The "impious and mercenary pen" of Milton, and Charles, "the best of princes, best of men," are poetic fancies, equally amusing. Yalden, who died in 1736, aged 65, had been a contemporary, at Magdalen College, Oxford, with Addison and Sacheverell, adhering to the political principles of the latter. In the heaven of Court-Divines and Poets, Kings, or Protectors, when Kings could not be found, have always shone as stars of the first magnitude. Thus Sprat, who, as a young collegian, in 1658, while hopeless of the return of royalty, chaunted the praises of the deceased Cromwell, "the subject of the noblest pens and most divine phansies," was ready, as a grateful Bishop, to celebrate, in a mournful Pastoral, the Apotheosis of Charles II. How dif. ferent a place was discovered by the uncourtly Quevedo, in one of his Visions, for "all the Kings that ever reigned." Grotius too, in his Votum pro pace, as translated in 1652, quotes for a "true saying," that "all good [N the number for Feb. 1813, Vol. I viti. p. 110, a curious & Quaker Creed" is given with some judicious remarks on it by "N. C.," in order to shew your readers "what sort of a Trinity it is, which at least some highly accredited members of this Society profess to believe." He was furnished with it " by a Friend," who had, it seems, questioned his right to consider himself a Christian, "because he was understood not to believe in the Divinity of Christ." Your correspondent replied, "that if by divinity was meant, divine commission and authority, he believed it as firmly as any person"-but that if this term meant, "essential Deity, equality with the Father," he did not conceive "that any person could prove such a doctrine from the scriptures." The friend "declined entering into any explanations," observing, "that it was not the practice of their Society to engage in theological controversy." But in return for Dr. Priestley's Appeal, and Elwall's Trial, he furnished" N. C." with the said. "Quaker Creed," which the latter sent for insertion in your Journal. It does not, as he remarked, even hold the doctrine of " a mere modal Trinity," explicitly disavowing the idea of "three persons, or essences," in the Deity. That in short, like other modifications of the Sabellian scheme it only supplies "a pretence for the [partial] use of orthodox language, while the real doctrine is strictly Unitarian." Yet has this Creed been lately republished, verbatim, by an accredited Elder in the Society of Friends, Wilham Alexander, of York, in his "Annual Monitor, for the year 1816," with this commentatory preface: THE following explanation of the Unity of the Divine Being was found in MŠ. a few years ago, bearing the marks of not being a very modern production; but without any clue by which to disco Mr. Gilchrist in Reply to A. A. ver the author. Its coincidence with the sentiments of the Editor induced him to request a copy of the individual amoug whose papers it was found, and he trusts it will not be less pleasing to many of his readers. "The words, in the general, are placed in brackets, being an addition which he has ventured to insert; as he does not conceive by the tenure [tenor] of the whole piece, that the author intended so unqualified a restriction of the several appellations as his words may otherwise possibly imply.” To enable your readers to judge of this singular piece of conjectural criticism, I will subjoin the paragraph to which it relates, with the intended amendment, viz. "The different appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are, nevertheless, not to be used indifferently or indiscriminately one for another, because [in the general] they are properly and consistently used only, as this one Supreme, Self-existing Essence is considered in different points of view.” I have put the above word only in italics, as Wm. Alexander seems to have overlooked its import, and because the passage is absolutely incompatible with the construction he would put upon it. His criticism reminds me of the groundless and fanciful notion of a worthy man, and a reputedly orthodox divine, who being closely pressed with scriptural proofs, that prayer should only be offered to God the Father, admitted that in the general, such was the duty, and had always been the practice of Christians; but nevertheless contended for the propriety of sometimes addressing prayer to Christ in cases of peculiar emergency! The above and every other modification of the Sabellian bypothesis, that I have seen, asserts that there is "but one true God," as all Christians agree, and also that this Supreme Being does not consist, as all Trinitarians affirm, of" three distinct persons," and is so far sound and scriptural. As it is also, in representing this one true God, as the "first Cause of all things, from whence the whole universe derives its origin and existence," the proper Author of all temporal and spiritual blessings. When, however, it declares that "the different appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," are