ration," the Lord" is the representative of the proper name Jehovah, which was never used but of the true God, and which is as much an appellative as Moses, Isaiah or Jesus; the unity of the Lord is still more obviously a self-evident proposition, and the design must have been to assert that he is the only God, in opposition to the claims of all other pretended deities, and is, therefore, entitled to the whole of the religious affections of all his creatures-to express which sense we must render the words, "The Lord our God, the Lord is the only God;" or, if we please, in two clauses: "The Lord is our God; the Lord is the only God."

SIR,

W. HINCKS.

Clapton, Jan. 19, 1822. OBSERVED, very lately, that Mr. Lindsey, in one of his valuable publications, had adopted, from a modern historian, what appears to me to have been an erroneous, though common opinion, respecting William III. Under this impression he represents that prince as favourable to religious liberty, more justly described as the civil right of all, publicly to profess their religious opinions, however differing from the conclusions of the learned and the inquiring, or from the creeds taught by the priest and the nurse" to that unreflecting multitude, the great and small vulgar.

I refer to Mr. Lindsey's "Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine," published in 1783. At p. 303, my eminently candid friend, still pleased to praise" whenever he could praise conscientiously, repeats Mr. Emlyn's sentiment, that King William was not willing to be made a persecutor," though "this great prince suffered himself to be prevailed upon to pass an act" against Unitarians. This was the Act of 1698, professing "the effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness," but really designing to forbid the publication of their opinions, to all who should impugn, however seriously, the Divine authority of the Scriptures, or deny that they contained the doctrine of a Trinity. Mr. Lindsey sustains his opinion "that the king yielded to pass this Act with reluctance, and through the necessity of the times, from the

following fact," for which he thus quotes "Smollett's History of England, Vol. XIII. p. 319:"

"The Scottish Commissioners who

came up to make a tender of their crown (anno 1689) to King William, (and who were, the Earl of Argyle for the Lords, Sir James Montgomery for the Knights, and Sir Johu Dalrymple for the Boroughs,) being introduced to their Majesties at Whitehall, presented first a preparatory Letter from the Estates, then the Instrument of Government, with a paper containing a recital of the grievances of the jesty to convert the Convention into a nation, and an Address desiring his MaParliament. The King having graciously promised to concur with them in all just measures for the interest of the kingdom, the coronation-oath was tendered to their Majesties by the Earl Argyle. As it contained a cause, importing, that they should root out heresy, the King declared,

that he did not mean by obligations, that he should be under an obligation to act as a persecutor. The Commissioners replying, that such was not the meaning and others present, to bear witness to the or import of the oath, he desired them, exception he had made."

Mr. Lindsey is confirmed in the opinion of King William's liberality by Burnet's remark, (O. T. 1689, Fol. II. 24,) that "when the King and Queen took the oaths, the King explained one word in the oath, by which he was bound to repress heresies, that he did not by this bind himself to persecute any for their conscience." There remains, however, a higher authority on this subject, published in 1697, eight years before Burnet wrote, and in a work compiledexpressly in honour of the king.

The small volume to which I refer, is called in the head lines, "The Royal Almanack," and thus entitled, "Fasti Gulielmi Tertii; or, an Account of the most memorable Actions transacted during his Majesty's Life, both before and since his Accession to the Crown: with the Days, Months and Years wherein the same hapned." Under the date of May 11, 1689, there is an account of the introduction of the Commissioners from the Scottish Convention to the King and Queen, at the Banqueting-house, Whitehall. The King informs the Commissioners, that when he projected the expedition into England, he "had a particular regard and consideration for Scotland."

Probably, according to a recent instance of royal abundance, he had a Dutch, an English, a Scottish, if not an Irish heart. Then, after detailing the ceremony of tendering the coronation oath, as described by Smollett, the Almanack thus proceeds:

"But when the Earl came to this part of the said oath, And we shall be careful to root out all heretics and enemies of the true worship of God, that shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God, of the aforesaid crimes, out of our lands and empire of Scotland,' the King declared that he did not mean by these words that he was under any obligation to become a persecutor. To which the Commissioners, being authorized by the States of Scotland, made answer, that neither the meaning

of the oath, or the law of Scotland, did import it, since by the said law no man was to be persecuted for his private opinion, and that even obstinate and convicted heretics were only to be denounced rebels or out-lawed, whereby their moveable estates were confiscated. Whereupon the King declared again, that he took the oath in that sense, and called for witnesses, the Commissioners and others present."

