Moreover, so lately as 1817, Unitarianism itself was undefined; and Mr. R. must know, that a controversy was carried on upon the very subject, in the Unitarian Magazine, The Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, and afterwards published at Chichester, in 1817; and an old Unitarian closed his second letter, in reply to the Rev. W. J. Fox, whom some Unitarians consider as great a man as St. Paul, (Mr. Fox having said as much of himself in his sermon for the Unitarian Fund, 1817,)-with these significant words:"Have not the Old Unitarians given "birth to the New; and can a more hopeful offspring be "imagined? It is true that the parents and the progeny "differ in this respect, that the former were very little solici"tous about the number of their proselytes, and the latter "appear to be much at their ease on most other points!"

Mr. Rowntree will, therefore, please himself as to his antiquity, or his novelty; and equally please me by substituting "old" or "new Unitarian" for the term "Socinian," wherever it occurs in the Reviewer Reviewed; and so by reading "Paul no Unitarian;"" the churchman's chief glory, and the excellence of his review," will remain untouched; and the task of refuting the arguments he advanced from the original Scriptures remain unanswered ;-Mr. Rowntree's virtuous anger will sink into a soothing calm; my lord Brougham's TRAP will be no longer un-sprung; neither will the reproach recoil on any party concerned. To accommodate Mr. R.'s nervous excitement about poor Socinus, I have, accordingly, in this "answer" to his "reply," as he will see, substituted Unitarian for Socinian; and left the matter just where it was, neither puzzled nor alarmed by the manœuvring of his ready wit. If I had in my note used "Orthodox" for Socinian, perhaps it would have passed; yet NO TERM is of any danger to an argument, IF it be deFINED, so that BOTH PARTIES KNOW WHAT IS MEANT. views were (despite all the protesting) Socinian all over. Thus the "EXCEPTIO PROBAT REGULDM. "-Unitarians take just what suits them, no matter where they find it; and when they have done call it their own. Thus they climb up the ladder lent them by others, and then kick it down. They are shocked forsooth at Socinus-yet they follow him in a hundred things. Socinus (Epist. Andreæ Dudith, p. 499,) says that the precepts of the Jewish law were so "light, vain, superstitious, and ridiculous, that they were unworthy of God," in direct contradiction to the Bible (Deut. iv. 7, 8); and Mr. Belsham says, speaking of St. Paul, "Such is the nature, of the Apostle's argument, which, to say the truth, is of no great weight." "We are authorised to admit the apostle's "conclusions, even though we may doubt of the validity of his arguments and the cor"rectness of his premises. The apostle does not say, that he was inspired to assert the literal truth of the Mosaic history of the fall: probably he knew no more of it then we "do" (Translation of St. Paul, vol. IV, p. 196, and vol. I, p. 110,) &c. &c. If Unitarianism is not Socinianism, they marvellously resemble each other. There is a FAMILY likeness in them.

"facies non omnibus una

Nec diversa tamen; qualem decet esse sororum."

Mr. R. has the benefit of all this vapouring about terms so defined, as not to be mistaken, except by one who is naturally, or, by pretence, incapable of understanding plain English!

66

I have seen much of the unfairness, and misrepresentation of some classes of interpreters who deny the full divinity of Christ (a complaint made by all who have ever come in contact with their opinions and publications); nor am I unaware, how in all ages, the predecessors of the Belshamites have played the same bo-peep" on the stage of theological discussion; evading truth, multiplying error, and weaving the cobwebs of logic to catch poor unwary critical flies, and when, all has failed, stoutly denying the authenticity of the apostles, or the genuineness of the text of scripture; lopping off here, travestying there, and seeking to make God's word speak according to their own predetermination, (of which I will give a few instances before I have done); nor am I at all surprised, that Mr. R. should have tried his hand at this, and sought to evade the result of a discussion of Scripture, in the original, by an absurd pretence about a term actually defined, or by the equally absurd pretence of catching me in a trap of Unitarianism in the blundering note to p. 7 of his Reply! I never expected Mr. R. would be inclined to allow what I asserted (see Reviewer Reviewed, p. 9); but I expected he would have attempted to refute it, and not make the sorry appearance he now does. If he really can shew us, that Christ is not God-why does he not do it? Why does he not bring fresh arguments from the original text of Scripture? Why does he quote a series of texts, to prove what we all allow, (the humanity of Christ,) and avoid all those texts which prove the divinity of Christ? Why does he quote a part only of Mr. Dudley's position, and part of every thing, and the whole of nothing? Why does he affect to mistake the point at issue, and "darken counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job xxxviii. 2.) The truth is, Mr. R. is in a quandary; he would, if he could, but he does not know how.-Belsham's Improved Version, and Calm Enquiry, and all the learning of the Belshamites, whether old, new, proper or improper, original,

