal, amongst other writings, of some discourses of Mr. Belsham from the words of Luke-That thon mayest know the CERTAINTY of these things wherein thou hast been instructed; and from those of Simon Peter (which have so displeased Candidus) We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. "Happy they," says our author, "who upon just grounds can adopt this language of UNHESITATING CONFIDENCE." (p. 2.) But it now appears that this happy frame of mind, is, in the opinion of even a professing Christian, I hope in this respect a unique in the Christian world, one of the most despicable, and the most to be deprecated; and that the person enjoying it, is to be classed with those who "claim infallibility!" In spite of this “condemnatory sentence," I feel inexpressible satisfaction in being able to adopt the language of another writer, an illustrious sufferer in the cause of free inquiry, the late Robert Robinson, who in the closing year of his life, when contemplating the grand, primary truths of Christianity exclaimed - HAVE NO DOUBTS. The mere statement of Mr. Smith's conduct in habitually attending Unitarian worship in London, and Trinitarian worship in the country, has so disgusted Candidus, that he has pronounced my language “ uncalled for, ungentlemanlike, and intolerant." Now, Sir, when Mr. Smith was quoted as an authority to Christians, I conceived it by no means "uncalled for" to mention one instance of his public conduct which in the judgment of many prevented that authority from being implicitly acknowledged; and notwithstanding the "knock-down" style of this gentlemanly writer," I must still beg leave to express my opinion, that for an open professor of Unitarianism, a member of an Unitarian Church, in London, one whose talents, station, and general respectability, unite in placing him as a city set upon a hill-for such an one, when he might join in Protestant Dissenting worship, where he need not be dis gusted with Trinitarian doxologies nor offensive Calvinism-worship constantly attended by some of his brother Unitarians-instead of which habitually to sanction with his numerous and respectable family and friends, an established service in which his ears' must be perpetually assailed with those doxologies, which his pastor in London terms idolatrous, and in which sentence of everlasting damnation on himself stares him in the face-such inconsistency has naturally given great offence, to both Trinitarians and Unitarians, and I by no means repent simply stating what has been much talked of, and which surely ought to be explained to the Christian world, or the stumblingblock be removed: but the mere statement of the fact is adduced by Candidus as additional evidence of my intolerant principles, of my being a persecutor. I cannot reply to such absurdity; but if the gentlemanlike nerves of your correspondent will suffer him to go through a discourse on the subject, I recommend to his perusal one preached and published by the learned and philosophical divine, “the worthy minister of Essex Street Chapel," who has "happily for me, proved so able an auxiliary in the present contest, and who will not be suspected of prejudice against, or ungentlemanlike conduct towards Mr. Smith. The title of the Sermon isThe Right and DUTY of Unitarian Christians to form separate societies for religious worship. The text, 2 Cor. vi. 16-18. "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? .. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing," &c. Candidus acknowledges that "his discussion with me has much more of a personal nature than he could wish, but which," he adds, "it seems impossible to avoid in such cases." I however think nothing could have been easier, and indeed it unfortunately happens that the personalities of your correspondent form a continued series of mistakes: he is scarcely more happy in his present conjectures about my sentiments and profession than when in his former letter he, to prove my inconsistency, addressed me as "a certain gentleman imprisoned for reviling Mr. Pitt's administration." If Candidus knows to what sect I belong, I suspect he knows more than I do myself. I am sorry I cannot return his compliment by acknowledg. ing myself as one of his sect, and that there is no difference in our religious sentiments." Deeply impressed with a sense of the truth and importance of Christianity, and of the danger of rejecting it, I must declare that the religious differences between us, judging from the sentiments in his letters, are as wide as the two poles; a declaration I can easily make without feeling an iota of personal enmity. I am repeatedly addressed as an "Unitarian minister." Now, I confess, that if Unitarianism includes in it the sentiments I have been opposing, I shall be as anxious to abjure the name, as one of your respectable correspondents declares he shall be, if that strict sense of it maintained by another respectable correspondent should prove to be correct: but without giving any opinion on the interesting discussion on this subject, now carrying on in your Repository, I proceed to observe, that Candidus in addressing me as an "Unitarian minister," has "exalted me above measure." To prevent therefore any misunderstanding on this point, it is necessary to observe, that I hold no distinction between clergy and laity; that I have smiled at the idea of a man being rendered of a sacred order, by any act of others of a sacred order; or by any of those titles, or distinctions of dress, those trifles which I am sorry to observe are in this enlightened age, even by men of sense and piety, deemed necessary to be preserved for the amusement of our numerous grown babies in the Christian church. As I never was pastor of a church and have no right to the term "minister," as it is commonly used, so I suspect my right to the term Unitarian will scarcely be allowed, more especially as men of learning have not yet settled what is included in the term. My occasional services have been nearly equally divided amongst Calvinists, Methodists, Trinitarians and Unitarians; my aim is I hope to do good to any denomination of Christians who may require my ser-vices. I have no wish to be called by any other names than those of Christian and Protestant Dissenter. 66 My ambition is, I confess, to deserve, if but even in a far inferior degree, the encomium passed on the renowned Chillingworth. Upon the whole," says his biographer, we should choose to say that Chillingworth was tied to no system: he was an inquirer, not ashamed to take up and lay down principles, according to the evidence brought forward by constant investigation his was not Trinitarianism, not Socinianism, but a sort of eclectic faith, culled from all systems, in proportion as he found any of them agreeing with the Bible."* To which may be added another excellent example, the late Mr. Cappe, of whom his venerable and most useful relict has recorded, that he was not fond of claiming any of the party names by which the Christian world are unhappily divided. But, I fear, Sir, I have wearied your readers as much as I have myself in this sport of literary duck-hunting; I may however venture to promise that I shall never intrude on them in a similar manner. I have already shewn I am by no means anxious for the last word, having left your correspondent Chiron in possession of the field, repeating his redoubtable and modest assertion, that all the defenders of Christianity in this country are "cowards and braggadocios." Should Candidus therefore fee inclined to renew the contest by repeating, for a third time, his refuted charges, or by inventing others of a similar nature, I shall no longer continue a controversy in which confutation so far from producing conviction, draws down additional abuse on the confutator. My silence, I am persuaded, will not be misconstrued by your readers. What is of much greater consequence, is the question-Who has acted, as a Christian, the most consistent part?-He who has defended the friends of Christianity and professed his faith in the very language of the sacred writings, or he who has "inveighed violently" against him for so doing. This important question will be decided by him whom all Christians acknowledge to be their sole Lord and Judge, and whose decision cannot be erroneous. An attention to his decisions, as already pronounced on some of the great * Monthly Repos. Vol. ix. p. 214. |