lament over that perversion of sentiment which leads Mr. Hunter's admirers to deem it a necessary tribute to his fame to attack, with other weapons than those of argument, every one who is induced to maintain opinions or hypotheses contrary to those of their master." "Mr. Abernethy's additions, (to Mr. Hunter's opinions,) as far as we learn their nature from this volume, are much more liable to animadversion than the tenets of his master; yet he betrays extreme impatience and irratibility because they have been disputed, and even condescends to repel the attack by an appeal to prejudices, and by something that, we are concerned to say, borders at least on abuse." After noticing a want of charity towards Mr. Hunter's opponents, the Reviewer goes on to observe, "He speaks of them with a feeling of rancour that is seldom manifested in the writings of modern physiologists. They are invidiously de

signated as a party,' entitled modern sceptics,' and tauntingly styled 'writers by profession; their morals and good sense are questioned, and they are assimilated to a description of persons whom we are taught to avoid, as maintaining principles at once dangerous and absurd."

Upon the merits of the controversy itself, I must still refrain from pronouncing any opinion, but should be glad to see the question discussed with temper and ability in your well-conducted work. Whatever be the immediate cause of life, whether it be the result of organization, as Mr. Lawrence contends, or the consequence of an electric fluid, according to Mr. Abernethy, it is a fair topic for inquiry, without quarreling, and there can be no just reason why either party should set down the other for fools or knaves. To consign our adversaries over to the prejudices of mankind, by calling them professed sceptics,"" persons in disguise,”-or "writers by profession, who have words at will to make the worse appear the better argument," is not a very legitimate mode of treating a philosophical question. The inconvenience of appealing to the passions, particularly when excited by theological prejudices, has already been felt by one medical professor, and may, in his turn, perchance, one day fall to the lot of the other:

VOL. XV.

F

As I would wish to regulate my own conduct by the rules that I prescribe to others, I hope that in the foregoing observations I have not indulged in any uncalled-for severity. To wound the feelings of any person unnecessarily, is far from my intention; but when I take up a book and find the author resorting to other means than argument to support his opinions, I cannot help thinking him an unworthy advocate. And I must add, that if the use of reproachful language, and of disingenuous arts in controversy, be not the ready way for a writer to " disgrace" himself, I do not know what is. With these sentiments, unwilling to trespass farther upon your columns, I commit myself to the judgment of your readers.

SIR,

W. W.

Essex-House, January 17, 1820.

HAVING in my former letter [XIV. [657] only stated facts which I know to be incontrovertible, I shall now, in reply to my friend Dr. Carpenter, [XIV. 744,] whose abilities, zeal and exertions in promoting the great cause of Christian truth I hold in the highest estimation, only offer explanations where it appears to me that my expressions have been misunderstood, or my intentions misconceived; and I will do it with all possible brevity, even at the hazard of appearing abrupt.

1. I trust that my friend does not mean to insinuate, by the distinction which he makes in his eighth remark between the London and the Western Societies, that I have been guilty of the rudeness of animadverting upon the proceedings of a Society of which I am not a member, and to which I have never subscribed a shilling. I flatter myself that he knows me too well to suspect that I am capable of so flagrant a breach of propriety and decorum. My friend, I doubt not, well knows that I was, if I may presume to say it without being charged with over-weening vanity, one of the first members of the Western Unitarian Society, and a subscriber for life; and it was under this character that I gave an opinion of their late proceedings, and knowing that the principle and object of the two Societies were originally the same, namely, to spread the doctrine of the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, I

I expressed my great satisfaction in the result of the late discussion.

ence.

2. What is an Unitarian? Answer, 1. One who believes in the simple humanity of Jesus Christ. 2. One who believes in his simple pre-exist3. One who believes that the Logos which animated the body of Christ was the Maker of the world, but not the object of worship. 4. One who believes that, being the Maker of the world, he is the object of worship. 5. One who, whatever be his opinion concerning the person of Christ, worships the Father only. 6. All Antitrinitarians. 7. All who profess their belief in the unity of God, whether they do or do not believe that in the unity of the Divine essence there are three subsistences or persons, and whether they are Realists, like Waterland and Sherlock, who denounce Nominalists as heretics, or Nominalists, like Wallis and South, who accuse their Realist brethren of blasphemy and nonsense. 8. I have lately seen another definition of an Unitarian, viz. one who believes that "this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." This, if not the most perspicuous, is, at least, the most Catholic definition of Unitarianism that ever was given for in its ample range it includes not only the holy apostolic Roman Church, and all the various denominations of Protestants which secede from it, but it also comprehends the Greek, the Nestorian and the Syriac churches in the East, and likewise the Copts and the Abyssinians in Africa; all of whom would be ready to subscribe this simple creed, and to form one grand Unitarian Society throughout the world.

