ART. I.-Three Letters addressed to the Ven, and Rev. Francis Wrangham, M. A., Archdeacon of Cleveland, in Reply to his Remarks on Unitarianism and Unitarians, contained in his Charge to the Clergy of his Archdeaconry. Delivered in July, 1822. By C. Wellbeloved. Second Edition. York, printed. Sold, in London, by Longman and Co., and by R. Hunter. 1823. 8vo. pp. 154.

"W New Testament, with regard WHAT are the doctrines of the

to the person and pre-existence of Christ, is the grand controversy of the day; a controversy that is warmly agitated, and which is not likely to be soon brought to a conclusion." This remark was submitted to the public in 1788: nor is the fact which gave occasion to it, much less observable at present. We shall hereafter say a few words on the causes and probable consequences of such a state of things. Our immediate duty is to place before our readers a view of the contents of one among the most valuable polemical tracts with which it is our lot to be acquainted.

In July 1822," the Ven. and Rev. Francis Wrangham," Archdeacon of Cleveland, addressed to his clergy a Charge, which has called forth these animadversions from Mr. Wellbeloved, Every minister, nor least every dignitary of the Established Church, must, in justice and candour, be supposed to exercise a cordial faith in the Artieles to which he has subscribed. If Archdeacon Wrangham, therefore, had contented himself with any thing like a fair vindication of his creed; had his charge and the notes appended to it been worthy of his reputation for learning and talents; had they exhibited the result of his own investigations of the writings of Unitarians, stated in a truly Christian spirit, his pamphlet would certainly have passed without rebuke from the gentleman who now stands forward as his censor.

Mr. Wellbeloved would then have honoured him as a Christian pastor, duly watchful over his flock: he would have gladly acknowledged for him a warm and sincere respect. Unhappily for the Archdeacon's credit, the Charge which his opponent notices in these first "Three Letters," is the very reverse of whatever becomes the character of the scholar, the gentleman, and the Christian: and Mr. Wellbeloved's painful duty is publicly to accuse and to endeavour to convict representation. Pp. 1–3. him of unfairness, illiberality and mis

The reluctance of the writer of the "Three Letters" to undertake this

task, is not simply personal: he apprehends (though in the second edition he gladly acknowledges the failure of his apprehensions), that his performance will receive little attention from those for whose information it is principally designed. Pp. 3-5.

Mr. Wellbeloved reduces the subjects of his antagonist's Charge, Appendix and Notes, to something like methodical arrangement, and brings them, in a general view, under two heads. First, what the Archdeacon of Cleveland alleges against Unitarians and their creed. Secondly, his defence of that part of the creed of the Established Church, which relates more particularly to the doctrine of the Trinity. Guided in his own remarks by this leading division, our author, in the first place, endeavours to repel the accusations which the Archdeacon has with no sparing or lenient hand brought against Unitarian Christians. Pp. 5, 6.

This dignitary seems fond of even the language of warfare. Before he advances to his most serious and formidable attack, he indulges in what he calls lighter skirmishings. He objects to the appellation assumed by his adversaries: the title of Unitarians he will not allow them to use; nor will he even admit that they are a Christian sect. Nay, he asserts, after Bishop Burgess, that they reject the Christian doctrines in omnibus. This is not sufficient. He speaks of Unitarians as 66 sciolists and schismatics,

wretched partisans, teachers ill-informed and perverse, writers who betray a shallowness as to theological criticism, and whose works are a nauseating crambe recocta." These are some of the lighter skirmishings of Archdeacon Wrangham! To the same class may perhaps be referred his censure of Unitarians for claiming the association of great names, those of Newton, Locke, Watts, Paley, Bishop Watson, &c., upon the slightest pretexts. Pp. 6-12.

These several topics Mr. Wellbeloved discusses in the compass of the first of his Three Letters: and he discusses them with admirable intelligence, judgment, temper and effect. While he points out the variance of his antagonist's language with good sense, good taste, good manners and the genuine Christian spirit, he exposes the weakness of the ground on which his assertions rest, and the injustice and self-contradiction of his charges and insinuations. We particularly invite the attention of our readers to what the author of the "Three Letters" has written concerning the theological sentiments of the very distinguished men whose names we have copied.

