diversity of sentiment to deaden the activity of personal attachment. I never attempted either to encourage or to discourage his profession of Unitarian principles, for I was happy to see a person of his rank, professing with intelligence and with sincerity Christian principles. If any one thinks that an Unitarian is not a Christian, I plainly say, without being myself an Unitarian, that I think otherwise." Pp. 46, 47. The Doctor published another anonymous letter to the Duke, in the newspapers, protesting against his recommending, as Chancellor, an obscure country gentleman to represent the University in Parliament. As tutor at Trinity College, Dr. Watson had the important office of instructing several young noblemen, amongst whom was Lord Granby, in whose education he says (p. 49), he took singular pains. A correspondence with his lordship is here preserved, which is highly creditable to both tutor and pupil. Lord Granby vows eternal attachment to Whig principles, and Dr. Watson charges him to "be a Whig in domestic as well as political life," adding, that "the best part of whiggism is, that it will neither suffer nor exact domination." P. 54. In November 1775, the University of Cambridge" played the second fiddle to the Tory University of Oxford," in voting an address to the King, approving of the American war. On this occasion Dr. Watson, who manfully exerted himself on the side of peace and liberty, received a letter from the Marquis of Rockingham, which he leaves behind him in this narrative," as one proof amongst a thousand of the Marquis's patriotism and good sense." The letter is, however, the production of a mere politician; while the Doctor's answer is replete with philosophic patriotism. "Let the pensioners and placemen say what they will," writes Dr. Watson," Whig and Tory are as opposite to each other as Mr. Locke and Sir Robert Filmer, as the soundest sense and the profoundest nonsense; and I must always conclude that a man has lost his honesty or his intellect, when he attempts to confound the ideas." P. 57. He concludes his letter with a passage which he himself puts in italics, and on which he makes a short comment: "It is an infatuation in the minister, next to a crime, to suppose that the House of Bourbon, however quiescent and indifferent it may appear at present, will not avail itself of our dissensions in every possible way and to every possible extent; and the moment America is compelled to open her ports and to refuge her distress under foreign protection, there will be an end of our history as a great people." On this he remarks, "How fully this prediction respecting the conduct of the House of Bourbon, was verified by the event, every one knows; and our children will know, whether the other part of it was a groundless prediction." P. 58. Dr. Watson now assumed a decided political character; of what cast and with what effect the following lively narrative will shew: "In 1776, it came to my turn to preach the Restoration and Accession sermons before the University: I published them both, calling the first The Principles of the Revolution vindicated."' "This sermon was written with great caution, and at the same time with great boldness and respect for truth. In London it was reported, at its first coming out, to be treasonable; and a friend of mine, Mr. Wilson, (the late judge,) who was anxious for my safety, asked Mr. Dunning (afterwards Lord Ashburton), what he thought of it; who told him, that it contained such treason as ought to be preached once a month at St. James's.' It gave great offence to the Court; and was at the time, and has continued to be, an obstacle to my promotion. "I knew nothing of either Lord George Germaine or the Archbishop of Armagh; but Mr. Cumberland, Lord George's secretary, told Mr. Higgs, one of the Fellows of Trinity College, with a view of what he said being repeated to me, that these two personages had intended to propose me to the King, for the Provostship of made them abandon their intention?' It I asked what had Dublin University. was answered, your Sermon on the Principles of the Revolution.' I hastily replied, Bid Mr. Cumberland inform his principal, that I will neither ask or (nor) accept preferment from Lord George Germaine, or from any other person to whom these principles have rendered me obnoxious.' The loss of so great a piece of preferment would have broken the spirit of many an academic; and the desire of regaining lost favour would have made him a suppliant to the court for life. It had no such effect on me. The firmness of this reply was too much for Mr. Cumberland's political virtue; for he afterwards, in two sorry pamphlets, shewed himself mine enemy. I call them sorry pamphlets; be cause, though there was some humour, there was no argument in them. "On the first publication of this sermon, I was much abused by ministerial writers, as a man of republican principles. I did not deign to give any answer to the calumny, excepting by printing on a blank page, in subsequent editions of it, the following interpretation of the terms, from Bishop Hoadly's works:-Men of Republican principles-a sort of dangerous men who have of late taken heart and defended the Revolution that saved us.' "Mr. Fox, in debating the Sedition Bill, in December 1795, said, that the measures of the united