I would make him the best satisfaction in my power; for whether I meant offence or not, my opponent must feel the same while he thinks I did; and in any case it would be more laudable to apologize for a mis taken offence, than to persist in a known one, which common sense and common politeness would forbid. But suppose he refused to hear you? No man of sense, or real honour, Sir, would refuse such a thing; and as for a fool or a puppy, I would not give him the trouble. In all matters, particularly those trifles on which duels mostly arise, I think a common friend a far better arbitrator than the chance of a ball; and in serious matters every man has a defence in the Law. Bat there are some offences (you say) for which the Law can give no satisfaction. The utmost the Law can do, is to take away life; if the Duellist can do more, let him mount the Bench, and amend the Law. Consider the Duellist, Sir, a moment. Cast off the mist that Fashion has thrown over your eyes-view him as he is-and view a monster that Nature disowns, and Humanity shrinks at, Other murderers compared to him may palliate their crimés-the assassin has his reward-the murderer his interest-and the suicide the madness Duellist, that any one is censurable for taunting another for refusing a challenge: this is somewhere between the 30th and 40th Article. This every officer ought to read, and if he can not read, let him get a drummer-boy to read it for him; forl fear many of our modern officers seldom employ their powers of literature farther than a play-bill or a billet-doux. However, after all I have said, it is only my opinion; by which I shall abide, until I am convinced of a better. I have read nothing on the subject, and have heard but little, save what I collect from table-arguments after supper. Yet the little I have heard is sufficient to make me think a Duellist the abhorrence and detestation of this world — and, if there is a Hell, the common damned will there shun and avoid him.” JOHN F. M. DOVASTON. Mr. URBAN, Hackney, April 8. by the Rev. H. H. Norris, one of Na recent erudite and quaint work the Curates of Hackney, I find, in allusion to the freeholders of that Parish, the Marquis of Downshire stated as possessing a "freehold 15 the burying-place of Sir Thomas feet square in the old Church-yard," of the moment: these may urge them Rowe, which descended to the Mar(yet not without agitation) to the quis as an heir-loom. Curiosity led crime. But the Duellist, cool and me to explore the Mausoleum erected deliberate, murders his thereon, wherein I found the followcompanion, nay, bis friend, and boasts of the acting Epitaph on a handsome Mongof blood. Brutus slew his sons for ment against the interior South wall, military disobedience Lavinius his which, from its quaintness, will, nó daughter, to save her honour and doubt, prove acceptable to the ReadCato himself, to avoid disgrace; yet ers of your valuable work : we call those the days of ignorance, HERE (under fine of Adam's first defecbarbarism, and superstition. Now a tion) [tion, man kills his companion for treading Rests in the hope of happie Resurrecon his toe his friend, for contradict- Sr Henry Rowe (sonne of St Thomas ing him and bis brother, for having And of Dame Mary, his dear yoak-fellow), a better dog; yet we call these the days of refinement, heroism, and reformation. Yet, what is more disgraceful, this villainous custom is held in most estimation by those who most ought to avoid it, and is one of the many vices that tends to make the modern Soldier so despicable a eharacter. And what (you say) is an` officer to do. is he to be a coward? No, Sir, he is to be brave, honourable, and obedient to the laws of war, which strictly forbid sending or receiving a challenge-or tacitly allowing it; and so much do they abhor a Rowe Knight and right worthy (as his father) years and seaven), Their issue five (surviving of eleaven), Fower named heer, in theis fower names forepast [last, The fifth is found, if Echo sound the Sad orphans all, but most their heire (most debtor), [better. Who built them this, but in his heart a Quam piè obiit, anno Salatis 1612, die Novembris 12, ætatis 68. Yours, &c. A SUBURBAN. The The Bishop of St. DAVIDS' Third Address to Unitarians. Means employed to support THE Unitarianism. ། Falsification of Authorities. HE means employed to support Unitarianism shew the unsound. ness of the system. They stigmatize whole chapters of the New Testament as spurious, in spite of the evidence of MSS. and the decided testimony of Griesbach. They pervert the sense of Scripture by contradicting the common principles of grammatical construction; and by defective statements of Scripture doctrines. They resist the authority of Scripture, and the testimony of the Primi tive Church, by evasions the most frivolous, as in Tit. ii. 13. of the commencement of the Litany; but he has retained in both the names of the three Divine Persons, and in the latter the threefold invocation. He has altered the expression of the Collect for Trinity Sunday, but has retained