Wednesday, you state that you never invited discussion with us (the
ministers) personally. We never imagined or affirmed that you did. But
surely you invited discussion with the class of persons called
Unitarians; and as a class has no voice except through its
representatives, and no discussion can take place without two parties,
you cannot think that we are departing from our proper sphere in
answering to your call. Did you not invite us (the Unitarians) to you,
“to tell and hear together the great things which God has done for our
souls?” And did this mean that all the “_telling_” was to be on one
side, and all the “_hearing_” on the other? Did you not press upon our
admiration the primitive practice of “controversial discussion of
disputed points?” And did this mean that there was to be neither
“_controversy_,” “_discussion_,” nor “_dispute_,” but _authoritative
teaching_ on one side, and _obedient listening_ on the other? In one of
two relations you must conceive yourself to stand to us;—that of a
superior, who _instructs_ with superhuman authority, or that of an
equal, who “_discusses_” with human and fallible reasonings. Between
these two conditions, there is _no third_; nor can you, with justice,
take sometimes the one and sometimes the other, according as the
occasion may require the language of dignity or that of meekness. We
certainly addressed you as an equal, and did not pay you the disrespect
of imagining that your invitation to “discussion” meant nothing at all.
We are sorry that you ascribe to us any intention to divert you from
your contemplated course of lectures. Be assured nothing could be
further from our design. We simply desired that, having _invited us_,
you should have _recognized us when we presented ourselves_, as parties
in the “discussion.”
We remain, reverend Sir,
Yours, with Christian regard,
HENRY GILES.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
Liverpool, February 7th. JAMES MARTINEAU.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—I think it due to the cause of truth, as well as to the
interest awakened in the public mind by this controversy, to address to
you a few observations on your last letter, as published in the
_Mercury_ of Friday. Though still strongly of opinion that the columns
of a newspaper present a most undesirable medium of communication upon
subjects such as those we are now engaged in discussing, I am unwilling
in the absence of any other accessible instrumentality, to lose the
opportunity it affords of impressing upon the attention of all
reflecting men the actual position which we relatively occupy.
1.—Being aware of the sincere anxiety which you have already manifested
for “discussion in any shape which should bring the statements on both
sides before the same parties,” it is not without considerable surprise
that I perceive that you “decline altogether” my proposal of a “platform
controversy.” Now, while you say I invited you to “_talk_,” and I answer
I invited you to _argue_, I cannot but think it will appear evident to
most, that by the subsequent publication, in an authentic form, of our
oral debate, you would have gained all that you could have desired in
the assistance of the press, while a select auditory, equally composed
of the respective friends of both parties, would have been able to judge
of your ability, not intellectually, but morally, to meet the case we
could have made out against your system. I cannot but hope that a secret
consciousness of the weakness of your cause has prompted your
determination, and am of opinion that while a discerning public will
approve the discretion of your resolve, they will not be slow to
appreciate its motive, or the precise measure of your zeal for a candid
impartial hearing.
But the “settling of historical and philological controversies by
popular debate has neither origin nor sanction from you.” Perhaps not:
but you cannot say that such a course is altogether without precedent.
You have doubtless heard of the protracted debate upon these same
controversies which were held in the north of Ireland a few years ago
between Mr. Bagot and Mr. Porter. May I ask whether it was the _result_
of that discussion that induced you to withhold your sanction from all
future controversies so conducted? Mr. Porter did not consider it
inconsistent with the principles of Unitarianism to debate his creed
before “a miscellaneous audience.” Are you wiser than he in your
generation? Again:—the proposed tribunal is not the best “to which to
submit abstruse theological questions respecting the _canon_, the
_text_, the translation of scripture.” But do you not apprise us a
little lower down, that you, as Unitarians, do _not deny the
genuineness, or alter the translation of any_ part of the authorized
version of the holy scriptures? Why, then, there is no ground for the
above apprehension. As these are not points which the tribunal will have
to try, why question its competence on their account? You are surprised
that I would “dispense with calm reflection on the evidence adduced.” I
am, in my turn, surprised that you should suppose I have any such
intention. When the “evidence adduced” has been taken down and
published, what is there to prevent its being “calmly” weighed and
estimated at its proper value? And then it is hard “to answer off-hand
all possible arguments” advanced. So it is; but not harder for _you_
than for _us_. Here at least we should stand on a footing of _perfect
equality_. It was hardly to be expected that _you_ should object to
this.