branches of the legislature might be so bad as to justify the people in resisting the government. This doctrine he had heen taught, not only by Sydney and Locke, but by Sir G. Saville and the late Earl of Chatham; and if these authorities would not suffice, he would refer the House to a sermon preached by Dr. Watson, the present Bishop of Landaff, which in his opinion was replete with manly sense and accurate reasoning, upon that delicate but important subject.' "I had always looked upon Mr. Fox to be one of the most constitutional rea soners, and one of the most argumentative orators in either House of Parliament. I was, at the time this compliment was paid me, and am still, much gratified by it. The approbation of such men ever has been, and ever will be, dearer to me than the most dignified and lucrative stations in the church." Pp. 58-60. The speech of Mr. Fox's, which the Bishop quotes, was one of the richest effusions of patriotism and eloquence which ever flowed from a noble heart. (See Mr. Fox's Speeches, in 6 Vols. 8vo. 1815. Vol. VI. pp. 62 -74.) At this period, when the Whig principle is either forgotten or decried, we think it not useless to refer the reader to this explanation and assertion of it; especially as, with one honourable exception in the See of Norwich, Dr. Watson was the last of our Whig Bishops. [To be continued.] in our last volume [XIJ. 284-289], of the letter in reply to it by Mr. Fox, inserted in the same volume [XII. $33 339], and of a rejoinder to Mr. Fox, which was not admitted into the Monthly Repository; besides a Preface, containing an historical sketch of the progress of religious opinions in this country. 66 The Old Unitarian complains of our refusing to insert his second letter in this miscellany, "except on terms with which he could not possibly comply. The motives," he adds, “ of this rejection are best known to others; been received, having by no means a private communication which has thrown any light upon the subject." (Pref.) Now, as we set some value upon our character for impartiality, we think it right to enable the public to judge of our conduct. We have only to give an history of the affair, without any comment. We admit, then, that the Old Unitarian did send us a second letter for insertion; but having received from some of our friends and correspondents, most respectable for years, talents, character and station, a serious remonstrance against the continuance of the controversy, and perceiving from the complexion of the letter that, if the controversy were continued it must become directly personal, we returned the communication to the writer, with a request that it might be withdrawn. The grounds of our wish were fully explained. Our correspondent seemed to admit the force of our objection, and to be inclined at first to accede to our request. At length, he signified to us that he had new-modelled the letter, leaving out the particulars to which we had objected; and inquired whether we would insert it in its amended form? His concession appeared to call for concession on our part, and we replied in the affirmative, but added that, as the magazine was about to be made up for the month, it must be sent to us on or before a given day. The writer then informed us that he had doubts concerning the publication of the letter; that he had put it into the hands of a friend, on whose judgment he relied, with permission either to hold it back or to forward it; and that, if it did not reach us by a particular day, we might conclude that it was suppressed. Two days after that which had been named, the letter had not been received; and at that time the Editor left home on an absence of several weeks, committing the editorship of the work to a highly-valued and confidential friend, who was to act, as he had most satisfactorily, on former occasions, according to his own discretion. Under these circumstances the delayed letter arrived; and the temporary editor, knowing nothing of any previous correspondence or engagement, and exercising his own judgment upon the communication, determined that its insertion should depend upon the writer's subscribing it with his proper name; this condition was exacted on the ground of its containing personal allusions to a correspondent whose name was given. The Old Unitarian refused compliance, and appealed to the usual Editor, who did not feel himself at liberty, under all the cir cumstances of the case, to reverse his friend's judgment; and hence, the non-appearance of the letter and the Old Unitarian's complaint. The Editors of the Monthly Repository may have erred, but some allowance should be made for them by the Old Unitarian, who is now an Editor himself, and in his first appear ance in that character has, if we mistake not, fallen into an irregularity, by republishing, from this work, Mr. Fox's Letter, without the consent (not to speak more strongly) of that gentleman. After what has passed, it may be thought that we are not sufficiently neutral to sit as censors upon the present publication; but we are too much concerned in the Old Unitarian's charges to be able to refrain from making a few remarks upon his Letters. We can write upon the subject with temper, though we shall be obliged to use the language of serious remonstrance. If we were to denominate the Old Unitarian