66

66

better to give than to receive" (p. 154); ridicules the "trustworthiness and zeal" of Barnabas (p. 155); calls Silas a rat (p. 199); accuses Jesus himself of teaching Blasphemy against the Mosaic Law," (p. 69, note); objects to a positive command of the Almighty as a useless prohibition (p. 169); denies the conversion of St. Paul; states that the acts of the Apostles are to be believed where the contents seem probable, and, vice versâ; denies "St. Paul's blindness" (p. 18 and 34); ridicules his labours as fictitious and imaginary; and accuses him of "simple falsehoods," in multiplying the resurrection witnesses" (1 Cor. xi. 23); and brands him with "perjury" (p. 256); and says that "the Man of Sin" is a bugbear and hobgoblin," and then having "put an extinguisher upon him!" sets up Paul in his place. So much for Jeremy Bentham's theology! -now for his politics. In the appointment of the seven deacons (Acts vi. 5), he sees "free election,-election on the principles of universal suffrage" (p. 202); and "that in the christian world, if government in any shape has divine right for its support, it is in the shape of democracy representative democracy-operating by universal suffrage" (p. 217)!! This, my lay brethren of the Church of England, is the gentleman, upon whose authority Mr. Rowntree has the goodness to tell you, that "not more than ONE lay member of that Church in five thousand, subscribes in his heart, to the whole of the 39 Articles !"—in other words, there is not one in all Poole or its neighbourhood! What sort of person "the honest yet most zealous Church-of-England man" may have been, judge ye from the probability of Jeremy's idea of honesty in an apostle of Christ!

But, nevertheless, you do not stand alone. "How few are they who MINISTER at her altar, that believe in the WHOLE of the thirty-nine Articles !" exclaims the energetic Mr. Rowntree. The aforesaid Jeremy says, elsewhere, that "as anything may be proved by a person who has £20,000 a year, therefore bishop Tomline's evidence in favour of the authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles, must be invalid!"

As I do not happen to possess £20,000 a year, my evidence in favour of the Church, according to Jeremy, ought to go a long way further than bishop Tomline, or bishop Rowntree, unless "living by the altar" puts me, at once, into the scale of the prove-alls. And, unfortunately for my good neigh

*These words are the running title of at least twenty pages in "Not Paul but Jesus!" One chapter is headed "PAUL, &c., Was he NOT ANTICHRIST? (p. 366.)

C

bour, in Hill street, whatever he may do, I do not happen to "live," but to starve by the altar. I should not have deemed such an allusion tolerable on any grounds, except to throw off, with the respect which it merits, Mr. R.'s insinuation, that I have defended the church from unworthy motives -for the sake of filthy lucre.

Fie, fie, Mr. Rowntree!-I have been a minister of the Church of England since 17th May, 1821. During that period, I have, with the exception of a short interval, been actively employed in connection with numerous, and respectable congregations; and, during that period, I have also written not uselessly in favor of religion as professed by the Church of England, though, like the sybilline leaves, many of my pages are scattered to the winds. Of course, I OUGHT to have lived by this labour! My education and settlement in the Church, including all expenses at school, college, &c., &c., cost my father not less than £1900;and, give me leave to think, that the money was, in one sense at least, not thrown away. What would not the same sum have done in commercial pursuits? At 4 per cent., the annuity would have been from this sum £76 per annum for life, without labour. Now my gross receipts up to July, 1832, including fees as well as stipend (the former of which I have always considered the droits of the poor, to say nothing of parochial contributions and subscriptions,) amounted to £783, or rather more than £70 per annum, with hard labour, and not for life; so that up to that time, I had an average income from the "altar," of not quite 27 shillings per week-besides a direct loss of £1117 into the bargain! Since 1832, owing to delay in the consecration of a church and sickness occasioned by the effects of officiating therein, I have not received sufficient from the "altar," to pay the expenses of medical attendance, and its concomitants, change of scene, &c. &c. How far, therefore, my "living" by the altar may have biassed me in my defence of that altar, I leave to such, as think there may be upon earth honesty in bands and surplice, even if the wearer have, as is in my case, to pay for the washing of the latter, nor shall I say a word more on this head, than, that I offer a thousand apologies to the public for any reference to the subject.

I am, however, constrained to hint, that Mr. R.'s inuendos about Preachers, (p. 11, 12, Reply,) in a passage that is disgraceful to him as one, as well as his general remarks respecting MINISTERS of the Church, comes with but sorry

recommendation from a minister of a persuasion, which has been legally prohibited from appropriating to themselves, lady Hewley's bequests made for the purpose of proclaiming doctrines, which his sect deny, ridicule, and condemn. Charity would lead me to hope, that there is no one out of the Church, of whom it could be more truly said, than of those within her pale, (of which Mr. R. must be a better judge than I am;)—

66

66

6

"He learned to prattle-for he wished to eat !”*

6

"I now come," says Mr. R., "to what appears to be the "churchman's glory, and the chief excellence of his review, "viz., Paul no Socinian;' which shews him, after all, to be but one born out of due time. The term, of course, "is used as being one of reproach. When a charge is pro"ved to be false, the reproach ought naturally to fall back on the person who makes it. Our anonymous churchman "is safe again,-safe so far in that he will not have the morti"fication of being called upon even to retract it. We admire “his caution,—it is a mode of warfare, which they, who are contending more for victory than for TRUTH, act very "wisely in adopting. The design of the anonymous church"man, in speaking of Paul as no Socinian,' may, we think, "be fairly estimated by the following observation of lord "Brougham:--"What is called the heresy of Socinus,' he "observes, is what no professors ought to be charged with; "it is VITUPERATIVE, it is unfair,-it is not, I believe, "applicable to the Unitarians, or to their doctrine; and, "therefore, a man might object to the question (i. e. are you "a Socinian ?) as a TRAP, or, indeed, as an indignity.' Now "this language of his lordship is particularly applicable' to "all anonymous writers, who use the term "Socinian' to distinguish any body of Christians in the present day; unless "it be employed through ignorance, a plea which the "churchman is welcome to urge for his own benefit. However, it may be of service to others that we shew what is properly the doctrine of a follower of Socinus. We beg by the way to observe,-that Paul is no Socinian !' "agree admirably on this part of our discussion. However, "it does not follow that, because Paul was no Socinian, he was not a Unitarian.”