Newton and Locke "both placed themselves in circumstances, as theological writers, in which, had they believed in the doctrine of the Trinity, they could scarcely have refrained from avowing that belief." But for withdrawing those truly great men from the ranks of orthodoxy we have more substantial reasons than their silence. No Trinitarian, we are confident, could say of the baptismal formula what Sir I. Newton has said,"That it was the place from which they at first tried to derive the Trinity." We have, moreover, the direct testimony of Mr. Hopton Haynes, Deputy Assay Master of the Mint, under Sir I. Newton, with whom he was intimately acquainted. He unequivocally declared that Sir I. Newton did not believe in the pre-existence of Christ; that he disapproved of Dr. Clarke's Arianism, and expressed his firm conviction, that the time will come, when the doctrine of the incarnation, as commonly received, shall be exploded as an absurdity equal to transubstantiation. The testimony of Mr. H. Haynes cannot justly be sus

pected, and it can be disproved only by Sir I. Newton's papers, in possession of a noble family, who might, no doubt, be persuaded to lend their aid in supporting the orthodoxy of this illustrious person, if it were in their power. When to these considerations we add the fact, that Sir I. Newton addressed letters to Le Clerc on the spuriousness of 1 John v. 7, and on the true reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, who can with justice question his Antitrinitarianism? Pp. 12-14.

As to Mr. Locke, can it be thought possible, that if he had been a believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, no intimation of it would appear in his commentary upon so large a portion of Paul's epistles, or in his work on the "Reasonableness of Christianity"?The attempt of Archdeacon Wrangham to prove the orthodoxy of this celebrated person, is ably refuted by the author of the "Three Letters;" of the weight of whose arguments our readers will judge from the following passages.

In reply to the venerable dignitary's reasoning from the phraseology employed by Mr. Locke, his antagonist says, (p. 15,) "Here is your syllogism: Mr. Locke speaks of the mysteries of salvation; the moral precepts are not mysteries of salvation; ergo, Mr. Locke speaks of the doctrine of the Trinity, Atonement, &c., and was a Trinitarian.-Had a Unitarian argued in this inconsequential manner, he would have met with little mercy at your hands; and, in truth, he would have deserved little."

The Archdeacon of Cleveland has not referred to the place where Mr. Locke expressly speaks of "the mysteries of salvation." On the other hand, the Rev. Gentleman's opponent points to texts in Paul's epistles, which fully shew the scriptural import of the word mystery; texts + which Locke has well explained, and the learned dignitary misapprehended.

Mr. Locke, in one of his letters to Limborch, (dated Oates, January 6, 1700,) informs his correspondent of the high estimation in which some persons held Allix's " Judgment of

the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians," of their persuasion that it was a death-blow to Unitarianism; and, without giving even a hint of his own opinion on the subject, he expresses his desire of receiving aid and information from every quarter, in his searches after truth. Hence Archdeacon Wrangham would infer, that in Locke's opinion, Allix had really succeeded in his attempt. Let us hear Mr. Wellbeloved, in answer:

"Because some thought that the cause of the Unitarians was lost, that all their arguments were overthrown, and orthodoxy firmly established, are we to conclude that Mr. Locke thought so? He does not give even a hint to his learned correspondent of his own opinion on the subject. How, indeed, could he, when he had formed no opinion; not having been able, as he says, though he had bought the work of Allix as soon as it appeared, to find either health or leisure to read it?

This important fact, which is stated in the sentence immediately preceding that which you have quoted, you have not noticed. Permit me to supply this defect. Allixii librum quam primùm prodiit coêmi animo legendi, sed otiose hactenus præ manibus jacuit, necdum sive per valetudinem sive per alias avocationes legere licuit, spero propediem pinguius et fructuosius otium. Quid de eo audias interim mihi dicas. Quidam apud nos,'* &c. From this passage, therefore, your cause derives no aid."

Nor from the omission of such a passage does the present advocate of that cause derive any honour. The inadvertency (and inadvertency we must take it to be) is not a little censurable. We rejoice that the defect has been so well supplied by Mr. Wellbeloved.-Pp. 14-20.