the service of the day. To the Genera! Thanksgiving he has added a Doxology from the Revelation of St. John, which is a more solemn act of worship paid to Christ than the common Doxology, which he has altered. It is indeed difficult to account for the proposed alterations in his posthumous notes on the Liturgy, so far was he, in his life-time, from wishing to derogate from the worship of the Son of God, as Mr. Whiston himself informs us in his Memoirs of the Life of Dr. Clarke: "However, I having heard that Dr. Waterland complains of two things in that Catechism, viz. that Dr. Clarke intimates, the Son is not himself to be properly worshiped or invocated; and that he puts a of religion; I can so far vindicate the Doctor, that I never, in all my conversations with him, found any occasion to suspect him in either of those points; nor do I find that in any of his former writings he bas dropt any expressions of such nature; nor did he drop any part of what he had formerly advanced for the worship of the Son, in the second edition of his Scripture Doctrine." (P. 89.) But nothing shews the unsoundness of the Unitarian system more than the falsification of authorities alleged to support it. Even Hooker, Grotius, Locke, Newton, Bull, Wallis, Clarke, Watts, Newcome, Schleusner, &c. are claimed by Unitarians as favourers of their doctrine. I confine slight upon the positive institutions myself here to the authorities of BULL, CLARKE, and NEWTON. A passage of Bishop Bull, in which he condemns the worship of Angels, is represented by Mr. Lindsey and Dr. Carpenter * as an authority against the worship of the Son of God. But it is made to speak the language of Unitarianism, by the omission of all the words which relate to the worship of Angels, and to the usages of the Church of Rome t. Dr. Clarke's opinions were most adverse to Unitarianism; yet we have heard, for many years, of an Unitarian Liturgy on the plan of the late Dr. Samuel Clarke. An interleaved copy of the Book of Common Prayer, once belonging to Dr. Clarke, was deposited in the British Museum in the year 1768, by his Son. In this copy he has proposed many alterations in the language, but nothing that is contrary to the faith in the Three PerSons of the Trinity. He has altered the expression of the Doxology, and Letters to Mr. Veysie, p. 217. Yet the Unitarian Prayer Book, published first by Lindsey, and afterwards by Mr. Belsham, which wholly excludes the Divinity of the Son, is called "The Book of Common Prayer,' reformed according to the plan of the late Dr. Samuel Clarke." And inany persons, no doubt, have been deceived by the title, and led to suppose that Dr. Clarke's opinions were favourable to Unitarianism. That the use of Dr. Clarke's name in this publication is a fraud upon the publick, you may be assured even on Unitarian authority. In the Preface to Disney's Book of See a Tract entitled "The Bible, and nothing but the Bible, the Religion of the Church of England,” p. xv—xviii. GENT. MAG. October, 1815. Common Common Prayer Reformed, which is almost a fac-simile of the Essex-street Prayer Book, it is very truly and candidly said: "It would be unwarrantable to prefix Dr. Clarke's venerable name to the extent of alteration comprehended in the following pages." The Unitarian Prayer Book should therefore bear the name of its real Reformer, Mr. Lindsey, who first published it. I have elsewhere* shewn that Sir ISAAC NEWTON was not a Socinian; and I have quoted from him language that conveys the sentiments of a sincere adherent to the Church, of which he was a Member. He could therefore be neither Socinian nor Arian, The following extract from Whiston's Memoirs of his own Life will confirm this conclusion: "On or about the year 1720, I take it to have been, that I was refused to be admitted a Member of the Royal Society by Sir Isaac Newton. The case was this: Sir Hans Sloane, Dr. Edmund Halley, and myself, were once together at Child's Coffee-house, in St. Paul's Church-yard; and Dr. Halley asked. me, Why I was not a Member of that Society? I answered, because they durst not choose an Heretick. Upon which Dr. Halley said to Sir Hans Sloane, that, if he would propose me, he would second it; which was done accordingly. When Sir Isaac Newton, the President, heard this, he was greatly concerned; and, by what I then learned, closeted some of the Members, in order to get rid of me; and told them, that, if I was chosen a Member, he would not be Presidentt." Assumption of fictitious Names. I have told you that Unitarianism is not Christianity, because it denies the Divinity and Atonement of Christ, the Personality of the Holy Spirit, the Existence of Angels, and rejects almost every thing that distinguishes it as a new revelation. You call yourselves, or rather your Teachers call you, Unitarians, because you be lieve in the existence of one God. Heathen Philosophers believed in one God. Mahometans believe in one God; they also believe Christ to have been a great. Prophet. Mahometans deny what you deny of Christ; but they acknowledge a