cause, though there was some humour, there was no argument in them. "On the first publication of this sermon, I was much abused by ministerial writers, as a man of republican principles. I did not deign to give any answer to the calumny, excepting by printing on a blank page, in subsequent editions of it, the following interpretation of the terms, from Bishop Hoadly's works:- Men of Republican principles-a sort of dangerous men who have of late taken heart and defended the Revolution that saved us.' "Mr. Fox, in debating the Sedition Bill, in December 1795, said, that the measures of the united branches of the legislature might be so bad as to justify the people in resisting the government. This doctrine he had heen taught, not only by Sydney and Locke, but by Sir G. Saville and the late Earl of Chatham; and if these authorities would not suffice, he would refer the House to a sermon preached by Dr. Watson, the present Bishop of Landaff, which in his opinion was replete with manly sense and accurate reasoning, upon that delicate but important subject.' I had always looked upon Mr. Fox to be one of the most constitutional rea soners, and one of the most argumentative orators in either House of Parliament. I was, at the time this compliment was paid me, and am still, much gratified by it. The approbation of such men ever has been, and ever will be, dearer to me than the most dignified and lucrative stations in the church." Pp. 58-60. The speech of Mr. Fox's, which the Bishop quotes, was one of the richest effusions of patriotism and eloquence which ever flowed from a noble heart. (See Mr. Fox's Speeches, in 6 Vols. 8vo. 1815. Vol. VI. pp. 62 -74.) At this period, when the Whig principle is either forgotten or decried, we think it not useless to refer the reader to this explanation and assertion of it; especially as, with one honourable exception in the See of Norwich, Dr. Watson was the last of our Whig Bishops. [To be continued.] in our last volume [XII. 284—289], of the letter in reply to it by Mr. Fox, inserted in the same volume [XII. SS3 339], and of a rejoinder to Mr. Fox, which was not admitted into the Monthly Repository; besides a Preface, containing an historical sketch of the progress of religious opinions in this country. The Old Unitarian complains of our refusing to insert his second letter in this miscellany, "except on terms with which he could not possibly comply. The motives," he adds, " of this rejection are best known to others; been received, having by no means a private communication which has thrown any light upon the subject." (Pref.) Now, as we set some value upon our character for impartiality, we think it right to enable the public to judge of our conduct. We have only to give an history of the affair, without any comment. We admit, then, that the Old Unitarian did send us a second letter for insertion; but having received from some of our friends and correspondents, most respectable for years, talents, character and station, a serious remonstrance against the continuance of the controversy, and perceiving from the complexion of the letter that, if the controversy were continued it must become directly personal, we returned the communication to the writer, with a request that it might be withdrawn. The grounds of our wish were fully explained. Our correspondent seemed to admit the force of our objection, and to be inclined at first to accede to our request. At length, he signified to us that he had new-modelled the letter, leaving out the particulars to which we had objected; and inquired whether we would insert it in its amended form? His concession appeared to call for concession on our part, and we replied in the affirmative, but added that, as the magazine was about to be made up for the month, it must be sent to us on or before a given day. The writer then informed us that he had doubts concerning the publication of the letter; that he had put it into the hands of a friend, on whose judgment he relied, with permission either to hold it back or to forward it; and that, if it did not reach us by a particular day, we might conclude that it was suppressed. Two days after that which had been named, the letter had not been received; and at that time the Editor left home on an absence of several weeks, committing the editorship of the work to a highly-valued and confidential friend, who was to act, as he had most satisfactorily, on former occasions, according to his own discretion. Under these circum stances the delayed letter arrived; and the temporary editor, knowing nothing of any previous correspond ence or engagement, and exercising his own judgment upon the communication, determined that its insertion should depend upon the writer's subscribing it with his proper name: this condition was exacted on the ground of its containing personal allusions to a correspondent whose name was given. The Old Unitarian refused