:

3. Of these various definitions I have myself selected the first; and being a plain man, who write to be understood in all my publications, I invariably adhere to that definition, so that no person can read what I have published without knowing precisely the sense in which the word is used.

My reason for making this selection is, historically, because I believe the term was first applied to the Polish Unitarians who denied the pre-existence of Christ, and etymologically, because I conceive that, in strict propriety, the term can only be applied to the two first definitions; for whoever

ascribes the formation of the world to Jesus Christ, deifies him, for he attributes to him a work appropriate to God, and infringes the great doctrine of the Divine Unity. Finally, I adopt this sense of the term upon the authority of Dr. Lardner, the great reviver of genuine Unitarianism in modern times, and my two venerated friends Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Priestley, the ablest and the most celebrated luminaries of the Unitarian Church. And here I trust I shall not be arraigned of presumption and arrogance in claiming these eminent confessors as my particular friends, even, though no kind notice was taken of me in their wills. While living, they constantly communicated with me upon every theological topic without reserve, and dying, they bequeathed a legacy more precious than rubies: the bright example of a disinterested love of truth, and of firmness, fortitude and perseverance in the profession of it, in the face of opposition, calumny and reproach, and under the loss of all things. These venerable men uniformly used the word Unitarian in the sense which I have adopted from them and if this use of it is censurable, I am very willing to take my share of the reproach.

I have too much regard for the rights of others to presume to censure any for using the term with greater latitude than myself. I only lament that it is used in so many senses as to occasion great ambiguity of language, and that to such a degree that, in reading what is published by many who call themselves Unitarians, I declare that I am utterly at a loss to understand their meaning.

4. I regret to differ from my worthy friend concerning the importance of the doctrine of the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, which to me appears an article of primary importance, and one upon which the greatest stress is deservedly laid by those who desire to see Christianity restored to its primitive purity. My reason is this: Errors concerning the person of Christ were among the first which were introduced into the church even in the apostolic age, and were zealously opposed by the apostles themselves, and particularly by Paul and John. And upon this primary error, as the chief foundation, almost all, and certainly all the principal corruptions of the Christian

doctrine, have been erected. Take away, therefore, this fundamental error, and the whole edifice falls of course. Nor must any known and acknowledged error be spared, how trifling soever it may appear. Error is prolific and one produces another, till in the end a monster is brought forth which threatens to overturn Christianity itself. What error appears more innocent or trivial than that of the simple pre-existence of Christ? But if it be once admitted that our Lord is something more than man, some work must be provided for him which a mere man cannot perform. This lets in the doctrine of atonement, and that brings after it some other erroneous notion, and so on ad infinitum. But state at once that Jesus is a man in all respects like to his brethren, a mere human being selected from the rest of mankind to introduce a new dispensation, and invested with the powers necessary for that purpose, and the huge fabric of error and superstition vanishes at once like an enchanted castle touched by the magician's wand, and nothing remains but the plain, simple, uncorrupted gospel, divested of all mystery, worthy of all acceptation, which will make men wise to salvation.

I do therefore think not only that it is justifiable, but that it is wise and right, for those who entertain these just and important views of Christianity, to associate for the express purpose of prominently holding forth the unspeakably important fact of the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, and of supporting this truth by calm and candid discussion. Nor do I see any reason while they are proceeding in this course, allowing to every one his right of private judgment, and casting no reflections upon the motives of those who differ from them, why they are to be upbraided as deficient in candour, liberality and charity. And least of all do I see how they can be justified in sacrificing their main principle, the great object of their union, for the sake of admitting into their society those who, whatever other excellent qualities they may possess, and however desirable it might be to associate with them for other objects, professedly deny the very principle upon which this Society is formed. They would despise us for the concession.

