ply," as is expressed in the introduction, "the English reader with a more correct text of the New Testament than has yet appeared in the English language, and to give him an opportunity of comparing it with that in common use." Now so abundant and superabundant have been the notes and commentaries upon the Old Version, that it would seem not a little hard that the editors of the New should be abridged of the privilege of giving along with it what they conceived to be a correct view of the Gospel dispensation, and a true elucidation of difficult passages. And this is nothing more than the maga zine-writer may do whenever he pleases-a liberty of which no one wishes to deprive him. If he be confident that his own beverage is so much more pleasant and wholesome let him prepare it in a similar form, hand it round, and invite every one to taste of it without fearing for the event of a comparison. But how opposite to this his conduct! He first alarms with suspicion, and then in effect he exclaims-" touch not! taste not!-handle not there is death in the cup !—there is treachery in the inscription!" while the only cup he exhibits is the Christian's magazine into which he has an opportunity of straining, drop by drop, a mixture partly lethargick and partly inebriating, which either scares his patients with dreams and terrifies them with visions, or induces them, with their eyes not more than half open, to follow him into real danger.—So much for metaphors !

It is very convenient to have a nickname to apply to those whom it is wished to run down and expose to publick hatred. "Socinian blasphemy" is a phrase so hackneyed that few, if any, will think of inquiring into its meaning-it might not be so well if they did. Suppose, however, we were to rebut the calumny with "Calvinistick Persecution." Whether or not Socinus were a blasphemer is merely matter of opinion; but that Calvin was a persecutor, and pursued with unrelenting cruelty the Antitrinitarian, Michael Servetus, to the stake, is a recorded historical fact. That his intolerance has not perished with him, we have a striking proof in the paragraphs under discussion; but happily the precedent cannot now be carried into practice the venom may remain, but the sting is drawn.

If I am not mistaken in supposing that the writer is one of those who believe and teach the doctrine of the universal and

total depravity of human nature--that it is "utterly averse from all good and prone to all evil, and that continually," there can be no great difficulty in tracing to its origin his present production. According to this system, as he cannot himself be exempted from that imputation under which he conceives the whole species to lie, it was perfectly natural and consistent in him to ascribe to the basest and vilest of motives, an undertaking, upon the face of it benevolent and praise-worthy; and to assume the office of a certain personage, of whom nothing worse can be said than that he is inclined to all evil and that continually that of "Accuser of the brethren."

The obscurity of the concluding lines as to the original author of the supposed treachery, who is said to be "gone to his own place," has, as you know, set many conjectures afloat. I am now inclined to think that Dr. Priestley is intended. If so, the writer will of course wish to keep at the greatest possible distance from him in the other world, and will deprecate the idea of the Doctor's place being his-mutatis mutandis, this may probably be the case.

These remarks have run to a greater length than I was aware of, and yet they are short compared with what they might have been, if every unchristian passion which has entered into the composition of this potion of distilled venom had been extracted and severally commented upon. If the religion of Christ be indeed the truth of God, and the harbinger of peace, love, and good-will among men, is it possible that its cause can be benefitted by a publication of whose spirit this is a specimen ?

Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istiş

Veritas eget.

You are sufficiently acquainted with my disposition to believe that recrimination is no favourite employment of mine, and that it would be much more pleasant to me to discuss controverted points in the spirit of meekness; and where conviction is unattainable, to differ with that charity which becomes the christian and that urbanity which good manners and politeness require--but there are perverse minds upon which these would be thrown away, and gainsayers whom there is no hope of convincing but by judging them out of their own mouth and correcting them with their own rod-a remark that

will not be irrelevant if you make the use of this letter you hinted at, and to which you are perfectly welcome. I remain, Yours sincerely, &c.

Oct. 1810.

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

Extracts from a letter recently written, copied for the Anthology.

"You next inquire for my opinion respecting the temper or spirit manifested by trinitarians in defence of their own sentiments, and in opposition to the views of others. This inquiry, Sir, places me in a delicate situation; for, as I differ from them in opinion, I may be liable to prepossession in judging of the temper with which they speak and write.

You say you are "stumbled in respect to their piety while you discover in them such haughty contempt of other professed christians"; and you ask, "Can such an overbearing, imperious and censorious spirit be consistent with true benevolence and gospel, humility?"