2.—I now come to the _mistake_ into which you say I have fallen, and
which you offer, obligingly, to correct. “We do not, as Unitarians, deny
the _genuineness_ or _alter the translation_ of any part of the
authorized version of the holy scriptures. The Unitarians have neither
canon nor version of their own different from those recognized by other
churches.” If this be true I certainly have been mistaken; but have the
satisfaction of knowing that this mistake has been shared by a host of
abler critics and more learned scholars than I can pretend to be. I had
always thought that I read of the liberties taken with the received text
by the Priestleys and Belshams—the Wakefields and Channings, when they
were of opinion that they spoke too strongly the language of
Trinitarians. I had also understood that the Bruces, the Drummonds, and
the Armstrongs of Ireland had performed achievements in the same line,
at which many not a little wondered. I had further imagined that the
unanswered—because unanswerable—volumes of Archbishop Magee presented
evidence on this behalf, with which few were unacquainted. Now, if you
mean to say that you, the ministers and representatives of Liverpool
Unitarianism have never “questioned the genuineness, nor altered the
translation of any part of the authorized version,” I can understand the
assertion, and willingly take your own word for its truth. But if you
mean to affirm that this has not been done, and to a very prodigious
extent, by Unitarians, both domestic and foreign, you will excuse me if
I positively deny the allegation, as being totally without foundation,
and I refer in proof to the notorious lucubrations of the above-named
doctors of Unitarian divinity, as well as to the severe exposures of
their semi-infidel tampering with the Bible which they have called
forth.
But while you do not “deny the genuineness or alter the translation of
any part,” perhaps you question the _inspiration_ of certain portions of
the sacred volume. You will remember that this was _one_ of the branches
of _evidence_ that we proposed to discuss with you, and that not the
least in importance. Why are you silent on this head? Is it not of any
moment, think ye, to admit the _genuineness_ and confess the
_authenticity_ of a book or a chapter or a verse of scripture, if you
withhold your conviction of its _inspiration_? Is it not a fact that you
might hold the _genuineness_ of the two first chapters of St. Matthew
and St. Luke, and feel no disposition to alter the _translation_ of a
word, and, at the same time, boldly deny that they were “given by
inspiration of God?” If I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right.
If not, then the public will decide upon the candour and fairness of
your profession to remove the necessity of any controversy with you on
the score of EVIDENCE, because of your admission of the _genuineness_
and your satisfaction with the _accuracy_ of the authorized version,
while by an expressive but momentous silence, you acknowledge that the
_greatest of testimonial questions_ is by you disputed, and you at the
same time refuse to come forward boldly, and debate it fairly before the
church.