*These are grave charges to make-but they are true, nevertheless; and any one may satisfy himself of that fact, who will refer to the Quarterly Review, vol. 30, p. 79-115, where Mr. Belsham's doings in this line are shewn up, as they ought to be. See also vol. 8, p. 436; vol. 14, p. 43, 44; and vol. 1, p. 315–336. I give these references, because the Quarterly Review is easily got at, and the very subjects there discussed are "The Improved Version" and "Translation of St. Paul," and the whole of the authorities in which Mr. Rowntree and the NEW Unitarians (I beg his pardon, PROPRR Unitarians) find their shibboleth. Let Mr. R. answer those reviews, if he can; I not only CHALLENGE him, but DEFY him to it.

or imitative, have been refuted again and again; and what can the poor fellows do, who are courageous enough to pin their faith on Belsham's sleeve, but ring the changes over again which have been rung till there is not a new variation to be invented to the same shuffling and illogical tune.

Mr. R. calls Mr. Dudley my protegé, in defiance of my assertion, that Mr. D. knew not what I had said; moreover, as my interference is not with persons*, but with opinions, I have nothing to do with the "general purport" of the "Sermon," as I before observed: that no doubt would be a popular theme with Mr. R., and I admire his equanimity in contemplating "the PENANCE which his readers would INDEED undergo" in perusing his dissertation! I will, however, tell Mr. R. a secret,-I have seen Mr. D. since "the Reply" came out, and he tells me, he had in his sermon NO INTENTION WHATEVER of alluding to the UNITARIANS: So that Mr. R. has brought all this upon himself for the mere love of it.

And, now, before I lay down my pen for a while, I will just say, that the note about "Schism," (p. 4,) I fully subscribe to ;-but Mr. R. has still before him the very kernel in dispute, "the unscriptural terms of communion;" if he will shew the unscriptural terms in this case, as far as the Church is concerned, the whole matter will be at an end;-"the portals of the Church" will open to receive him, if he is willing to enter;-but do not let him imagine, that it is a matter simply between him and the Church of ENGLAND. If Mr. R. knows the opinions of Proper Unitarians, he knows that their great authority has said "The worship of Christ by Trinitarians, Arians, and Socinians is idolatrous in the judgment of Unitarians," (Belsham's Calm Enquiry, p. 349); therefore if the Unitarians are not in heresy, I am an idolater. But the heresy is heresy from the Church of Christ at large, and if "worshippers of Christ" be idolaters, then are Independents, Wesleyans, Baptists, &c., &c., idolaters;—and so were the apostles, for they worshipped Christ ;-so were the martyrs; -so was the primitive Church; and so have been all Churches and all communities of Christians, (save the

And here let me add, what to some may appear necessary. 1 beg then to assure Mr. R. that though I bear hard upon him as a DIVINE, I have not the least personal disrespect towards him as a man. He might have avoided this discussion-but as he has been pleased to mingle with it unfounded charges against my church and her ministers, and bishops, he must bear the weight of what he has brought down upon him. Those who know me, are well aware, that I have no bigotry about me; I did not insinuate any thing against Mr. R.'s insincerity; but sincerity or insincerity is not the question-it is a question of doctrine-and admits of no compromise. But beyond the organ of his opinions, I distinguish not Mr. R. from any other man. Let this calm his mind, if he feels that he has "mistaken his man,' which I suspect he did, when he penned the Reply.

Unitarians and their congeners,) from the days of Thomas, to the present hour! "My Lord and my God!" has been the constant salutation of the Church of Christ, as well as that of England and yet, forsooth, from this idolatrous Church, Mr. Rowntree thinks it a dishonour voluntarily to exclude himself; and, at the same time, kicks against poor old Socinus with all his might, who happens, however, (and that is the cause of the said kicking,) to be a shade nearer orthodoxy* than Mr. R. himself! (See Reply, p. 9.)

To prove, as well as refute this charge of idolatry, it will suffice to read the following texts :

1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.-Ex. xx. 3.

2. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve.-Matt. iv. 10.

1. They worshipped him (Christ) xxiv. Luke, 52, and xxviii. Matt. 9.

2. Let all the angels of God worship him Heb. i. 6.

3. That all men should honour the Son, EVEN AS they honour the Father.-v. John 23.

(N. B. This last text may illustrate what Mr. Rowntree has said about dishonouring the Son.-p. 6, Reply.)