higher nature in him than you do. You have therefore no more right to the name of Unitarians than all professing Christians, as well as philosophical Heathens and Mahometans. Unitarian Christians is a term even more anomalous in its composition than Roman Catholic. The late Rector of Cold Norton called himself, with the same kind of propriety, an Unitarian Minister of the Church of England. Anonymous and fictitious Corre- By In a cause so serious, so weighty, so universally interesting, as that in which the salvation of all mankind is concerned, there should be nothing concealed, nothing like anonymous and fictitious correspondence. fictitious correspondence, under the of England, opinions may be professed name of A Clergyman of the Church and propagated wholly inconsistent with the faith of our Church, and publick. I have very lately read a every way calculated to mislead the printed Letter addressed to me, professing to be by a Clergyman of the Church of England, but containing sentiments which no Clergyman of the Established Church can hold con do sistently with his profession; not therefore believe the Letter to have been written by a Clergyman of the Church of England. But, whatdefects of misrepresentation and per ever be its origin, it has all the usual version of Scripture, defective statements of Scripture doctrines, assump shall take some leisure opportunity fion of fictitious authorities, &c. as I to shew. *Postscript to a Tract entitled The Bible, and nothing but the Bible, the Religion of the Church of England." Memoirs of the Life of Mr. Whiston, vol. I. pp. 249, 250. riance with all his published works, and the whole character of his religious writings, that it cannot be cre dited without much stronger evidence than has yet been produced. Lord Thurlow is known to have spoken very highly of Bp. Horsley's defence of the doctrines of the Established Church against the attacks of Dr. Priestley; yet Mr. Belsham now says, Lord Thurlow thought that Bp. Horsley was in argument very inferior to Dr. Priestley. In his Calm Inquiry (p. 439) he says, that "Bp. Horsley owed his mitre to the controversy," (which is some evidence of the public judgment on the question,) and "to Lord Thurlow, who, in his usual blunt and forcible language, expressed the obligations which the Church was under to her learned and subtle advocate." (Claims of Dr. Priestley, p. 15, note.) Yet afterwards (according to Mr. Belsham) he said that the Bishop was no match for Dr. Priest. ley." I will give you Mr. Belsham's own words on three different occasions (for he has thrice reviewed the controversy; how he has reviewed it, I have already partly informed you, and will shew you more at large hereafter.) The progress of Mr. Belsham's account of this report is a curious instance of the propagation of posthumous authority. In his Claims of Dr. Priestley he says, after noticing Lord Thurlow's approbation, "But it is well known among his private friends, that the noble Lord, who Occasionally amused his leisure hours by looking into this celebrated controversy, was not unacquainted with the real merits of the question." This appears to be some drawback on his Lordship's approbation, and to say more than meets the ear. In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1814 (Part II. p. 127,) Mr. Belsham says, "he has good reason to believe, that the Noble Lord saw the fallacy of the Bishop's arguments us distinctly as the Bishop himself." This is rather plainer, but not yet very explicit; for the Bishop declared himself fully convinced of the soundness of his arguments, and therefore, according to Mr. Belsham's comparison, Lord Thurlow did. This, however, of course, was not Mr. Belsham's meaning. But in p. 620 of the same Magazine Mr. Belsham speaks less equivocally: "Nor is it ut all improbable that Lord Thurlow should have said, what it is credibly reported he did say, that in argument Bp. Horsley was no match for Dr. Priestley." What the next stage of these insinuations will be, it is not easy to conjecture; but the publick will easily appreciate the value of such posthumous information, both as to Lord Thurlow's opinion of the merits of Bp. Horsleys and the Bishop's own conviction of the issue of the controversy. Conclusion. Mr. Belsham seems to expect that by publicity and perseverance he may prevail on the publick to believe his statement of the controversy, in opposition to their former verdict. What that verdict was, may be seen in the contemporary writings of Whitaker, Townson, and others, and in Mr. Chalmers's Life of Bp. Horsley*. What it may be hereafter, may, perhaps, depend in some mea sure on the reception which is given to Mr. Belsham's present statements. He thinks the Clergy are not in car nest in their profession of Church doctrines; and nothing, it seems, will convince him of their sincerity but the most public avowal of their faith. (Gent. Mag, April 1815, p. 320.) I think he is right; and that the pub lick are liable to be misled by our forbearance; by the credit which has been given to