Unitarians, both domestic and foreign, you will excuse me if I positively deny the allegation, as being totally without foundation, and I refer in proof to the notorious lucubrations of the above-named doctors of Unitarian divinity, as well as to the severe exposures of their semi-infidel tampering with the Bible which they have called forth. But while you do not "deny the genuineness or alter the translation of any part," perhaps you question the inspiration of certain portions of the sacred volume. You will remember that this was one of the branches of evidence that we proposed to discuss with you, and that not the least in importance. Why are you silent on this head? Is it not of any moment, think ye, to admit the genuineness and confess the authenticity of a book or a chapter or a verse of scripture, if you withhold your conviction of its inspiration? Is it not a fact that you might hold the genuineness of the two first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and feel no disposition to alter the translation of a word, and, at the same time, boldly deny that they were "given by inspiration of God?" If I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right. If not, then the public will decide upon the candour and fairness of your profession to remove the necessity of any controversy with you on the score of EVIDence, because of your admission of the genuineness, and your satisfaction with the accuracy of the authorized version, while by an expressive but momentous silence, you acknowledge that the greatest of testimonial questions is by you disputed, and you at the same time refuse to come forward boldly, and debate it fairly before the church. Again" Unitarians have neither canon nor version of their own different from those recognised by," &c. You anticipate here a reference to "the improved version," and tell us that "it contains only the pri vate criticism of one or two individuals-that it has never been used in your churches, and is utterly devoid of all authority with you." Will you excuse me for expressing my doubts of the accuracy of this statement, for these reasons:-1. That work was the joint production of some of the ablest men and best scholars that the Unitarian sect has ever been able to boast of; and that the shades of Belsham, Lindsey, Jebb, Priestley, Wakefield, &c.,* might well be astonished to hear their learned labours so contemptuously spoken of by three modern disciples of their school. 2. That, in the year 1819, (the date of the edition which I possess,) the improved version had gone through no fewer than five editions—a tolerable criterion of the extent of its circulation in little more than twenty years. How many it may have passed through since, I have been as yet unable to ascertain. 3. That so far from its being "devoid of all authority," it professes, in the title page, to have been "published by the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian Knowledge and the practice of virtue by the distribution of Books." That it may" never have been used in your churches" I can well believe, as it is probable that the feelings of your people would have revolted too strongly against its introduction, to make the experiment advisable the food which it furnishes may have proved too coarse even for the digestive • See " Improved Version," note on 1 John, i. 1. organs of popular Unitarianism itself. It is also possible that the modern professors of your theology may be somewhat ashamed of this awful specimen of rational and liberal criticism," and may secretly wish that it had never seen the light. But the existence of it, at least, cannot be denied; and there it stands, a painful memorial and a living witness, of what is "in the heart" of a system that exalts reason into a dominion over revelation, and that, unwarned by the solemn admonitions contained in the book itself against the presumptuous additions or detractions of human pride or folly, has dared sacrilegiously to lay its unhallowed hands on the sacred ark, and to attempt the mutilation and misrepresentation of the great magna charta of the spiritual liberties of man. 3. At the close of your letter, you say, "Surely you invited discussion, with the class of persons called Unitarians.' I again repeat I did not. I determined to have a course of lectures delivered in my church on the points at issue between us and the professors of what we call your "heresy." And I invited the persons whom I was and am sincerely anxious to benefit, to come and hear our well-considered convictions of their errors and their consequent danger, as well as our faithful exhibitions of what we think "a more excellent way." It will not be denied that a clergyman of any denomination, in a free country, and more especially a clergyman of the national church, has a right to preach, or authorize others to preach, in his pulpit, according to his own discretion, and invite whom he pleases to come and hear, without its being understood that he challenges either the parties so invited, or their representatives, to enter with him the lists of controversial discussion. I absolutely protest against any such understanding. I did not seek to compel the attendance of any of your body, nor yet to deny to you or them, in reply, the use of the same weapons that I had employed in the attack. I did mean that those who pleased should come and hear us "" tell" them a gospel which they were not told by those upon whom we looked as blind leaders of the blind;" and that they should be prepared to "learn" whatever should commend itself to their consciences, under our teaching, as the truth of God. We did not, and do not, expect to be able to bring demonstration home to the hearts of any by the strength of our arguments, or by the force of our appeals; but we anticipated that, in answer to our earnest prayers, the power of the Holy Ghost would accompany our teaching of His truth, and make it effectual to the conversion of souls" from darkness to light." We propose to stand before the congregations that might assemble, neither superiors to instruct with superhuman authority," nor as equals to discuss (if you mean by that dispute) with human and fallible reasonings;" but simply as "ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech them by us, that we might pray them in Christ's stead-be ye reconciled to God."