compliance, and appealed to the usual Editor, who did not feel himself at liberty, under all the circumstances of the case, to reverse his friend's judgment; and hence, the non-appearance of the letter and the Old Unitarian's complaint. The Editors of the Monthly Repository may have erred, but some allowance should be made for them by the Old Unitarian, who is now an Editor himself, and in his first appearance in that character has, if we mistake not, fallen into an irregularity, by republishing, from this work, Mr. Fox's Letter, without the consent (not to speak more strongly) of that gentleman. After what has passed, it may be thought that we are not sufficiently neutral to sit as censors upon the present publication; but we are too much concerned in the Old Unitarian's charges to be able to refrain from making a few remarks upon his Letters. We can write upon the subject with temper, though we shall be obliged to use the language of serious remonstrance. If we were to denominate the Old Unitarian a respectable writer, we should use a term very inadequate to our sense of his talents. He displays a general elegance and an occasional feli. city of style, which prove his thorough acquaintance with the best classical models. And, were we at liberty to refer to him under other signatures in the Monthly Repository and else VOL. XIII. where, we could point out instances of his great acuteness and power in1 argument. We say so much to shew that prejudice does not wholly blind us to the merits of this controversy; and we are even disposed to go farther, and admit that the Old Unitarian is really solicitous for the best interests of mankind, and, whatever be his misconceptions and prejudices, has attacked those whom he terms "New Unitarians," with no other view than that of protecting and promoting Christianity, pure and unadulterate. But, with this concession, truth requires us to say, that we think that he has hazarded vague and unwarrantable charges, and that his proofs, in all that is of moment, are merely uncharitable surmises. The radical fault of the Old Unitarian's letters is his employment of undefined terms, which at once allow the enemies of Unitarians to quote him as an evidence against his brethren, and at the same time prevent' them from meeting and refuting his accusations. Who, as Mr. Fox asks, are the "New Unitarians?" If they be persons in whom all the Old Unitarian's marks are found, we boldly assert, that they are the creatures of his own imagination; if they be persons in whom any one mark is found, then nearly the whole body of the avowed Unitarians of the present day will be brought under the designation, and must answer for all the sin which it denotes, and not only the Unitarians of the present day, but the majority of those likewise that have existed within the last fifty years, including Estlin, Toulmin, Lindsey and Priestley. The correctness of this statement will appear by a detail of the Old Unitarian's charges, compared with Mr. Fox's replies and the Old Unitarian's rejoinders. The charges are five in number. The first is, that the New Unitarians court persecution, and the proof is that the repeal of the penal statutes against Anti-Trinitarians was "very little acceptable" to them. Mr. Fox denies the fact on which the accusation rests, and alleges that Mr. Smith's Bill originated in the Committee of the Unitarian Fund, and that motions of thanks to the government for this signal act of justice were passed at most of the provincial Unitarian associations. The reply seems to be satisfactory even to the Old Unitarian, who, in his 2nd letter (p. 64), acknowledges himself incorrect in this first charge. The acknowledgment is, however, incautious; as it appears to admit, what is elsewhere denied, that by the New Unitarians are meant the supporters of the Unitarian Fund and the members of the various Unitarian asso→ ciations throughout the kingdom. But the Old Unitarian will not wholly abandon the charge of a fondness for persecution, and he finds, "if not a proof, at least an illustration of it" (p. 52), in Mr. Fox himself, who whilst he denounces the Old Unita rian's observations as calumnious, takes them to himself! This jeu d'esprit cannot prevent any reader from returning to the indictment a verdict of not proven. common liable to the charge of using harder The third charge is, that the New *The Old Unitarian will not, we are sure, plead for discarding all decency of language with regard to New Unitarians; but he will be at a loss to reconcile with his own sense of propriety the passage (Letters, p. 13), where, describing the The second charge is, that the. New Unitarians are disposed to inflict persecution, and the proof is that they make use of bigoted and intolerant language; "not content with think ing Unitarianism a good thing, they will have it that there is nothing good besides." The charge is denied by