Again—“Unitarians have neither canon nor version of their own different
from those recognised by,” &c. You anticipate here a reference to “the
improved version,” and tell us that “it contains only the private
criticism of one or two individuals—that it has never been used in your
churches, and is utterly devoid of all authority with you.” Will you
excuse me for expressing my doubts of the accuracy of this statement,
for these reasons: —1. That work was the joint production of some of the
ablest men and best scholars that the Unitarian sect has ever been able
to boast of; and that the shades of Belsham, Lindsey, Jebb, Priestley,
Wakefield, &c.,[5] might well be astonished to hear their learned
labours so contemptuously spoken of by three modern disciples of their
school. 2. That, in the year 1819, (the date of the edition which I
possess,) the improved version had gone through no fewer than _five
editions_—a tolerable criterion of the extent of its circulation in
little more than twenty years. How many it may have passed through
since, I have been as yet unable to ascertain. 3. That so far from its
being “devoid of all authority,” it professes, in the title page, to
have been “published by the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian
Knowledge and the practice of virtue by the distribution of Books.” That
it may “never have been used in your churches” I can well believe, as it
is probable that the feelings of your people would have revolted too
strongly against its introduction, to make the experiment advisable: the
food which it furnishes may have proved too coarse even for the
digestive organs of popular Unitarianism itself. It is also possible
that the modern professors of your theology may be somewhat ashamed of
this awful specimen of “rational and liberal criticism,” and may
secretly wish that it had never seen the light. But the _existence_ of
it, at least, cannot be denied; and there it stands, a painful memorial
and a living witness, of what is “in the heart” of a system that exalts
_reason_ into a dominion over _revelation_, and that, unwarned by the
solemn admonitions contained in the book itself against the presumptuous
additions or detractions of human pride or folly, has dared
sacrilegiously to lay its unhallowed hands on the sacred ark, and to
attempt the mutilation and misrepresentation of the great magna charta
of the spiritual liberties of man.
3.—At the close of your letter, you say, “Surely you invited discussion,
with the class of persons called Unitarians.” I again repeat I did not.
I determined to have a course of lectures delivered in my church on the
points at issue between us and the professors of what we call your
“heresy.” And I invited the persons whom I was and am sincerely anxious
to benefit, to come and hear our well considered convictions of their
errors and their consequent danger, as well as our faithful exhibitions
of what we think “a more excellent way.” It will not be denied that a
clergyman of any denomination, in a free country, and more especially a
clergyman of the national church, has a right to preach, or authorize
others to preach, in his pulpit, according to his own discretion, and
invite whom he pleases to come and hear, without its being understood
that he challenges either the parties so invited, or their
representatives, to enter with him the lists of controversial
discussion. I absolutely protest against any such understanding. I did
not seek to _compel_ the attendance of any of your body, nor yet to deny
to you or them, in reply, the use of the same weapons that I had
employed in the attack. I _did_ mean that those who pleased should come
and hear us “_tell_” them a gospel which they were not _told_ by those
upon whom we looked as “blind leaders of the blind;” and that they
should be prepared to “learn” whatever should commend itself to their
consciences, under our teaching, as the truth of God. We did not, and do
not, expect to be able to bring demonstration home to the hearts of any
by the strength of our arguments, or by the force of our appeals; but we
anticipated that, in answer to our earnest prayers, the power of the
Holy Ghost would accompany our teaching of His truth, and make it
effectual to the conversion of souls “from darkness to light.” We
propose to stand before the congregations that might assemble, neither
as “superiors to instruct with superhuman authority,” nor as “equals to
discuss (if you mean by that _dispute_) with human and fallible
reasonings;” but simply as “ambassadors for Christ, as though God did
beseech them by us, that we might pray them in Christ’s stead—be ye
reconciled to God.”[6] This is the middle position in which we stand,
the _mean_ between your _two extremes_; and by God’s blessing, we will
continue to occupy it, until we shall have delivered our consciences,
and discharged our duty to a numerous, respectable, but, in our
judgment, blinded and deluded class of our fellow-countrymen.
And now, gentlemen, having taken such notice of certain allegations in
your letter as it seemed impossible to pass by, and with the full
purpose of continuing in the course on which I have entered, until,
through the blessing of God, the grand object which I have proposed to
myself shall have been accomplished,
I remain, yours, for the truth’s sake,
FIELDING OULD.
February 11, 1839.
-----
Footnote 5:
See “Improved Version,” note on 1 John, i. 1.
Footnote 6:
2 Cor. v. 20.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—You state, in your letter of the 7th ult., that “your
proposal of discussion through the press, though made for the third
time, has as yet received no answer.” It was thought by ourselves and
our clerical brethren, that as our lectures were to be printed and
published, every facility was afforded you of replying to them through
the same channel, and that thus the whole subject would be fairly
brought before the public.
