your refusal to a latent and half-formed conviction within you, that your principles, in whatsoever sincerity entertained and professed, might not bear the light of such an investigation as that to which they would have been subjected in a public vivá voce discussion. Where is there any charge of hypocrisy here? May not a man be perfectly sincere in the maintenance of an opinion, which he would nevertheless be very unwilling to defend in oral debate, from a proper apprehension of the force of argument with which it might be encountered, and a secret consciousness of his own slender materials for its support? Be assured it is not necessary for us to brand you with hypocrisy, in order to convict you of heresy. We are willing to give you every credit for honesty of intention and integrity of purpose, while we cannot but suspect that you are fully aware of the difficulty of maintaining the principles of Unitarianism on the ground of an unmutilated and "unimproved" Bible.

Were I equally disposed with you to take offence, I too might inquire, "in solemn sadness, whether it be deserved by us, or edifying to the public mind," that you should more than insinuate, though of course in very polished phrases, that "we have proposed a platform controversy, in order to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to turn away attention from weak points by oratorical artifices." Is this your opinion of us? If we thought so, "we should decline all discussion with you as opponents too discreditable to be identified with a great question, or to be considered as honourable representatives of your own party." But we are not offended. We look upon your language as simply intended to convey an admission that your system is unpopular; one that, from its cold, and cheerless, and unimpassioned character, would seek in vain to enlist on its behalf any measure of popular sympathy, or conciliate any favour unless from those whom it had imbued with its own proud spirit, and accustomed to the low temperature of its own frigid zone.

2. But, gentlemen, while I cheerfully receive the admonition on the "tone" of my address which your letter does contain, I have to complain respecting the answer to a very simple question I had proposed, which your letter does not contain. As I am unwilling to incur the hazard of again offending, I will forbear from more than hinting at the semblance of rhetorical dexterity that appears in your perhaps undesigned turning away of attention from the PRINCIPAL POINT which I had submitted for your consideration, in order to fasten upon me a groundless charge, and so challenge public sympathy in your favour, as men branded with the character of hypocrites, and secretly cognisant of errors which were openly preached as truths. We proposed to discuss with you "the evidence of the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of the holy scriptures." You replied that you do not deny the genuineness," and seek not "to alter the translation of any part of the authorised version," which you prefer to the abandoned version of Mr. Belsham and his associates. You were silent, however, about the INSPIRATION. I ventured to inquire whether I was mistaken in supposing you denied the plenary inspiration of the authorised version? My words were, 'If I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right." In your letter now before me there is not a word upon the subject; no answer to my all-important

CONTROVERSY AT LIVERPOOL.

inquiry. There is a little further disparagement of the "improved version," which, we are told, has been raised into a factitious importance in this controversy;" you will be the first to " abandon it," if it should be condemned by the ordinary principles of critical interpretation-so far so good. But what of the INSPIRATION? Are you either afraid or ashamed to speak out what you think on this subject? I would not that you should be offended at the "tone" of my interrogations; but again I must ask, what are your opinions upon the quality and extent of scripture inspiration? The public are anxiously expecting an answer to this solemn query, and our present correspondence cannot close until it is answered.

will then be clear for our approaching discussion through the press; we shall then understand each other, and shall have reconnoitred and appreciated the character of the field upon which we are to take up our respective positions. You say that "truth is your object," and not "personal championship." Well then, let us have the truth upon Unitarian views of SCRIPTURAL INSPIRATION. All other argument can be

only an unmeaning play of words until this point is settled. We are rejoiced to learn that you are satisfied with " the authorized version," and "the received translation," for the purposes of our present inquiry; and when you shall satisfy us that you admit the full inspiration of all and every part of that volume, we shall be in a condition to inquire whether it presents "ampler and superior Scriptural evidence for Unitarianism than for Trinitarianism." We remember that Mr. Belsham, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise, has said, speaking of the texts usually quoted by Trinitarians in proof of the proper deity of Christ, that "Unitarians pledge themselves to show that they are all either interpolated, corrupted, or misunderstood."-Review, pp. 270, 272. They engage to get clearly rid of them altogether. You, it would appear, have given up the interpolations and corruptions; the misunderstandings, we presume, still remain chargeable against us; but whether on the ground of ignorance, or of mistaken confidence in the inspiration of the we have yet to be informed.

texts in question,

mind that we regard it as opening wide a door for the introduction of infidelity, so to give up any portion of the sacred volume as being not of as to render it doubtful whether any portion does posand thus entirely neutralize the effect of God's mes

You will pardon my anxiety for an answer upon this head, bearing in

inspired authority,

sage of mercy to the minds and hearts of men. sage that authority,

February 18, 1839.

I remain, Gentlemen,

Yours, for the sake of the Gospel,
FIELDING OULD.

To the Rev. Fielding Ould.

a

certain series of subjects as proper topics for the discussion between us, Reverend Sir. You proposed (in your letter of the 5th February) this enumeration we struck out two particulars, viz., the authenticity of and submitted the list to our notice for acceptance or rejection. From

certain parts of the New Testament writings, on the ground that we did not deny your postulates under that head; and the translation of certain other parts of the Scriptures, on the grounds that, with yourself, we prefer, on the whole, the authorized version to all others; that we would not be responsible for any new rendering proposed in the Improved Version; and that, as we have nothing so absurd as a system of translation capable of systematic treatment, any special instances, in which we may think the common translation inaccurate, had better be discussed in connection with the theological doctrines affected by the texts in question.

These subjects being excluded from the list, the rest, comprising the question of inspiration, and the doctrines of your theology, of course stand over for discussion. We said nothing of these, because we had no exception to take against them. As our notice of the others was to effect their removal, our "silence" about these was to secure their admission.

The plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, or, if you really prefer it, (as your phraseology seems to imply,) "the plenary inspiration of the authorized version" remains then as an essential part of our approaching controversy. Why you should complain that we do not step aside with you individually, to render you an account of our belief in this matter, we cannot divine, unless you think that, by tempting us into your confessional by appeals to our conscience, you could impose upon the "heretics" your penance at discretion. If it should be, that this subject is likely to be committed to your hands in this controversy, and you are merely anxious to know betimes what precisely are the positions which you may be called upon to meet, a private communication of your wish would be sufficient. The second lecture of our series will be speedily published, and will furnish the information which you desire.

We are sorry that you discover any want of " candour" in our last letter; and surprised that, this being the case, you can esteem it" courteous. We regard a violation of candour" as the greatest outrage upon "courtesy ;" and despise, above all things, the hollow and superficial manners, which are empty of all guileless affections and Christian sentiments. In saying that you charged us with hypocrisy, we committed no breach of candour, but only the mistake, which we are now happy to correct, of supposing that your language faithfully represented your meaning. That you did not think of the word "hypocrite" when you wrote to us, we cheerfully believe; but that you thought of us as doing that which makes a hypocrite, your own explanation renders more evident than it was before. You attribute to us "a latent and halfformed conviction," that "our principles might not bear the light of investigation," and "a consciousness" of "the difficulty of maintaining them." Now there can be no " difficulty," where the tribunal is wisely chosen, in maintaining any set of opinions, except from the superior force of the antagonist considerations; there can be no "consciousness" of such "difficulty," except from consciousness of this opposing superiority;-to be conscious of a preponderant evidence in favour of any system, is at heart to believe it; and he who believes one system, and publicly upholds another, is, as we interpret the word, a hypocrite. We

CONTROVERSY AT LIVERPOOL.

it; and we think no more of it.

perceive, however, that you made this charge without precisely meaning We disclaim any intention of hinting that you "proposed a platform controversy, in order to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to turn away attention from weak points by oratorical artifices." We simply affirmed, that oral discussion would have afforded a better refuge for our imputed "weakness" than the press. But surely it does not follow that, because the consciously weak might prefer such a method, therefore all who prefer it must be consciously weak. It would, indeed, be a strange mistake of all the symptoms by which the characters of men can be known, if we attributed to you any suspicion that you could be mistaken. You are quite aware that your earnestness appears to us perfectly sincere, and even to transgress the bounds of a modest confidence.

We remain, Reverend Sir,

Yours, with Christian regard,

HENRY GILES.

JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
JAMES MARTINEAU.

February 21, 1839.

To the Rev. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles. Gentlemen, Before we proceed with our proposed discussion, it is necessary to determine, with a little more of accuracy than has been hitherto stated, what our controversy is to be about.

We thought that you, in common with Unitarians generally, acknow. ledged the Scriptures of the New Testament, as contained in what is commonly called "The Unitarian or Improved Version," to be inspired of God, and consequently of infallible truth.

we are compelled to ask what you do acknowledge INSPIRED REVELAThis however you, as individuals, have disclaimed; and, therefore,

TION?

Is our discussion to be,

1. Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of truth?

Or,

2. Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what

is it?

We affirm the inspiration by God of the Holy Scriptures, as con

tained in our

for decision to their ascertained meaning.

authorized canon, and are willing to refer every question

Do you agree in this?

Our standard being known, it is a matter of obvious fairness that we

should ask to have yours stated.

Either you admit the divine inspiration, and consequent infallible truth,

of the Bible,

Or, you so

admit a part, and reject a part. You will be so good as to

or

you do not.

state clearly how this matter stands.

Are you believers in a WRITTEN and INFALLIBLY-ACCURate Revela

TION from God to man?

If so, what is that Revelation?

If you admit only parts of our Bible as inspired, you will oblige us by stating what parts.

The character of the discussion must obviously depend upon this: is it to be a discussion upon EVIDENCE or upon INTERPRETATION? It would be manifestly a waste of time in us to enter upon the interpretation of what you might afterwards get rid of, (so far, at least, as you are concerned,) by declaring it only the opinion of a fallible man. We remain, Gentlemen,

March 4th, 1839.

Yours, for the sake of truth,

HUGH M'NEILE.

FIELDING OULD.

THOMAS BYRTH.

To the Rev. H. M'Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth. Gentlemen,-You ask us, Is our discussion to be,

1. "Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of Or,

TRUTH?"

2.

Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And, if so, what is it?"

We answer, distinctly, that our controversy is upon the meaning, ascertained by INTERPRETATION, of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Should any questions of criticism arise respecting what is the text to be interpreted, these must, of course, be argued separately, upon purely critical grounds.

We conceive that the real controversy between us respects the nature of Christianity itself;-you holding the Revelation to consist in doctrines deducible from the written words; we holding the Revelation to be expressed in the character and person of Jesus Christ, and to be conveyed to us through a faithful and authentic record. Which of these two ideas is Scriptural?-that is our controversy.

Of course, "the standard" by which we must test "the truth" of these ideas is the New Testament, and the Hebrew Scriptures, so far as they throw light on its contents. Whichever view of Christianity is supported by the meaning of this standard, is the true one. The method of ascertaining the meaning of any writings is the same, whether those writings are of natural or of supernatural origin; so that the process of interpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the theory of verbal inspiration. The admission of an "infallible truth" in the Bible (which, however, is known with certainty only to God; for you, after admitting it, are disputing with heretics of your own communion what it is,) cannot alter, in any respect, the true grounds of our controversy. It is a controversy of interpretation, and no theory of verbal inspiration can make it anything else.

This theory, however, we conceive to be altogether fallacious, both in its principles and in its results; and if you wish to make it the sub