Mr. Fox, who challenges the Old Unitarian to produce a single writer or preacher who has advanced the above position. The Old Unitarian retorts upon Mr. Fox some phrases of his own, culled from his sermon before, the Unitarian Fund. These, taken from their connexion, may have a barsh sound, but they cannot be fairly quoted out of that connexion. By this mode of citation, the Old Unitarian represents Mr. Fox as denominating Calvinism "a curse," when the preacher only says that it is "sometimes a curse," and points out a few "examples" of his meaning. The charge of "self-complacency," "self-admiration" and "self-adoration," which the Old Unitarian, founds upon Mr. Fox's sermon, for no other reason that we can perceive than that the preacher exhibits the character of the apostle Paul as a model for imitation, is not a happy instance of the superiority of the Old to the New Unita F rians in the treatment of an opponent. In truth, all Christians, whether Trinitarians or Unitarians, and all Unitarians, whether Old or New, are very great injury and disgrace" done "to the cause" by the Provincial Unitarian Associations, he speaks of "the tongues of not a few controversial coxcombs" being "let loose." If, however, the demerits of the New Unitarians justify hard epithets, Calvinists and Churchmen are by his own shewing entitled to toleration; but what would the former say to his representation of their system as almost excluding: infinite benevolence from the divine perfections (Pref. p. xii.), to his pronouncing the general disposedness to what is termed "Evangelical religion," to be a “hastening back to the regions of implicit faith, of intolerance and of other beggarly elements" (Pref. p. xviii.), and, above all, to his declaring that "Insanity has been either a pre-disposing cause of partiality Orthodox doctrines," "or the effect of Calvinistic or (as they are called) too warm an attachment to them" (Pref. p. xxviii.): and what would the latter say to his scheme for "sweeping out the rubbish and defilements which disgrace the national church" (Letters, p. 18), or to his portraying the following "prominent and characteristic features" in the clerical body; "fixed abhorrence of Unitarianism," "abusive language," "dedisingenuity" and "meanness" (Pref. signed and deliberate misrepresentations," xx)? They might say, as the Old Unitarian says, in the next page,-but their intra would be his extra, and their extra would shut him out equally with his younger brethren,→ for" " Iliacos intra muros peccatur et entra. correctness of life and manners," palliate "licentiousness" and represent "crimes" "as objects of pity rather than of abhorrence." These are the Old Unitarian's words. Proof he adduces none. Mr. Fox replies indignantly that the charge is unfounded. In his rejoinder the Old Unitarian softens or rather alters the charge: he alleges here (Letters, p. 56), "that the New Unitarians are disposed to contend that the only morality and piety deserving regard, is inseparably connected with their own views of religious truth:" and in proof of his position he quotes a passage from Mr. Fox's sermon, "which claims for the virtue of Unitarians a superiority over that of orthodox Christians" The charge might have been preferred against Dr. Priestley as a Necessarian, and proved from his dedication of his book on Necessity to Dr. Jebb. But what has this to do with the original charge, which, if true, convicts the New Unitarians, whoever they be, of doctrines and habits which all good men must execrate, and which, if false, (and true or false it must be,) ought surely to have been openly retracted, with a confession of its gross and cruel injustice. How would the Old Unitarian feel, if, in order to inflame the passions of the public and to counteract some liberal measure or to justify some instance of intolerance, this very passage should be hereafter quoted, as the character of the New Unitarians drawn by one of their elder brethren? Why has he not put his abandonment of the charge upon record, that we may appeal to it in our own vindication? Or does he still maintain it? If so, let him point out the Antinomians of our sect, for we have never even heard of them The Necessarians have been reproach ed with this character, but the Old Unitarian need not be told that they, equally with the New Unitarians, smile at the reproach. We are convinced that, at least, he will not repeat this charge against the New Unitarians.