66

66 6

66

1818, some Unitarians (as appears from a letter now lying before me) requested and obtained, for Mr. Wright, the Unitarian Missionary," and the author of the " Essay on "Religious Worship," the use of the meeting-house of the Dewsbury (Yorkshire) branch of our church. After the singing, prayer, and preaching, one of our members, exercising a right which had previously been stipulated for, stood up and combatted the practice of public social prayer. Mr. Wright," we are told, and the friends who accompanied him, paid marked attention; and when our member "sat down, Mr. Wright got up and said he was about to publish a pamphlet on that subject; and, on that account, "declined giving a verbal reply.' The pamphlet, being his second on the subject, accordingly, soon afterwards appeared, entitled "Thoughts on Social Prayer; intended to shew its "reasonableness and consistency with the New Testament-1818.” But Mr. Wright therein cautiously abstained from naming the Freethinking Christians, though his work was evidently intended as a reply to their arguments. To this second pamphlet, a member of our body, Mr. Samuel Thompson, published a reply, answering Mr. Wright's arguments, paragraph by paragraph, and inviting him to a similar mode of rejoinder. Five years have, however, since elapsed, and Mr. Wright has not accepted the invitation.

In the same year (1818) a yet more direct effort had been made at Cranbrook, in Kent, by a body of individuals, who have since united themselves with us in Christian fellowship, to induce Mr. Wright to discuss this subject; one of these individuals, well known to Mr. Wright, and who was formerly himself a pulpit preacher, although no hireling, thus writes: "In or about the month of May 1818, prior "to our organization, but after we had separated from the "Unitarians, Mr. Wright was at Cranbrook. My brothers and self spent an evening at a friend's house in his company, and the leading members of the Society called "General Baptists. The chief topic of conversation was "the nature of a Christian church. During the evening "Mr. Wright said he should preach on priestcraft, and "invited us to hear. We said if we might be permitted to speak after him we would attend; but the persons present "ruled--that theirs was pulpit preaching, exclusively, and we did not attend. On the Sunday we altered the time "of our afternoon meeting till their meeting broke up, and "sent an invitation to Mr. Wright to meet us, to discuss "the subject of public social prayer, after he had finished "his work at the chapel-but he declined!"

66

This, it may be observed, was previous to the publication of his second tract. Nearly two years afterwards, at another place, Mr. Wright maintained the same caution. "In June 1820," (I quote the words of a member of the Battle (Sussex) branch of our church) "In June 1820, "Mr. Wright was again at this place. We sent a note to "him, inviting him to meet us in conference on the subject "of public social prayer, or on any other subject on which we differed from the Unitarians. We saw him afterwards, "and asked him whether he intended to meet us. It had "been arranged,' he said, 'that he should preach in dif"ferent places on every evening in the week, except "Saturday; but that he should be at Battle again in "about a fortnight, and he would then give us an answer.' "But when he came again he had the same excuse as before."

Now Mr. Wright was, at this time, travelling under the name of a "missionary," for the purpose of disseminating and discussing the doctrines and practices of Unitarianism. Had the author of "The Anti-satisfactionist" (a work, for ability and completeness, with but few rivals in theological controversy) been invited to discuss the doctrine of the Atonement, would he have shrunk from that inquiry? Yet the writer of the "Essay on Religious Worship," and the Thoughts on Social Prayer," could travel from the southern shores of Sussex, northward, as far as Yorkshire, declining to discuss, verbally, the practice of social prayer! Did he, in this, appear to feel that firm confidence which ever attends truth and a just cause?

66

66

Since writing the above sentence, and whilst this sheet was finally preparing for the press, I have met (stitched in the Monthly Repository for April last) with "The Unitarian Fund Register, No. 2," which contains Mr. Wright's journal of his last missionary journey. The following extract, compared with Mr. Wright's conduct respecting the controversy on social prayer, &c., as detailed above, may well serve to throw light upon the subject.

"Audlem" (he says) "is a village nine miles from Nantwich. Here I preached in the open air, to a large congregation. When I had done, a methodist preacher stepped forward and said—' I also come here to preach, and I shall preach; but I shall not take any particular subject, but address you on the strange doctrines you have heard to-night.' On this I went and stood by the side of him." (The very thing which our friends endeavoured, in vain, to induce Mr. Wright to do.) "He began with a direct attack on Unitarians and their doctrine; but before he had gone on many minutes, fell into gross misrepresentation. On this I stepped forward, and said-I am sorry to interrupt the good man at my right hand; but, as I came here in hostility to on

man, or party of men, but simply to state what I believe to be the truth of the gospel, which I have done plainly, without shewing hostility to other parties, I cannot remain silent when I hear our views grossly misrepresented, and false charges openly alleged against us.' I then explained the Unitarian doctrine, as far as was necessary to set aside this misrepresentation. Having done this, I stopped, and he went on; but it was not long before I had to stop him again, in consequence of false statements he was giving. Thus we went on alternately, for a considerable time." (Precisely the manner in which we have sought, but in vain, to discuss with the Unitarians the subjects of social prayer, pulpit preaching, &c.) "At length he closed the meeting in the usual way. I, throughout, confined myself to explaining our views; and interrupted him only so far as was necessary to refute his false charges and misrepresentations." (The very attempt to do which, in other cases, even when not done by means of “interruption," has exposed us to the severest charges of want of candour and liberality.) "At the close of the business, a young man, a local (Unitarian) preacher, who was with us from Nantwich, gave notice that he should be there again on the following Sunday morning, to deliver a discourse on the doctrines for which the Methodist had contended that evening; and the Methodist gave notice that he also would be there to preach in reply, when the other had done. I afterwards learned" (adds Mr. Wright) "that my young friend, and some others with him, were there, and preached as he had engaged to do; BUT THE METHODIST DID NOT APPEAR."