The question, if we are still to call it a question, respecting the theological creed of Dr. Watts, towards the end of his life, is accurately canvassed in this part of the first of the "Three Letters." We are highly pleased with the author's notice of the article on this most excellent man in the General Biographical Dictionary. For the valid reasons which he assigns, he hesitates in submitting to the late Dr. Aíkin as an umpire in the dispute. The memory of that deeply-regretted individual will not cease to be honoured for his very estimable and

* Familiar Letters, (1708,) p. 457.

amiable qualities as a man: nor can he be forgotten as an eminently pleasing and instructive writer, in the class of miscellaneous literature. Theolo gical works, however, were not at all according to his taste: and it is doubtful whether he had a competent acquaintance with those of Watts. Dr. Lardner, on the other hand, not only had the best means of information concerning what Mr. Wellbeloved correctly states as being something beyond a matter of mere opinion," but possessed, moreover, exactly the habits and attainments which qualified him for judging of the fact: and his testimony is, that Watts's last thoughts were completely Unitarian. Pp. 20–30.

"I am not aware," remarks the writer of the "Three Letters," "that Watson, Paley, and Sir William Jones, have been generally, or with any degree of confidence, claimed by us." To such a claim we also are strangers. Mr. Wellbeloved's observations on some of the productions of Watson and of Paley, and on the sentiments of Dr. Wallis, and of other modal Trinitarians, well deserve the regard of the reader for their correctness, strength and pertinency. Addressing the Archdeacon of Cleveland, he says,

"I do not wonder that you dislike to be reminded of the ever-memorable contest at the end of the 17th century:yet the evident irritation under which you exclaim, 'Why am I to be harassed with the squabbles of South and Sherlock?' does not well accord with the dignity of your station and character. The controversy of which you have spoken thus contemptuously, was carried on by some of the most eminent divines of your church; by whom it was regarded as of the character of your church was deeply high importance: and by its termination affected," &c.-Pp. 30-34.

The cases of the late Rev. Robert Robinson and of Dr. Whitby are next considered by our author, who completely refutes the erroneous assertions of his opponent concerning them, together with his disgraceful mistake in respect of the theological faith and profession of Gagneius.-Pp. 34-38.

The second of the "Three Letters" is now to pass under our review. In this the writer meets the more serious attacks of his antagonist.

Against Unitarian Christians the

charge has long been alleged, that they deny the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Those who originally framed, and those who, like the Archdeacon of Cleveland adopt, the accusation, do themselves little honour, either as logicians or theologians. What do they mean by the plenary inspiration of the Sacred Volume? By whom is it possible for such an inspiration to be credited or proved, in the strict and absolute sense of the words? Is not the inspiration of a writer one thing, and the inspiration of a legislator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, another ? Are we to confound together cases which must ever be mutually and totally distinct? In point of fact, too, are they Unitarian Christians, who exclusively call in question the hypothesis of this plenary inspiration? He must be grossly ignorant of the history and the state of theological literature, who knows not that

"In our views on the subject of plenary inspiration, we differ little, if at all, from many illustrious writers, whom" even Archdeacon Wrangham "would hardly venture to brand as Schismatics and Sciolists; such as Erasmus, Grotius, Castalio, Le Clerc, and even, among divines of the Church of England, Paley, Powell and Burnet."-Pp. 34-43.

Equally unsuccessful is the venerable dignitary in his next article of accusation. He objects to Unitarian Christians, that they have the convenient resources of conjectural criticism at command: he more than insinuates that of these resources they avail themselves wantonly and lightly. His shaft does not reach the objects of his attack, but recoils on the body of men among whom he ranks. What the Archdeacon of Cleveland and many authors of the same class, have said respecting conjectural criticism, involves two questions; the one, of principle, the second, of fact. Is such criticism universally inadmissible in the arrangement of the sacred text? That is the principle to be previously settled. Now here Unitarian Christians give no different answer from what has uniformly been given by the most judicious and intelligent Theologians, of all denominations. They reply, that conjectural criticism, if it be ever used, is to be used only in extreme cases. The next inquiry is,

have Unitarian Christians shewn them→ selves more partial than the members of other religious communions to the employment of conjectural criticism? An inquiry which we scruple not to answer in the negative; while, for the correctness of the reply, we appeal to every man who has any acquaintance with the Theological works of the last and the present century. In this place we shall extract a few sentences from the pen of Mr. Wellbeloved :