What could be more motley or more ridiculous than an Unitarian society formed upon the principle of the eighth definition? No, no. The original Unitarian societies pursue a grand and definite object by definite and laudable means. And if any who do not think as they do, but who, as lovers of truth and of freedom of discussion, think fit to give us their names upon that ground only, we accept their liberality with gratitude: but if we thought that such persons entered the Society with an insidious design, and only paid us, like Judas, to betray our Master; if it was their intention to bribe us to abandon our principle, and to throw down that pillar of our faith in which we place our glory, we will reject their offer with indignation, and rather say, with the apostle, Thy money perish with thee. But we believe better things. We are sure that our friendly associates do not desire us to act so base a part. They support us as lovers of fair and free inquiry. And we will continue our course as heralds of the pure gospel of Christ, the doctrine of his simple humanity being the chief corner-stone.

5. The word "idolatrous" in our preamble is indeed a strong and an offensive expression. But must it not be true in the estimation of all Unitarians of the first class, that they who worship Jesus Christ are idolaters in the very same sense as those who worship the Virgin Mary? Do not the most zealous and learned Trinitarians themselves acknowledge that if the Unitarian doctrine is true, their worship is idolatrous? And do they not express themselves upon this subject in much stronger language than Unitarians have ever used? And is that to be regarded as an epithet of reproach which is nothing more than a solemn warning to the parties concerned to consider their conduct, and how they will answer for themselves to Him whose first command it is, Thou shalt have no other God beside me? Are we to abstain from such faithful warnings through fear of offending the delicacy of the parties concerned? At the same time it should always be understood, that there is an infinite difference be tween Christian idolatry and Heathen idolatry; the first having been sometimes practised from unavoidable ignorance by the most virtuous of mankind,

but the last almost invariably leading to the practice of the grossest vices.

6. The London Unitarian Society has, I believe, been uniformly careful in circulating only those publications which recommend the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, except in the case adverted to by Dr. Carpenter, of Archdeacon Blackburne's Works. These had been published at great expense and great loss by his son, Mr. F. Blackburne. And out of compliment to Mr. and Mrs. Lindsey, the work was placed for a year or two on the Society's catalogue, and nearly a hundred copies were sold; but it was then withdrawn, as being incompatible with the Society's design. T. BELSHAM.

GLEANINGS; OR, SELECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSE OF GENERAL READING.

No. CCCLV.

The Eleventh Commandment. Archbishop Usher, of learned and pious memory, being wrecked on a desolate part of the Irish coast, applied to a clergyman for relief; and stated, without mentioning his name or rank, his own sacred profession. The clergyman rudely questioned it, and told him peevishly that he doubted whether he knew the number of the commandments. Indeed, I do, replied the Archbishop mildly, there are eleven. Eleven! said the clergyman, tell me the eleventh, and I will assist you. Obey the eleventh, said the Archbishop, and you certainly will: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another."

No. CCCLVII.

No. CCCLVIII.

An accommodating Divine.

The earliest document which remains of these proceedings (in Hen. VIIIth's divorce) is a letter of Secretary Pace to the King, in which he informs him, that he had treated with Dr. Wakefield of the divorce, and that the Doctor was ready to resolve the question, either in the negative or affirmative, just as the King thought proper, and in such a manner as all the divines in England should not be able to make any reply. This letter is dated in 1526, and, to Wakefield's eternal infamy, is still extant. Grand, tom. 3, p. 1.)

Life of Card. Pole, I. 42.

No. CCCLIX.

Licensed Spies.

(Le

The following curious copy of a license to a spy is copied from a book published in the beginning of the present century, entitled "Mæmoires of JOHN KER, of Kersland." We wish to know if similar licenses are now issued?

ANNE R.

Whereas we are fully sensible of the fidelity and loyalty of JoHN KER, of Kersland, Esq., and of the services he hath performed to us and our Government. We therefore grant him our Royal Leave and License to keep company and associate himself with such as are disaffected to us and our Government, in such

way or manner as he shall judge most for our service. Given under our Royal Hand, at our Castle of Windsor, the 7th of July, 1707, and of our reign the sixth

year.