66

66

66

66

6

We

* Lest Mr. R. should think this retort unjustified-he is reminded of what an Old Unitarian has said :-" As connected with the zeal and animation of the pupils of the "new Unitarian school may be considered their fondness for assembling together for the purposes of praying, preaching, eating, drinking, toasting, &c., with all the concomi"tant exhibition of eloquence, whether sacred or CONVIVIAL.' [Monthly Repository, June, 1817.]

66

66

Whether this renunciation of the Socinian heresy be, however, a feather in Mr. R's cap, which the writers of his school (who saw no such honour in the word Socinian in former days), may determine; I do not presume to say :-it may, perhaps, be matter of condolence as well as of congratulation to Mr. R.-"Those in England," says the Unitarian author of an answer to Dr. Edwards, "who call themselves Unitarians, never were in the sentiments of Socinus,' or "the Socinians. Notwithstanding, as our opponents have "pleased themselves in calling us Socinians, WE HAVE NOT ALWAYS DECLINED THE NAME: because, in interpreting "many texts of Scripture, we cannot but approve and follow "the judgment of those writers, who are confessed by all to "be excellent critics, and very judicious." Do we do Mr. R, any injustice then, if we consider him so far a Socinian as he agrees with this judgment? Socinus, "that great and good man," however, only brought together all the heresies of the old time, and made a new doctrine out of them all by his own amalgamation of their materials;-and it is certain, that some of his opinions are those, to which Mr. R. lays claim, on the score of their antiquity. "Perhaps," says Dr. Edwards, in his Preservative against Socinianism, (pt. iv., p. 381,) speaking of divers points then at issue,-"perhaps our English Unitarians will pretend that they do not come "within compass of this charge; because they, good men, are convinced of the falsehood of those Ancient Socinian "opinions, and therefore disown them, having made free and frequent acknowledgements of the Infinite and Spiritual "nature of God. But I doubt the sincerity of their Faith "in these particulars."

66

66

66

I by no means, however, profess to have a sufficient knowledge of what Mr. R. believes, or what he does not believe, to decide whether he is sufficiently free from Socinianism, to save him from the imputation. Nor do I profess to be as good a judge in Unitarian matters as my Lord Brougham and Vaux, who, I imagined, had graver matters on his hands, than the chemical analysis of heretical punctilios; certainly he is a very learned person (and his splendid powers, profound talents, and multifarious erudition, I admire); but, with leave be it said, I cannot help marvelling, by what wonderful properties of forensic or judicial second sight, his observation about Socinus is so applicable to anonymous writers in general; or how his opinions any how can estimate the design

*He applies this principle himself to Locke, Newton, Milton, &c.

of "the anonymous churchman," in particular, in speaking of Paul as "no Socinian," which position Mr. R. " by the way," cunningly, both denies and admits. This incautious admission will cost his candour and common sense very dear, and prove a more formidable "TRAP," than any I could set for him. If he had referred to p. 10 of the "Reviewer Reviewed," he might have read an explanatory note, which would have saved him all this virtuous indignation. He actually quotes the note in his present work, so that this is inexcusable. I however am bound to believe him, though I shall point out his inconsistencies further on. Remove the word Socinian," what would he have had to say? It has enabled him to write a second pamphlet,-and he ought to be obliged to me for the opportunity I have afforded him of shewing his skill, his judgment, and literary honesty. As to the TRAP itself, I gave the usual notice " Man-traps set here"-by expressly declaring as follows:-"By the term "Socinian, we mean to express those classes of persons of "all shades who deny the full divinity of Christ as God, in"cluding the falsely called UNITARIANS." If Mr. Rowntree then, goes a poaching after this, who is to blame, if he be caught in a trap?

All his professed indignation is, therefore, "vox," (or VAUX) et præterea nihil!" I may be "one born out of due time". -so was St. Paul: I am therefore in good company.

After having waded through Belsham's Calm Inquiry, without having once stuck in the muddy channel, through which his doctrine flows, after having cogitated on the summary views of the various opinions which have been entertained respecting the person of Christ, &c.; and after having read of the Proper Unitarians, amongst whom Mr. R., it now appears, rejoices to be numbered; and after having in vain tried to find out, by anything in the "Remarks," whether he is a Gnostic, an Ebionite, a Cerinthian, a Árian, a Unitarian, an Anything-arian, or a Nothing-arian; a Belshamite, or a Socinian; I chose the latter, as comprehending the main features of all the former, (knowing how expert gentlemen of this stamp are to find a hole to creep out of an argument);-and because I did so choose the latter, it is clear, what embraced all, could be no "reproach" to any*. Besides, Mr. R. must know, that in the Racovian Catechism. the term Unitarian comprehends Socinian. (See Ree's Trans. 1818.)

Mr. R. would have done well to have shewn the impossibility of his being taken for a SOCINIAN. He is, however, very fond of Mr. Locke. He quotes his authority and protests like him against Socinianism. But so do all the Unitarians, yet Locke's wrong