essentially and identically one and the same, each signifying the true God, my reverence for the authentic records of the Christian Revelation induces me to withhold my assent. I cannot find that they contain any such doctrine. And although the author of this Creed, like other Sabellians, uses such very incorrect language, it is obvious he felt the necessity of distinguishing those "different appellations" from each other, and that he exclusively ascribed the creation and existence of all things both animate and inanimate “to God the Father." The first part of this Creed is purely Sabellian. If the second part concerning the Son is pure Quakerism, N. C.'s correct observation that not a word is used under this head "that can be supposed to have the remotest reference to the history, doctrine, death or resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ," is well worthy the serious attention of its members, and especially of Wm. Alexander, the publisher and patron of this Creed. Recommending it to their notice, I am, sincerely yours, Newington Green, Feb. 6, 1816. SIR, YOUR last number ( (p. 16,) contains animadversions on a Sermon of mine, to which I deem some reply necessary. Such animadversions may not be unprecedented, but they are rather unusual, and I conceive hardly. justifiable. Is it not enough that authors be subjected to the judgments and decisions of anonymous reviewers without the privilege of appeal or reply? Must they also be exposed to the attacks of anonymous letter-writers? There are several circumstances connected with the indictment in question not very creditable to him who drew it up. He is an officious accuser. For the same reason that he writes reprehensively of me or of my publications a thousand others might do so; but I do not suppose that he has an ex-officio commission to put himself forward as accuser-general. He says that "there can be but one opinion" respecting my Sermon; but for that very reason the publishing of his opinion was uncalled for and unnecessary, I would not hastily suspect or impute bad motives; but 1 must be permitted to say that there is some appearance of envy about his strictures. He indirectly confesses it was the character given of the sermon as "acute, able and eloquent," that provoked his reproaches; and without considering the abatement made in the concluding remarks of the Review, he reluctantly and grudgingly admits of any excellence by saying, "whatever may be thought of the argument which, though clear and simple, does not strike me as peculiarly ingenious or novel." If this be not the language of envy it is so very like it as to be in danger of misleading common understandings. I have a higher opinion of the talents of the wiiter than to suppose he cannot rise to honourable distinction by the native buoyancy of his own genius; or that he must attempt to pull down the reputation of surrounding talents lest his own should be overshadowed and concealed. But why does he not abstain from the very appearance of ignoble motives? He complains loudly and bitterly of uncourteousness and uncharitableness; yet he can be very uncourteous and uncharitable in his turn; which is something like (to use an old vulgar saying) Satan reproving sin. In the small space of a short letter the reader will find a great many hard words (though the arguments be soft and slippery) well barbed with personal reflections. In this respect, at least, the accuser has outdone the accused; and I hope to convince him that how ever hot and violent I may be when I have no one human being in view, I can use the gentlest words in the English vocabulary when repelling a personal attack. I do not object to the words applied to me or to my sermon they are as truly respectable as the hypocritical misnomers and slavish inuendos rendered to the arbitrary laws and despotic fashions of modern etiquette are mean and contemptible. But I have a right to meet people on the ground which themselves have chosen, and to demand consistency between their professions and their practice. I am sorry to speak unhandsomely of one, who gives himself the airs of a gentleman; but I must tell the unprovoked assailant in question, that he does not come forward as an honourable chal lenger, but rather attacks in the manner of one whom I shall not name, lest I should be be uncharitable enough to shock his ears and hurt his delicacy; for he need not be told what class of men wear a mask and shoot from ambush. There is a sort of wild justice and generosity to be met with at times even among them; but was it just or fair in your correspondent to pretend he was criticising my sermon when he was only quoting from the notes appended to it? I am unwilling to consider his ingenious, original and classical allusion of the philosopher's tub in the light of splendid poverty. It is always easier to repeat than to invent; but he is surely not necessitated after such a wide range of reading to bedeck his compositions with the worn-out finery