In addition to this, we have offered to meet you in oral discussion; you
decline the proposal.
Anxiously desirous to bring the whole matter before this great
community, so as to prove that we not only entertain no apprehensions as
to the result, but are convinced that, by such an exposition, great good
will be effected, we, the undersigned, on our own responsibility, ACCEPT
YOUR TERMS of discussing the momentous question between us, in the form
of a correspondence in some public journal or periodical, altogether
independent of the lectures.
We remain, Gentlemen,
Yours, for the sake of the Gospel,
THOMAS BYRTH.
FIELDING OULD.
Liverpool, February 11. HUGH M‘NEILE.
---------------------
_To the Rev. Fielding Ould._
Rev. Sir,—The tone of your last letter makes us rejoice that, by the
acceptance on your parts of discussion through the press, this
correspondence may now be brought to a close.
Let us, Rev. Sir, place before you your own language, and ask, in solemn
sadness, are the feelings it betrays worthy of the occasion, or deserved
by us, or edifying to the public mind? These are your words:—“I cannot
but hope that a secret consciousness of the weakness of your cause has
prompted your determination, and am of opinion, that while a discerning
public will approve the discretion of your resolve, they will not be
slow to appreciate its motive, or the precise measure of your zeal for a
candid and impartial hearing.” Sir, it is not a little mournful to find
a Christian Minister expressing his hope that other men are
hypocrites,—that they are secretly conscious of the weakness of the
cause which they publicly defend. To _hope_ that we secretly know our
errors, whilst publicly preaching them as truth, is, indeed, strange
preference of faith before works. Let us assure you, Sir, that if we
could think of you as this language shows you think of us, we should
decline all discussion with you,—we should regard you as an opponent too
discreditable to be identified with a great question, or to be
considered as an honourable representative of your own party.
We apprehend, Rev. Sir, that nobody but yourself would think of
attributing to conscious weakness our preference of the most perfect and
searching method of discussion, to the most flimsy, insufficient, and
unscholarlike that could by possibility be selected. Had we wished to
catch the ear of a popular assembly, or to turn away attention from weak
points by oratorical artifices, we should have proposed this platform
controversy, instead of, as we did, carefully and purposely wording our
invitation and our enumeration of the modes in which the controversy
might be conducted, so as to exclude the idea of oral discussion.
We observe with sorrow, and with diminished hope of benefit from
controversy, that you can so sink the interests of truth in personal
championship, as to meet our solemn unwillingness to entrust the gravest
questions to extempore dexterity and accidental recollection, with the
reply that in this respect we should be at least _equally_ situated.
Doubtless, Sir, if a display of personal prowess was our object, this
would be conclusive; but TRUTH is our object, and we dare not offer it
such worthless advocacy.
With respect to the instance alluded to by us, of a decision similar to
our own, our impression had been that reasons also similar to our own
were given at the time; and we can only regret, since this impression
seems to be false, that we quoted the case.
With regard to the “Improved Version,” we shall only say here, that it
has been raised to an importance in this discussion which is entirely
factitious. The differences between us must be settled upon principles
of interpretation and criticism recognized by all scholars; and if these
principles can be shown, in any respects, to condemn the “Improved
Version,” in those respects we shall be the first to abandon it, feeling
ourselves to be in nothing bound by it. When we said that, as
_Unitarians_, we had no canon or version of our own, we meant that we
are quite willing to accept the text as fixed by scholars, most of them
Trinitarians, on critical principles. We most cheerfully recognize the
fundamental principles of Scriptural inquiry, so clearly and soundly
stated yesterday evening by Dr. Tattershall; and although agreeing with
many of your ablest scholars, in thinking the received translation to
require corrections, and not approving of the morality of taking up a
position in defence of truth unnecessarily unfavourable; yet, were our
only object to display the ampler and superior Scriptural evidence for
Unitarianism than for Trinitarianism, the received translation would be
quite sufficient for our purpose.