* Though the charge of conniving at immorality no longer stands as one of the numbered articles of the indictment against the New Unitarians, it is again preferred with some mitigation in the Third Letter, PP. 49, 50. Having quoted a just observation of Mr. James Yates's, that a rising The fourth charge against the New Unitarians is that of excessive zeal, sect is likely to contain a larger proportion of men intent upon speculative principles, than of those who are devoted to the practical application of their principles, he proceeds to say, "Now I apprehend it to be an incontestable fact that some of the best men among modern Unitarians have suffered their theological zeal so to impair their moral perceptions and feelings, and have been so captivated with talents, energy and intrepidity, when found united with declined a cordial union with persons thus a similar zeal, that they have not animated and thus endowed, although licentiousness both in principles and practice may have thrown a deep shade over their characters.” The sect deserves all the Old Unitarian's invectives, if such have been the conduct of some of its "best The "incontestable fact" resis men." however upon no other evidence than the anonymous writer's apprehension. Our acquaintance with "Modern Unitarians" say, without fear of contradiction, that the is probably as intimate as his own, and we accusation is utterly groundless, and that no instance can be found of open immorality amongst their members, not being visited by the prompt and decided disavowal of all religious communion and connexion. One of the laws of the Unitarian Fund was expressly framed for the sake of meeting this case, And it may surprise the Old Unitarian to hear that one of the Unitarians relates to Church Discipline, amicable controversies amongst modern those who contend for its introduction rest ing their plea upon the necessity of some more decisive means of disowning an unworthy member than are possessed under the lax government of the Old Unitarian churches, by an unworthy member, meaning always not a heretic but a transgressor of the rules of Christian virtue. On the other side, the argument is, that the instances of unworthiness are too rare, and the force of opinion too strong in favour of virtue, to require a Church to assume the power of excommunication, which has been so often and fatally abused. The qualifying epithets of some, &c., which abound in the Third Letter, lead us to suspect that the Old Unitarian's charges, in so far as they are serious, refer to some single case; it would be curious if further explanation should shew that the individual instance no more appertains to New Unitarians than to Old. We throw out this suspicion, not so much to defend the Unitarians, as to enable the Old Unitarian to relieve his mind of those apprehensions concerning his brethren, which must be exceedingly painful; although certainly leading them into associations, &c. and is that there are marks of kindness i this Magazine towards Buonaparte and William Cobbett: it has even been suspected, says the Old Unitarian, that "certain Unitarian ministers, of the modern school and of its latest discipline, have been desirous of propagating their religious faith with a view more widely to disseminate their political principles among the inferior classes of society." Mr. Fox in his reply again calls for proofs; and expatiates upon the injustice and cruelty of such an accusation at such a time, "when the suspicions of government are awake and its power uncontrolled." To this the replication of the Old Unitarian is to us most unsatisfying: the substance of it is, that his suspicions were conveyed in a hypothetical form, and that those who suspect and those who are suspected are alike unnamed and unknown. Is not this the very point of which the New Unitarians complain? A general, sweeping charge is brought against a class of men, tending to prejudice them, already under sufficient odium, in the eyes of their neighbours, and whilst it attaches to every one, no one can disprove it, because his own case may be alleged to be an exception. disposing them to slight the principles The last charge against the New he will not at once find comfort in the conviction, that he has wronged a large party of his fellow-christians, whom his religious profession would naturally lead him to protect and serve. We know not to what passages in the Monthly Repository the Old Unitarian alludes. His own Letter is evidence enough that we do not approve of all the communications that we insert. In the papers that have been properly our own, we have never either asserted or insinuated any principles that we fear to avow, or that we do not regard as becoming scholars, gentlemen and Christians. We are not ambitious of authorities, where we are conscious of having reason and truth with us, but we will venture to say, that not a single sentiment in relation to public policy has ever appeared on these pages which has not been again and again avowed, defended and gloried in by the most able, the most patriotic, and the purest of our senators and statesmen. Knowing this, we are as indifferent to political as to theological accusations; though. we are sorry when our brethren are our accusers, and our foes (even in appearance) are those of our own household. Loyalty is one of those generalities |