In a "Preface to the third edition" of his Pastoral Care, written (1713) in his 70th year, Burnet remarks that "the breaches on a man's liberty or goods, are as really persecution, as that which strikes at his person. They may be, in some instances, more uneasy; as a single death is not so formidable, as to be forced to live under great necessities, perhaps with a numerous family." He adds, that, "if we judge of this matter by our Saviour's rule, of doing to others what we would have others do to us, our consciences would soon decide the question; if we will but honestly ask ourselves how we would have those of another religion deal with us, if we were living in countries where we must depart from the legal establishment, if we do truly follow the dictates of

our conscience."

I beg leave to recommend these last thoughts of one who had witnessed so much pretended liberality and real injustice, to any of your readers, if one can yet be found among them, who would leave to the magistrate a cure of souls, or who can contemplate such wrongs as those legally and judicially inflicted on the Carlile family, without blushing for the ignorance or the

hypocrisy, the heads or the hearts, of our State-Christians. Yet, according to King William's definition of persecution, which forms a fine illustration, by contrast, of an Apostle's "royal law, according to the Scripture," though he engaged, by the solemnity of an oath, to denounce, as rebels, all whom the Kirk should declare to be heretics; to expatriate them by an outlawry, and to beggar them, with their families, by a confiscation; yet, after inflicting these sufferings, he was not to "become a persecutor" unless he had persecuted a man "for his private opinion." Such a folly, whatever a crowned head might expect to accomplish, an Inquisitor, I am persuaded, never attempted; convinced, however reluctantly, that the wary possessor of a private opinion might fearlessly defy him to "take vengeance on the mind."

Beheld on the homely page of the mere annalist, and not as adorned by an historian's flattering pencil, William III. was little more than a soldier of fortune, till he received, from a grateful nation, the crown of England, a munificent reward for having driven away his justly despised and deserted father-in-law. A passage of an earlier date in "the Royal Almanack," discovers, that, like other soldiers, he could employ the argument of force in other places besides the field of battle, and that he had landed in England sufficiently prepared to "become a persecutor." At the same time it is mortifying to see, in the author of the Pastoral Care, a political priest, or rather an avant-courier of military outrage; while the extraordinary scene, as I had occasion to remark in another place, exhibits the distressing dilemma of an established clergy placed between a royal authority, to which they had vowed obedience, and the law of the sword which answered their just plea of conscience with the old conclusive argument va victis. "The Royal Almanack," after relating,

Nov. 8, 1688," that "the Prince of Orange made a very splendid entry into Exeter with his army," thus displays (p. 254) the "little triumphs" which immediately succeeded:

"Nov. 9, 1688, Dr. Burnet was sent to the Cathedral of Exeter to order the

priest and vicars not to pray for the pretended Prince of Wales; and the same day his Highness went to the said Cathe

Barter, has not ventured to notice, that Mr. Elwall refers in his "Declaration against all the Kings and temporal Powers under Heaven." I quote his third edition, 1734, pp. 16, 17. He is there addressing Geo. II., whom he had challenged out into James's Park," to settle the question of Christian freedom from civil controul, not bringing his "ugly carnal sword" but "pure spiritual weapons." To his "royal friend," his "Lord and King in all temporal things," Elwall says:

"Thy great predecessor King William, the glorious William, when the priests here, joined by some Dissenters too, solicited him to persecute the Socinians, a people that began to see a few of those moustrous doctrines of trinity, transubstantiation, absolute election and reprobation, infinite satisfaction, imputed righ teousness, making the Most High God, the holy One of Israel, to be a plurality of persons, and making God to have a couple of equals (and some more such jargou as above); but his generous soul, that had breathed in a freer air, gave them this truly Christian and courageous answer, That he would not do the priests

drudgery."

Unfortunately for these fine speeches, attributed to King William with "simplicity and godly sincerity," by a triumvirate of exemplary Christian confessors, before whom too many "names of awe and distance here" will, at least, hereafter "rank with common men;" a plain tale is sufficient to put them down. We read, "Feb. 17, 1698," of "an address of the Commons" to the King "for suppressing all pernicious books and pamphlets containing doctrines against the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articles of faith, and for punishing the authors and publishers." We next learn the conduct of this prince who "was not willing to be made a persecutor," or to "do the priests' drudgery." After a week's consideration, Feb. 24, a proclamation was issued accordingly ;" then follows, "An Act for the more effectually suppressing Blasphemy and Profaneness," inflicting on all Unitarians, as well as Unbelievers, who were not content to enjoy their "private opinion," the penalties of imprisonment and confiscation. (Chron. Hist. I. 291, 292.)