Again reminding you that the word “discussion” was introduced into your
original invitation, which contained also reference to the controversial
practice of primitive times, and set forth the advantages of “hearing”
and “telling” together,
We remain,
Your fellow-labourers and fellow-Christians,
JAMES MARTINEAU.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
Feb. 14, 1839. HENRY GILES.
---------------------
_To the Revs. Thomas Byrth, Fielding Ould, and Hugh M‘Neile._
Gentlemen,—Your willingness to discuss the Unitarian and Trinitarian
controversy in the most satisfactory mode, has given us sincere
pleasure; and if we have seemed to press this matter upon your
acceptance, we assure you it was with the single desire that the
statements of both views, in their most accurate and perfect forms,
might be presented to the same minds through an unbiassing medium; an
object which could be obtained neither by the unequal distribution of
separate lectures, nor by means so necessarily imperfect as oral
discussion.
We shall be happy to arrange with you, at the earliest possible period,
the manner and conditions of our proposed discussion.
We shall be ready to conform ourselves to your wishes upon the subject;
but we would suggest the desirableness of the discussion being entered
on at once—partly because attention to it might now be secured, and
partly because in the seriousness and number of our mutual engagements,
this controversy should not be allowed to interfere with our other
duties and responsibilities longer than is necessary.
We are, Gentlemen,
Yours, with respect,
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
JAMES MARTINEAU.
Feb. 14, 1839. HENRY GILES.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—I cannot permit our correspondence to terminate without a few
remarks on your letter, as published in the _Mercury_ of Friday last.
1. I regret that the “tone” of my last address should have given you any
offence, while I am wholly unconscious of any intention unnecessarily to
wound the feelings of those who, I am free to admit, have hitherto
written at least courteously, if not very candidly, upon the subjects
which have been recently submitted to the attention of the public. Allow
me distinctly to disclaim any attempt to charge you with _hypocrisy_, or
make it appear that you “secretly know as errors what you publicly
preach as truths.” I took occasion merely to express my surprise that
persons who seemed so anxious for an impartial hearing of their defence,
should “altogether decline” a proposal by which, as it appeared, and
still appears to me, that object might have been so satisfactorily
attained; and in the exercise of a charity that “hopeth all things,” I
sought to attribute your refusal to a latent and half-formed conviction
within you, that your principles, in whatsoever sincerity entertained
and professed, might not bear the light of such an investigation as that
to which they would have been subjected in a public _vivá voce_
discussion. Where is there any charge of hypocrisy here? May not a man
be perfectly sincere in the maintenance of an opinion, which he would
nevertheless be very unwilling to defend in oral debate, from a proper
apprehension of the force of argument with which it might be
encountered, and a secret consciousness of his own slender materials for
its support? Be assured it is not necessary for us to brand you with
_hypocrisy_, in order to convict you of _heresy_. We are willing to give
you every credit for honesty of intention and integrity of purpose,
while we cannot but suspect that you are fully aware of the difficulty
of maintaining the principles of Unitarianism on the ground of an
unmutilated and “unimproved” Bible.
Were I equally disposed with you to take offence, I too might inquire,
“in solemn sadness, whether it be deserved by us, or edifying to the
public mind,” that you should more than insinuate, though of course in
very polished phrases, that “we have proposed a platform controversy, in
order to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to turn away attention
from weak points by oratorical artifices.” Is this your opinion of us?
If we thought so, “we should decline all discussion with you as
opponents too discreditable to be identified with a great question, or
to be considered as honourable representatives of your own party.” But
_we_ are not offended. We look upon your language as simply intended to
convey an admission that your system is unpopular; one that, from its
cold, and cheerless, and unimpassioned character, would seek in vain to
enlist on its behalf any measure of popular sympathy, or conciliate any
favour unless from those whom it had imbued with its own proud spirit,
and accustomed to the low temperature of its own frigid zone.