a respectable writer, we should use a term very inadequate to our sense of his talents. He displays a general elegance and an occasional felicity of style, which prove his thorough acquaintance with the best classical models. And, were we at liberty to refer to him under other signatures in the Monthly Repository and else where, we could point out instances of his great acuteness and power in argument. We say so much to shew that prejudice does not wholly blind us to the merits of this controversy; and we are even disposed to go farther, and admit that the Old Unitarian is really solicitous for the best interests of mankind, and, whatever be his misconceptions and prejudices, has attacked those whom he terms "New Unitarians," with no other view than that of protecting and promoting Christianity, pure and unadulterate. But, with this concession, truth requires us to say, that we think that he has hazarded vague and unwarrantable charges, and that his proofs, in all that is of moment, are merely uncharitable surmises. The radical fault of the Old Unitarian's letters is his employment of undefined terms, which at once allow the enemies of Unitarians to quote him as an evidence against his brethren, and at the same time prevent them from meeting and refuting his accusations. Who, as Mr. Fox asks, are the "New Unitarians?" If they be persons in whom all the Old Unitarian's marks are found, we boldly assert, that they are the creatures of his own imagination; if they be persons in whom any one mark is found, then nearly the whole body of the avowed Unitarians of the present day will be brought under the designation, and must answer for all the sin which it denotes, and not only the Unitarians of the present day, but the majority of those likewise that have existed within the last fifty years, including Estlin, Toulmin, Lindsey and Priestley. The correctness of this statement will appear by a detail of the Old Unitarian's charges, compared with Mr. Fox's replies and the Old Unitarian's rejoinders. The charges are fire in number. signal act of justice were passed at The second charge is, that the New Unitarians are disposed to inflict persecution, and the proof is that they make use of bigoted and intolerant language; "not content with thinking Unitarianism a good thing, they will have it that there is nothing good besides." The charge is denied by Mr. Fox, who challenges the Old Unitarian to produce a single writer or preacher who has advanced the above position. The Old Unitarian retorts upon Mr. Fox some phrases of his own, culled from his sermon before the Unitarian Fund. These, taken from their connexion, may have a barsh sound, but they cannot be fairly quoted out of that connexion. By this mode of citation, the Old Unitarian represents Mr. Fox as denominating Calvinism "a curse," when the preacher only says that it is "sometimes a curse," and points out a few examples" of his meaning. The charge of "self-complacency," "self-admiration" and "self-adoration," which the Old Unitarian founds upon Mr. Fox's sermon, for no other reason that we can perceive than that the preacher exhibits the character of the apostle Paul as a model for imitation, is not a happy instance of the superiority of the Old to the New Unitarians in the treatment of an opponent. In truth, all Christians, whether Trinitarians or Unitarians, and all Unitarians, whether Old or New, are liable to the charge of using harder language than the occasion justifies, and had the Old Unitarian only warned his brethren against a common error, instead of framing an accusation against "these Galileans," as "sinners above all the Galileans," we should have regarded him as a peacemaker and not as an accuser. He might, by his process, convict of persecution the charitable Priestley and even the mild Lindsey. Nay, we suspect that he might by a rigid scrutiny of his own publication, reduce himself to the necessity of pleading guilty to the charge of verbal intole rance.* The third charge is, that the New Unitarians undervalue "purity and *The Old Unitarian will not, we are sure, plead for discarding all decency of language with regard to New Unitarians; but he will be at a loss to reconcile with his own sense of propriety the passage (Letters, p. 13), where, describing the very great injury and disgrace" done "to the cause" by the Provincial Unitarian Associations, he speaks of "the tongues of not a few controversial coxcombs" being "let loose." If, however, the demerits of the New Unitarians justify hard epithets, Calvinists and Churchmen are by his own shewing entitled to toleration; but what would the former say to his representation of their system as almost excluding infinite benevolence from the divine perfections (Pref. p. xii.), to his pronouncing the general disposedness to what is termed "Evangelical religion," to be a "hastening back to the regions of implicit faith, of intolerance and of other beggarly elements" (Pref. p. xviii.), aud, above all, to his declaring that "Insanity has been either a pre-disposing cause of partiality for" "Calvinistic or (as they are called) Orthodox doctrines," "or the effect of too warm an attachment to them" (Pref. p. xxviii.): and what would the latter say to his scheme for "sweeping out the rubbish and defilements which disgrace the national