That William III. had not always "suffered himself to be prevailed

upon," but could, on other occasions, freely exercise his prerogative, by objecting to comply with addresses, or to pass bills presented by the Parliament, sufficiently appears from various transactions of his reign. In 1692, he refused the royal assent to a "Bill for frequent Parliaments;" in 1693, to "a Place-Bill;" and in 1694, to "a Bill for free and impartial Proceedings in Parliament;" facts which justify Mrs. Macaulay's remark, in her Letters, on "the History of England," (1779, p. 144,) "that the enlarging civil liberty was not the errand for which William undertook so hazardous and expensive an enterprise as the invasion of England."

Nor, among the royal refusals, can it be easily forgotten that King Wil liam, not willing to be made a persecutor," determined to suppress the inquiries urged by the justly indignant Scottish Parliament, respecting the barbarous massacre of Glencoe. Burnet acknowledges, (O. T. II. 156,) that "the King seemed too remiss in inquiring into it ;" and, (ibid. 162,) that the libellers" (as the exposers of "wickedness in high places" are generally described by courtiers of various moral temperament, from Burnet down to Londonderry) were "furnished with some colours in aspersing the King, as if he must have been willing to suffer it to be executed, since he seemed so unwilling to let it be punished."

Some of your readers can look back, not without pensively-pleasing recollections, to a period, when "the glorious and immortal memory of King William" was annually celebrated by the most enlightened friends of liberty and of human kind. Should those readers, or any others be prepared and inclined to shew that I have ill-appreciated the King's character, and especially that he deserved the commendation of such men as Emlyn, Elwall and Lindsey, I shall thank them for an opportunity of correcting my judgment, on a question of some importance in the British History.

outrage on the consciences of his clerical brethren at Exeter: "1688, Nov. 9. The first thing his Highness did, was to go and pay his grateful acknowledgment to Almighty God, and to cause Te Deum to be sung in the Cathedral Church for his safe arrival. After the Collects were ended, Dr. Burnet began to read his Highness's declaration, at which the ministers of the church, there present, were so surprised that they immediately left their seats and went out; however, the Doctor continued reading, and the declaration being ended, he said, God save the Prince of Orange, to which the major part of the congregation answered, Amen."

P. 1. The Nonconformist" has well chosen, in the Italian Reformation, a subject unacountably overlooked, so far as I have observed, by our ecclesiastical historians. I had occasion to make this remark in Vol. X. of Priestley's Works, where, at p. 290, some of your readers may find a note on the subject.

I there quoted the complaint of Cornaro, on a sober life," in 1549, that opinion Lutherana was one of tre mali costumi which then prevailed in Italy. The other two were l'adulazione, et la ceremonia, and la crapula (intemperance). This, Cornaro attacked, in his Discorsi della Vita Sobria, the English translation of which is a very common book. As to the other two, the noble Venetian fondly predicted, (for he says, son certo,) that some great genius, qualche gentile spirito, would soon appear, to oppose and drive them from society, levarle dal mondo.

whom he quotes, says their executions "resembled the slaughter of calves and sheep."

66

P. 3, col. 2. "John Valdesius or Valdesso," of whom, I think, there is some account in one of your early volumes. Walton, in his 66 Life of Herbert," on the authority of Mr. Farrer, who translated the "One Hundred and Ten Considerations," describes "John Valdesso" as " Spaniard," who "had followed Charles V., as a cavalier, all the time of his long and dangerous wars." At length he resigned his appointments to the Emperor, saying, "there ought to be a vacancy of time between fighting and dying." If this account, which I have also seen in some writer quite as early as Walton, be correct, he was not merely a civilian" and " private secretary" to the Emperor. Yet Sandius, I observe, who claims Valdesso as an Anti-trinitarian, gives no hint of his military character. Young, I see, in his Centaur, (Letter II., on Pleasure,) refers to the story, with some variations, thus addressing a gay assembly: "Ye fine men of rank and parts, a common soldier, (your contempt no doubt,) shall reproach you.' One of them, requesting dismission from Charles V., gave this reason for it: Inter vitæ negotia, extremumque diem oportet aliquod temporis intercedere. Much more inter vitæ voluptates, and our last hour;" as if fighting, were much more rational and praiseworthy than dancing, into death."

In the note to which I have referred, I also mentioned an Italian Testament, printed in 1551, at Lyons, as translated from the Greek; a mode then, I apprehend, peculiar to the Reformers, for whose use, in Italy, it was no doubt designed. I also referred to Clarke's Persecutions, 1651, (pp. 231 -241,) for an account of martyrs in Italy, from 1546 to 1560. A Pupist,

ticular Parts of Learning." I had once the curiosity to examine it at the British Museum.

After proposing" that proper persons be employed to collect from books all real and experimental learning contained in them, in order to facili tate the way to farther improvements," the author recommends that there be instituted Ergastula Literaria, (literary workhouses,) where children may be taught as well to do some,