Mr. Lindsey, and other Unitarians, for learning and candour, of which their writings afford no evidence; and, perhaps, by the too liberal concession of valuable Scripture testimonies, which have been left in medio, as controvertible and unavailable, because Unitarians have thought proper to controvert them. The pas sages of which we are most tenacious, as most decisive evidences of our faith, will always be most liable to controversy. And the value of such testimonies may, generally, be estimated in exact proportion to the pains taken to undervalue or disprove them. In Mr. Belsham's Calm Inquiry the passages most disputed are, John i. 1-14, iii. 13; vi. 264 viii, 58; xvii. 5 Phil. ii, 5-9; Col. i. 15-17, 1 John v. 7. It seems theo that, by "contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints," the Clergy may con * Biographical Dictionary, vol. XVIII. vince vince Mr. Belsham that they are in earnest. They may convince their own people too, and their younger Brethren, which is of more consequence. If Unitarians say, "With our tongue will we prevail; we are they that ought to speak; who is lord over us?" the Clergy must continue, with equal publicity and perseverance, to defend (as they have done) that faith and those "mysteries of God," of which they are ministers and stewards. For one, I hold myself pledged to exert all the humble means in my power, as long as life and health are spared me, to counteract the Unitarian apostacy, and the ineaus employed to support it. payla te T. ST. DAVIDS. Abergwilly Palace, July 1, 1815. TRU Mr. URBAN, Sept. 2. TRUTH is uniform, but error is various. A set of heretics, in St. John's days, denied the humanity of Christ; some modern deceivers deny his divinity. In one thing they both agree, in explaining away or rejecting all the texts which refute their peculiar and inconsistent delusions. Against the sect called Docetæ, who asserted that what appeared to be the body of Christ was a mere phantom, St. John warned the faithful in all those passages where he denounces as "deceivers" and "false prophets" those who did not confess that Jesus Christ" came in the flesh," with a real and palpable body; and the writings of the beloved Disciple and the other Scriptures are a sure guard against ancient and modern delusions, to all those who admit the whole volume to be, as St. Paul says it is, given by inspiration of God;" to be interpreted, like other books, in its plain and obvious sense, and so that one place be not repugnant to another." A Correspondent with the signature A.S. F. (p. 37.) has produced a number of texts, some of which assert, what no one denies, that there is but one God; and others declare the humanity of Christ, that he was very man; by which if A. S. F. imagines, as he seems to do, it is proved, that he is not also very God, he might just as well fancy, that by proving man to have a material body, we demonstrate that he has not also an immaterial soul. The cases are parallel, and the argument altoge ther as conclusive in the one as the other. The passages are numberless, in which Christ is either called God; or the incommunicable attributes of the Godhead, as Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, are ascribed to him. The Apostle to the Hebrews utters an incontrovertible truth, when he says, "He that built (or made) all things is God." Heb. iii. 4. St. John says, "All things were made by the Word," or Logos; who, he also says, "Was God;" and "was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." It is not want of evidence, but obliquity of understanding, the want of a truly humble, well-disciplined, and discriminating mind, that is the cause of error in all momentous points. Heresies are classed, by one who was well-informed on the subject, among "the works of the flesh." (Gal. v. 19, 20.) They originate in a fleshly principle, in that pride of heart, that self-sufficiency of intellect, which presumes to be wise above what is written, and will not receive the truth as it is plainly revealed in holy Scripture. The very first lesson in the school of Christ is humility; and it is too of ten the last that is learnt perfectly. Yours, &c. R. C. Mr. URBAN, Oxford, Sept. 6. the question of Unitarianism were searching after, or burying the truth amid the ruins of the Eastern Churches, I had no wish to intrude on their labours; but rather chose to stand a silent and distant spectator, reposing confidence in the successful efforts of Piety and Learning: now, however, that the feeble advocates of Apostacy would bring the struggle to our doors, and beat us off the ground we have stood on from our infancy, we are severally called on to mingle in the conflict, and repel the attack that is made on the Sanctuary of the Holy Ones. HILE your Correspondents on Certain passages have been collected from the Scriptures as decisive on the question of Christ's humanity, and are vauntingly set forth as the faithful records of the Truth. With reference to the testimony of Moses, your Correspondent (A Sussex Freeholder) has overlooked the ori |