church" (Letters, p. 18), or to his portraying the following" prominent and characteristic features" in the clerical body; "fixed abhorrence of Unitarianism,' "abusive language," "designed and deliberate misrepresentations," p. xxii)? They might say, as the Old "disingenuity" and " meanness" (Pref. Unitarian says, in the next page, but their intru would be his extra, and their extra would shut him out equally with his younger brethren, Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra. correctness of life and manners," palliate "licentiousness" and represent "crimes" "as objects of pity rather than of abhorrence." These are the Old Unitarian's words. Proof he adduces none. Mr. Fox replies in dignantly that the charge is unfounded. In his rejoinder the Old Unitarian softens or rather alters the charge: he alleges here (Letters, p. 56), "that the New Unitariaus are disposed to contend that the only morality and piety deserving regard, is inseparably connected with their own views of religious truth:" and in proof of his position he quotes a passage from Mr. Fox's sermon, "which claims for the virtue of Unitarians a superiority over that of orthodox Christians"! The charge might have been preferred against Dr. Priestley as a Necessarian, and proved from his dedication of his book on Necessity to Dr. Jebb. But what has this to do with the original charge, which, if true, convicts the New Unitarians, whoever they be, of doctrines and habits which all good men must execrate, and which, if false, (and true or false it must be,) ought surely to have been openly retracted, with a confession of its gross and cruel injustice. How would the Old Unitarian feel, if, in order to inflame the passions of the public and to counteract some liberal measure or to justify some instance of intolerance, this very passage should be hereafter quoted, as the character of the New Unitarians drawn by one of their elder brethren? Why has he not put his abandonment of the charge upon record, that we may appeal to it in our own vindication? Or does he still maintain it? If so, let him point out the Antinomians of our sect, for we have never even heard of them. The Necessarians have been reproach. ed with this character, but the Old Unitarian need not be told that they, equally with the New Unitarians, smile at the reproach. We are convinced that, at least, he will not repeat this charge against the New Unitarians.* Though the charge of conniving at immorality no longer stands as one of the numbered articles of the indictment against the New Unitarians, it is again preferred with some mitigation in the Third Letter, pp. 49, 50. Having quoted a just obserration of Mr. James Yates's, that a rising The fourth charge against the New Unitarians is that of excessive zeal, sect is likely to contain a larger proportion than of those who are devoted to the prac of men intent upon speculative principles, tical application of their principles, he proceeds to say, "Now I apprehend it to be an incontestable fact that some of the best men among modern Unitarians have suffered their theological zeal so to impair their moral perceptions and feelings, and have been so captivated with talents, energy and intrepidity, when found united with a similar zeal, that they have not declined a cordial union with persons thus animated and thus endowed, although licentiousness both in principles and prac tice may have thrown a deep shade over their characters." The sect deserves all the Old Unitarian's invectives, if such have been the conduct of some of its "best men." The "incontestable fact" rests however upon no other evidence than the anonymous writer's apprehension. Our acquaintance with "Modern Unitarians" is probably as intimate as his own, and we accusation is utterly groundless, and that say, without fear of contradiction, that the no instance can be found of open immorality amongst their members, not being visited by the prompt and decided disavowal of all religious communion and connexion. One of the laws of the Unitarian Fund was expressly framed for the sake of meeting this case. And it may surprise the Old Unitarian to hear that one of the Unitarians relates to Church Discipline, amicable controversies amongst modern those who contend for its introduction resting their plea upon the necessity of some more decisive means of disowning an unworthy member than are possessed under the lax government of the Old Unitarian churches, by an unworthy member, meaning always not a heretic but a transgressor of the rules of Christian virtue. On the other side, the argument is, that the inthe force of opinion too strong in favour of stances of unworthiness are too rare, and virtue, to require a Church to assume the power of excommunication, which has been so often and fatally abused. The qualifying epithets of some, &c., which abound in the Third Letter, lead us to suspect that the Old Unitarian's charges, in so far as they are serious, refer to some single case; it would be curious if further explanation should shew that the individual instance no more appertains to New Unitarians than to Old. We throw out this suspicion, not so much to defend the Unitarians, as to enable the Old Unitarian to relieve his mind of those apprehensions concerning his brethren, which must be exceedingly painful; although certainly |