of fabulous traditions. Does he really believe in the Tale of a Tub? Did it never occcr to him that Diogenes was calumniated like our own Hobbes; and that merely because he had sagacity to discern and courage to ridicule the nonsense of such popular philosophers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the holy trinity of classical idolatry? But these are only circumstances— let us come to the matter of the indictment. It may be resolved into uncourteousness, uncharitableness and contemptuousness. The ears of your correspondent have been long accustomed to the language of scripture, else they would be shocked with the specimens of Christian courtesy which might be selected from the speeches of Christ and his apostles. I intend no reproach to his understanding by remarking that, it is of great importance to reflect carefully on the nature of things and meaning of words; especially on such words as are ever sounding in our ears; for without much attention, our roting begets a silly habit of repeating after repeaters as the jay chattereth English. Charity (as I understand the term) means benevolence; and therefore to the charge of uncharitableness I plead not guilty; for I sincerely wish those whose opinions differ from mine all the blessings of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. But, if, as suspect, your correspondent means by charity, what the French (from whom we borrowed it) call the art of pleasing and the art of liv Mr. Gilchrist in Reply to A. A. ing, I glory in being uncharitable; and in setting all the petty ordinances of the modern idol at defiance. If your correspondent wishes to go into the merits of bienséance and courtesy (of the same origin with courtesan) I am prepared to give my reasons for verging towards the opposite extreme from that of the fashion; and what will probably have more weight with his judgment, I am prepared to back those reasons with high authorities; for though I do not borrow my opinions they are not quite so singular as some readers may suppose. Your correspondent ought to have sagacity enough to discern that the objectionable matter in the notes added to my sermon, is a literary rather than a theological question. Whether he perceived this and did not think proper to notice it, but chose rather to speak of the odium theologicum, is not for me to determine. As, however, he glories in belonging to the dwarfish age of smooth, courtly petits maitres, he might have been expected to repel the violent attack made upon its tender delicacy and accomplished refinement. But I am contemptuous. Towards whom am I contemptuous? The only living author named by me is Robert Hall; but so far from contempt, I have the highest admiration of his splendid talents and pre-eminent genius; and would rather read a volume of his writings than a page of the dull censors' of faults which they have not talent enough to commit. Your correspondent will not assert that I have expressed any contempt for the other names introduced; and to these I could add, if not a multitude, at least a goodly number of authors for whom I have the greatest esteem and affcction. I am not conscious of expressing contempt towards that numerous and respectable body of the people who are of the orthodox faith. I am persuaded that there is as much intellectual dignity and moral worth among them as in the Catholic church of Orthodox Unitarians. The question then returns-towards whom am I contemptuous? I will tell your correspondent- -sciolists, witlings and pretenders of all descriptions, who have the vanity and presumption to write on subjects while they know not what they say nor whereof they affirm. Whatever sub 91 ject I may have to treat of, I shall certainly not spare the insect generation of scribblers; for I would rather bear the marks of their displeasure than have the hum of their approbation. There are many Trinitarian believers for whose understanding as well as character I have the greatest respect; but none who know how to argue would attempt to support the doctrine of the Trinity by argument. Bacon was of opinion that reason ought not to be employed about the mysteries of the church; and one of the ablest reasoners and most eloquent writers among the orthodox in the present time has been frequently heard to say, that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be supported by argument. It is highly improbable that ever I shall write or publish on that subject again; and whatever your correspondent may say about disgusting affectation, or ridiculous vanity, I can once more declare that I do think it a degrading task to have to reason with third-rate mystical declaimers. I have already wasted more time than the occasion called for; and shall conIclude with a remark or two on the object of your correspondent's letter. He must have intended to correct the offender-or simply to punish him-or thirdly, to proclaim to the Catholic church of orthodox Trinitarians, that though the Catholic church of orthodox