Your inquiry is capable of a twofold answer. That an "imperious, overbearing, and censorious spirit" is in its nature inconsistent with benevolence and gospel humility, must be admitted. But even good men are imperfect in the present state; and what you have noticed in the preaching and writings of some trinitarians may be great imperfections in them, and, yet, they may have some good thing in them which is acceptable to God, and ought to be pleasing to us. Such things as you mention I have noticed and lamented; but I dare not pronounce all those destitute of piety who manifest these imperfections. In respect to many, who evidence these imperfections, I hope and believe that they are the children of God. We are all liable to go astray, and, perhaps, in nothing more frequently, than in opposing the opinions of others and defending our own. It is too common with others, as well as trinitarians, to lose sight of their own fallibility, and the example of Christ, when engaged in controversy.

You observe that "gospel humility naturally leads to a compliance with the apostle's advice, Let nothing be done through strife and vain glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves 66 ; Yet," you add, "the spirit with which many trinitarians defend their own systém seems t

lead them into an opposite course, even to trust in themselves that they are righteous and to despise others." As proof of this you refer to certain authors "who treat all who differ from them in sentiment as the proud and haughty enemies of Christ; who set up their own reason above revelation, and even deny the Lord that bought them."

I shall not, Sir, undertake the task of reconciling the conduct you mention to the nature of christian humility. But I feel most comfortable in my own mind, when I feel most dis-` posed to "hope all things," and to believe that such painful inconsistency does not result from the habitual tempers of those to whom you refer. It is, indeed, difficult to account for such things in those who have, in any measure, learned of him who was meek and lowly in heart. But it may be useful to reflect, that Christ had once occasion to

say to two of his belov

ed disciples, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. These disciples were dissatisfied with the conduct of the Samaritans towards their Lord and Master. And they felt some

Too

inclination to call for fire from heaven as Elias did. much of such feelings is discoverable in some of the writings to which you have referred. But still I hope they are but occasional feelings; and I am persuaded that the writers did not duly consider the temper they manifested. Nor do they, I fear, duly consider that God has committed all judgment to his "beloved Son," and not to them. And I feel happy in the thought that this is the case; for it is pretty evident from what they say in their writings, that not a soul of their opponents would ever be admitted to heaven, if all judgment was committed to them. Yet I flatter myself that even such writers do not always feel of such a bitter, censorious spirit, and that we often see the worst part of a man's character in his controversial writings.

You mention the "reproachful manner in which some preachers and writers allow themselves to speak of their opponents, and of all who differ from them in sentiments," and ask, "What is this reproaching different from that railing or reviling which is so often forbidden in the scriptures?" Here, Sir, I must confess my utter incapacity to discriminate or distinguish; and must join with you in sincerely lamenting that "so mischievous a vice should be sanctioned by such autho

rity; and that the pulpit, which was designed for displaying the kindness and love of God to men, should be occupied as a place for giving vent to malignant passions and prejudices, and for uttering abusive slander." Yet reviting is a fashionable vice; and good men are sometimes led astray by bad fashions. I cannot, however, but remark, how much more amiable preachers and writers would appear, if instead of such censorious and reproachful observations, they were to discover a truly christian tenderness for such as they view in errour; and feel towards them as our Saviour felt towards sinners when he laid down his life for the world! Nor would their characters appear less amiable, if with a tender solicitude for others, they should mix a little spice of self diffidence, and a sense of their own fallibility.

It is to be feared that they, and that we, too seldom think of the solemn admonition of the apostle, "Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we must all stand at the judgment seat of Christ "

You are, I think, perfectly correct in supposing that "such an uncandid and censorious spirit has a pernicious influence.” It unquestionably has a pernicious influence on all who indulge it in themselves. It not only deprives them of much christian comfort which they might otherwise enjoy in the exercise of proper feelings of love and tenderness towards their opponents, but it tends to bar their own minds in respect to receiving any light or conviction, on the supposition, that they themselves are in an errour. By this temper they are naturally led to look down on those who differ from them in sentiment with a kind of imperious disdain, and ungodly jealousy. And these feelings are as contagious as the plague; they are readily communicated from one to another. Preachers communicate them to their hearers, and writers to their readers. These hearers, and readers, having the example of ministers to support and countenance their conduct, feel justified in the most illiberal and abusive reproaches. This spirit has, also, a pernicious tendency in respect to those against whom it is more particularly directed. And we have reason to fear that, in a multitude of instances by this spirit, hatreds are engendered, which are transmitted from generation to generation.