Again, what can induce Mr. R. to include himself amongst dissenters-seeing that the Independents, Baptists, Wesleyans, &c., are just as IDOLATROUS as Church-of-England men? If Mr. R. really believes the Bible, he must believe it his duty (if he also think Trinitarians idolaters) to dissent from, NOT WITH, the whole of "the countless multitudes," as well as the "apostolic church :" but does he know what he believes, or what his belief leads to? I very much

doubt it.

Yes, he will say, I believe that the doctrine I hold "is known and universally allowed to have been co-eval with the apostles," and "that we are Unitarians by prescription,"+ (p. 9,) &c., &c. Stop a bit," my good sir, I would reply

"

I cannot but admire how Mr. R.'s conscience smites him for his unkindness to poor old Socinus. "And if they were" (Socinians) says he, WHAT THEN? Why they "would be simply followers of Socinus," (EXACTLY SO) whom one of our ablest controversial writers and divines" (Mr. Belsham, I presume, Calm Enquiry, p. 479,) "has termed a great and good man!" p. 9.) Yet this "great and good man' is by my lord Brougham allowed to have been in "HERESY" (p. 8)-as his followers are in “ IDOLATRY,' by Mr. R.'S ANONYMOUS" authority-and to be called Socinians is "VITUPERATIVE,' and " unfair," and an " indignity!!" We may echo the important query, "WHAT THEN?" especially as Mr. R. keeps back what follows. "Socinus, though a great and good man, is not altogether clear from the suspicion of having been accessary to the sufferings of Francis David," who, as Belsham tells us, was in heresy, and when Socinus was sent to convert him and failed, that "great and good man" was instrumental in throwing him into prison, where he died, "a melancholy proof, that persecution is not limited to any party." Let the admirer of the "great and good man" refer to the bottom of p. 14 of his Reply. Shall we ask, "WHAT THEN?"

+If Unitarianism keeps up its orthodoxy by "PRESCRIPTION," which, according to the law books, can only arise by grant, and not by record alone, however old, I do not see what all the outcry means about the Church established by LAW;" we can prove our "prescription" by grants entered on record," grants from kings, and the record of history, as well as by better authority; but by the same "law," which is objected to the Church, Unitarianism is an exception to the rule."

66

66

D

this is NEITHER "known" (craving pardon of your autho rity-by the bye, who is he?) NOR" universally allowed,' save and except by such worthies as your Oracle, Mr. Belsham, who very gravely tells us (Calm Enquiry, p. 464,) "that, as it has been proved that a majority of the UNLEARNED "Christians in the two first centuries, were believers in the "proper humanity of Jesus Christ; this fact forms a very "strong presumption, that such was the doctrine taught by "the APOSTLES. Verily, this is logic with a vengeance! Upon the same principle, a man could prove, that Mr. Belsham is inspired, because "unlearned Christians" may think so, or that the moon was believed by Newton to be made of cream-cheese, or any other absurdity. But this passage is instructive, because it drives back all the Unitarian wise men to the "unlearned" source whence, undoubtedly, their learning did actually spring. I will not seek to dispute the value of this source with Mr. Rowntree, for, certainly, if historyis to be believed, no learned person ever proclaimed himself a denier of Christ's divinity before the end of the second century, (why any did then, or have done since, is one of those mysteries of Providence, which is not in our power to unravel); and, even if Unitarianism is right, because it is old, why man-slaughter may be also right, because Cain killed his brother. It is not antiquity alone which gives truth its power, muchless lends to error its claim to personate truth. The Christian Church knew nothing of Unitarianism, as it is called, (though the heresies from whom the different forms of Humanitarianism have descended, of which Unitarianism is one, existed as early as the end of the second century,)-but has, from the first, and constantly, protested against those errors to which Mr. Rowntree and his authorities look for sanction. Sin is as old as Adam ;—but the patriarchal church protested against`sin. Can, then, sin boast itself against the Church, because it is as old as Adam? The fact that it was protested against dis proves its claim to any sanction, for "by the law is the knowledge of sin ;" and, if men protested against Unitarianism, in any form, at any time, "co-eval with the apostles," that fact forms a very strong presumption, that such was "NOT the doctrine taught by the apostles." But Mr. Belsham tells us as much, for, says he, "all we know of them (the early Unitarians) is from the writings of their adversaries," (p. 403). Now, it so happens, that the term Unitarian is nowhere found in these writings, or in any early writings whatever; but it is said, or inferred, that the Ebionites were the Unitarians,