* This is the middle position in which we stand, the mean between your two extremes; and by God's blessing, we will continue to occupy it, until we shall have delivered our consciences, and discharged our duty to a numerous, respectable, but, in our judgment, blinded and deluded class of our fellow-countrymen. as 46 66 2 Cor. v. 20. CONTROVERSY AT LIVERPOOL. And now, gentlemen, having taken such notice of certain allegations in your letter as it seemed impossible to pass by, and with the full purpose of continuing in the course on which I have entered, until, through the blessing of God, the grand object which I have proposed to myself shall have been accomplished, February 11, 1839. I remain, yours, for the truth's sake, FIELDING OULD. your To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles. Gentlemen,—You state, in your letter of the 7th ult., that proposal of discussion through the press, though made for the third time, has as yet received no answer." It was thought by ourselves and our clerical brethren, that as our lectures were to be printed and published, every facility was afforded you of replying to them through the channel, and that thus the whole subject would be fairly brought before the public. same In addition to this, we have offered to meet you in oral discussion; you decline the proposal. Anxiously desirous to bring the whole matter before this great community, so as to prove that we not only entertain no apprehensions as to the result, but are convinced that, by such an exposition, great good will be effected, we, the undersigned, on our own responsibility, ACCEPT YOUR TERMS of discussing the momentous question between us, in the form of a correspondence in some public journal or periodical, altogether independent of the lectures. We remain, gentlemen, February 11, 1839. Yours, for the sake of the gospel, To the Rev. Fielding Ould. THOMAS BYRTH. FIELDING OULD. HUGH M'NEILE. Rev. Sir,-The tone of your last letter makes us rejoice that, by the acceptance on pondence may now be brought to a close. your parts of discussion through the press, this corres or Let us, Rev. Sir, place before you your own language, and ask, in solemn sadness, are the feelings it betrays worthy of the occasion, deserved by us, or edifying to the public mind? These are your words:-"I ness of your cause has prompted your determination, and am of opinion, cannot but hope that a secret consciousness of the weak that while a they will not be slow to appreciate its motive, or the precise measure of your zeal for a candid and impartial hearing." Sir, it is not a little mournful to find a Christian Minister expressing his hope that discerning public will approve the discretion of your resolve, other men are hypocrites, that they are secretly conscious of the weak ness of the cause which they publicly defend. To hope that we secretly know our errors, whilst publicly preaching them as truths, is, indeed, strange preference of faith before works. Let us assure you, Sir, that if we could think of you as this language shows you think of us, we should decline all discussion with you, we should regard you as an opponent too discreditable to be identified with a great question, or to be considered as an honourable representative of your own party. We apprehend, Rev. Sir, that nobody but yourself would think of attributing to conscious weakness our preference of the most perfect and searching method of discussion, to the most flimsy, insufficient, and unscholarlike that could by possibility be selected. Had we wished to catch the ear of a popular assembly, or to turn away attention from weak points by oratorical artifices, we should have proposed this platform controversy, instead of, as we did, carefully and purposely wording our invitation and our enumeration of the modes in which the controversy might be conducted, so as to exclude the idea of oral discussion. We observe with sorrow, and with diminished hope of benefit from controversy, that you can so sink the interests of truth in personal championship, as to meet our solemn unwillingness to entrust the gravest questions to extempore dexterity and accidental recollection, with the reply that in this respect we should be at least equally situated. Doubtless, Sir, if a display of personal prowess was our object, this would be conclusive; but TRUTH is our object, and we dare not offer it such worthless advocacy. With respect to the instance alluded to by us, of a decision similar to our own, our impression had been that reasons also similar to our own were given at the time; and we can only regret, since this impression seems to be false, that we quoted the case. With regard to the "Improved Version," we shall only say here, that it has been raised to an importance in this discussion which is entirely factitious. The differences between us must be settled upon principles of interpretation and criticism recognized by all scholars; and if these principles can be shown, in any respects, to condemn the "Improved Version," in those respects we shall be the first to abandon it, feeling ourselves to be in nothing bound by it. When we said that, as Unitarians, we had no canon or version of our own, we meant that we are quite willing to accept the text as fixed by scholars, most of them Trinitarians, on critical principles. We most cheerfully recognize the fundamental principles of Scriptural inquiry, so clearly and soundly stated yesterday evening by Dr. Tattershall; and although agreeing with many of your ablest scholars, in thinking the received translation to require corrections, and not approving of the morality of taking up a position in defence of truth unnecessarily unfavourable; yet, were our only object to display the ampler and superior Scriptural evidence for Unitarianism than for Trinitarianism, the received translation would be quite sufficient for our purpose. Again reminding you that the word "discussion discussion" was introduced into your original invitation, which contained also reference to the con CONTROVERSY AT LIVERPOOL. troversial practice of primitive times, and set forth the advantages of "hearing" and "telling" together, We remain, Your fellow-labourers and fellow-Christians, JAMES MARTINEAU. JOHN HAMILTON THOM. Feb. 14, 1839. To the Revs. Thomas Byrth, Fielding Ould, and Hugh M'Neile. Gentlemen,-Your willingness to discuss the Unitarian and Trinitarian controversy in the most satisfactory mode, has given us sincere pleasure; and if we have seemed to press this matter upon your acceptance, we assure you it was with the single desire that the statements of both views, in their most accurate and perfect forms, might be presented to the same minds through an unbiassing medium; an object which could be obtained neither by the unequal distribution of separate lectures, nor means so necessarily imperfect as oral discussion. by We shall be happy to arrange with you, at the earliest possible period, the manner and conditions of our proposed discussion. We shall be ready to conform ourselves to your wishes upon the subject; but we would suggest the desirableness of the discussion being entered on at once, partly because attention to it might now be secured, and partly because in the seriousness and number of our mutual engagements, this controversy should not be allowed to interfere with our other duties and responsibilities longer than is necessary. last. Feb. 14, 1839. We are, Gentlemen, Yours, with respect, JOHN HAMILTON THOM HENRY GILES. To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles. Gentlemen,-I cannot permit our correspondence to terminate without a few remarks on your letter, as published in the Mercury of Friday 1. I regret that the "tone" of my last address should have given you any offence, while I am wholly unconscious of any intention unnecessawritten at least courteously, if not very candidly, upon the subjects which rily to wound the feelings of those who, I am free to admit, have hitherto have been recently submitted to the attention of the public. Allow me as distinctly to disclaim any attempt to charge you with hypocrisy, or make truths." I took occasion merely to express my surprise that persons who seemed so anxious for an impartial hearing of their defence, should a pears to me, that object might have been so satisfactorily attained; and in the exercise of a charity that "hopeth all things," I sought to attribute |