Unitarians, might through the laxness of her discipline harbour such a daring heretic, yet that he was rather tolerated than approved. As to the first purpose, your correspondent has written very unhappily and unsuccessfully; and though he says something about conciliating and pleas ing, I fear he will be an unsuccessful candidate for the reward promised by his supreme holiness in the Vatican to the best prize-essay on that important subject. But perhaps he did not wish to conciliate but to irritate; and despairing of correcting, hoped simply to punish. Being a gentleman of exquisite delicacy and courtly accomplishments he thought, perhaps, that dull admonition and pointless satire are the most effectual meaus of refined torture; for the blunter the instrument the longer it is of dispatching the victim. I confess my pride is deeply wounded to think that your correspondent should suppose me unworthy of acute pains and costly ce remonies; or that such musty, murdered metaphors as abortions of genius, red-hot ashes, and old philosophers' tubs were good enough for me. I thought I had written better than to deserve such scoruful treatment; and though I have not seen the Sermon in question since the last proof-sheet passed through my hands, I begin to think it deserves to be committed to the flames. But finally-if it was the holy, catholic purpose of your worthy correspondent to inform the church of orthodox Trinitarians that the church of orthodox Unitarians does not approve of my sermon-he might have surely saved himself the trouble of writing a letter. I was conscious of peculiarity and singularity in my style; and took care to inform the public that I was not the organ of the Unitarian Church, and that all the faults of manner and spirit in my composition were ascribable and charge able to me alone. Your correspondent is no doubt a most charitable Christian and refined gentleman; but perhaps some of your readers will think his sense of honour is not very high-mettled which suffered him to make an attack upon the manner and spirit of a sermon after the above declaration from the author. JAMES GILCHRIST. Moreton Hampstead, Feb. 8, 1816.. T seems to me, that it was not necessary for your correspondent J. P., p. 14, of your number for January last, to make a profession of his faith, however correct it may be, in seeking information on the subject of Sunday Tolls. Our highway acts have nothing to do with the faith, but only the passing of travellers: and to know who is to pay, and who is exempted, on Sundays, he must consult the local Act under which the gate has been erected, at which toll is demanded of him, or the table, which is, or ought to be, hung at the gate, containing the tolls and exemptions. The Act, under which the road which passes by my door has been made says, in the clause of exemptions," No toll shall be demanded, of or from any person or persons going to or returning from his, her or their proper parochial church or chapel, or other place of religious worship on Sundays, or any other day on which divine service is ordered by authority to be celebrated, or going to or returning from attending the funeral of any person who shall die and be buried in any of the parishes in which the said road lies, &c." But all other persons, travelling on the said road on Sundays, are obliged to pay double toll, even though they attend public worship in the church of the parish where the gate stands, if it be not their proper and usual place of attending the said worship. So that a persou in a chaise and pair, passing to attend in our church, or any Dissenting place of worship in this or any other town (for we make no invidious distinctions of denominations) from or into a parish in which our road does not lie, must pay a toll of two shillings, though on other days he passes for one shilling. This double toll has been provided because it was thought that such as travel for amusement on the Lord's Day can afford such payment for the benefit of the road. The regulations of other local Acts may be ditierent, and therefore reference should be had, as before observed, to the Act under which the gate alluded to by J. P. was erected. Were all Acts worded as the clause above extracted, I should hope no person would think of demanding from a Dissenter a toll to which a Churchman is not liable. And if there be any Act which exempts the latter and not the former, it must be owing, I should think, to the neglect of Dissenters at the time of passing it; and they must bear it with patience until the next time of renewal, which cannot be obtained without their knowledge, unless it be again their own fault. At the meeting of the trustees which is called to prepare for such renewal, they should appear, aud make their claim to the same exemption as others, and without doubt they will prevail: but if they should not, they should by their counsel in parliament, petition for it, or against the renewal of the act,-and surely they cannot fail of full redress. J. J. |