"It is indeed very true, that, in common with other critics, we have the resources of conjectural criticism at com. certain circumstances, and under proper mand,' and you will not deny, that in regulations, these resources may be legitimately employed. If it were not so, would your own Secker, Newcome and Lowth have applied to them, as they have done in the Old, or Markland and Michaelis in the New Testament?—It must also be granted, not only that we can, but that we do punctuate; and you surely cannot mean to insinuate that this is an illegitimate aid in the interpretation of ancient writings. Who has more freely, or with greater or better effect, changed the common punctuation of the text of the New Testament, than your own Markland? Even Horsley, who has ceusured the conjectures of Newcome, has not disapproved of punctuating, or abstained from it. Are the points also to be deemed inspired? Call in question deny us the right that all other critics our judgment, you please; but do not and interpreters of Scripture enjoy.

They can transpose.' In this there is no violation of any canon of criticism; nor any thing contrary to the practice of the best and most cautious critics. Newcome and Lowth, and Blayney and Stock and Michaelis and Griesbach, with many others of the greatest name, have all transposed; and, by so doing, have removed many difficulties, and illustrated Do not make that criminal in us, which several obscure passages of Scripture. in others is at least innocent, if not praiseworthy.”—Pp. 43—45.

t

Such is the dignified reproof which the writer of the "Three Letters" administers to the Archdeacon of Cleveland; such the nature of the reasonings which he opposes to that "work of crimination" of which his antagonist is so fond. Facts and arguments more convincing Mr. Wellbeloved could not have produced. In proportion to the notoriety of those facts, to the clearness and the weight

of those arguments, must be our astonishment that either could have been overlooked by "the Ven. and Rev. Francis Wrangham." If he really was ignorant of what had been done by Newcome, Lowth, Blayney, Stock, &c. &c., what estimate shall we form of his Theological learning? Or if, knowing all this, he could still write as he has written, what shall we think of his Christian equity and candour, or even of his good faith as a man?

Replies not less pertinent and satisfactory are given by Mr. Wellbeloved to some other charges against Unitarian Christians one of these, though far from being in itself novel, is singularly expressed by the Archdeacon:

:

"You add," says his opponent, as a portion of the pure gold will still remain in spite of all their efforts, they endeavour to huddle it up under strained analogies, and violent or incongruous metaphors." -P. 48.

This certainly is strange language, for a man of Archdeacon Wrangham's station, professions and attainments. Our readers will agree with the author of the "Three Letters" in his criticism upon it:

To huddle up gold under violent and incongruous metaphors, is a metaphor so violent and incongruous, that it is by no means easy to comprehend its meaning. Perhaps, however, you intend to say, what has been often more plainly, but yet not truly said, that in order to evade the force of passages of scripture cited against us, we refuse to understand them literally, and have recourse to a figurative interpretation."

. This accusation Mr. Wellbeloved pointedly repels: his denial of it is express, and his language strong; yet not stronger than facts will justify:

"I appeal to every impartial and qualified judge, as to the truth of what I assert, when I say, as I confidently do, that we have recourse to a figurative sense of passages in no instances, which the idiom does not fully warrant.”—P. 49.

Then, after shewing that the same mode of exposition is employed by members of the Established Church, he gives to the Archdeacon of Cleveland this wholesome admonition:

"Do not hold us up to the scorn or the indignation of your clergy, for exercising the same attention to the style of the sacred writers, and interpreting their

VOL. XX.

the

"Even inconclusive argumentation, as well as inaccurate you observe, language, is by some of their apostles charged upon what they yet however vouchsafe to denominate the word of God. The boldest of our apostles, I am confident, will be found to charge no such imperfections on what they really consider to be the word of God; but limiting, as I have before remarked, extent of inspiration, and that for reasons which will not be easily disproved, they hold themselves at liberty to judge of the argumentation and the language of the sacred writers, when not under the immediate influence of inspiration, with the same freedom that they would use in the case of any other authors."-Pp. 52, 53.

By the examples of Bishop Burnet, Dr. Powell, formerly Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Dr. Paley, our author shews that the principle on which certain Unitarian

apostles" have proceeded, is distinctly sanctioned and fully admitted, on the part of divines of the episcopal communion; while at the same time, it may be completely justified by reason. The doctrine of the inspired teacher, is one thing: his arguments may be quite another thing; and, be they what they may, they do not affect the authority of his doctrine. In this view of the subject we most heartily concur: nevertheless, we can