On reading this final remark, the first idea that occurred to me was, that had this Methodist preacher been pressed to state the real cause of his absence, it would not improbably have been "that it suited neither his inclination, nor his con"venience to attend." The reader, indeed, cannot have perused this extract without having been induced, involuntarily, to run a parallel between Mr. Wright's conduct, on this occasion, and our conduct with respect to social prayer, pulpit preaching, &c. on many occasions; whilst on these subjects, surely the facts already stated will justify me in saying that Mr. Wright's conduct has certainly not been better than that of the Methodist preacher in question; who, at any rate, bore with repeated interruption, and allowed Mr. Wright to refute what he deemed his false charges, and gross misrepresentations, and to explain his own views. How often, on the important points we wished discussed, when our friends have invited, requested, almost entreated the presence of Mr. Wright, and other Unitarian teachers, to meet them, and reply to their arguments, if they deemed them erroneous, how often could they have adopted the significant and emphatic conclusion of Mr. Wright, and have exclaimed-" BUT THE UNITARIAN DID NOT APPEAR!"

Having mentioned Battle, in Sussex, we may here observe that, so late as the month of March last, a Mr. Taplin, in a course of Sunday Evening Lectures, at the Unitarian chapel of that place, having taken public social prayer as one of his subjects, and having quoted Mr. Thompson's reply to

Mr. Wright, in what was thought, by some present, an incomplete and garbled manner, our friends to him also delivered, in public, a written invitation to discuss the subject with them before his audience. Having applied, after an interval of a week, for an answer, they received a letter from Mr. Taplin, " declining any public controversy with "them."

In the year 1821, Mr. Thomas Moore, another Unitarian preacher, published his " Inquiry into the Scriptural Authority "for Social Worship," in the advertisement to which he speaks of " new circumstances," which may render a new publication on the practice desirable; and adverts to some" doubts which had been occasioned by recent publications "on the subject." Why he also, like his predecessor in the controversy, Mr. Wright, neither states the circumstances -into which his readers might then have inquired; nor names the publications--which they might then have read for themselves; it will remain for himself, if he should so choose, to explain.

In the statement thus made, I have endeavoured, whilst narrating facts, supported in several points by documentary evidence, to avoid, as far as the case would possibly admit, any thing which might appear to be mere inference or useless personality. In fairly stating such a case, to avoid the mention of names of individuals who act in a public capacity, would have been evidently impossible; but, whilst doing this, I have, I can have, no personal object in view. If in any point I am mistaken, I shall be most ready to confess the error, for I should be glad to find, if it could possibly be proved so, that the Unitarian leaders generally, have not acted the part, or been led by the motives, to the suspicion of which their conduct appears so justly liable.

In the absence, as it would really appear, of any better plea, the objection stated on their part to the discussion of this or other subjects with us has been-that, if they met us, we should treat the parties with undue personality, and in an uncandid manner. This is an objection easily made by any party, and against any party; whilst it is one which cannot so easily be disproved. Although, in our case, unfounded, I shall not, therefore, attempt to disprove it; but shall content myself with saying thus much. The charges of personality and want of candour in their opponents, are never used by these same individuals, as reasons why they should not enter into the controversy respecting the doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, &c., where they feel strong and

confident in a good cause.* Further, if we are to look to Jesus and his apostles as examples and patterns for our conduct, the charges of personality and want of candour were never by them used as reasons for declining discussion, and avoiding, when called upon, to give a public reason for the faith which was in them. The fact is, that if a party, in any controversy, adopt undue means, or use improper language, the disgrace recoils upon themselves, and on their cause. The Unitarian teachers, therefore, if our weapons be unfair ones, may the more readily accept a challenge, which, upon their own shewing, if correct, must the more certainly and speedily end in our defeat and their triumph. But the assertion, we can have little hesitation in saying, must be a pretence only. We have been met, in this matter, with gross personalities; we have encountered, as above stated, many instances of want of true candour and liberality, yet we do not, therefore, refuse inquiry and avoid discussion. The questions of social prayer and pulpit preaching, we conceive to be-not personal questions -but connected with fundamental principles relative to the Christian church; we, therefore, press for their discussion. To all charges against ourselves, personally, in this matter, our calm and constant reply is-“Strike, but hear us!”

Do the Unitarians deny the charge that they have thus shrunk from this inquiry? They have themselves the power effectually to repel it, by now accepting that discussion, and now entering upon that inquiry, TO WHICH, UPON THE SAME TERMS, WE STILL INVITE THEM. This is a challenge not given to individuals, amongst whom there will exist shades of difference, about which the public may be well supposed wholly indifferent, but it is directed to THE UNITARIANS AS A BODY, AND TO THEIR PUBLIC TEACHERS AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. We assert that the practices of having paid teachers, of pulpit preaching, and of public social prayer, are not only unsupported by the scriptures, but are wholly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of Christianity. On these points, particularly, we ONCE MORE invite the Unitarian teachers (aided, as they are, by learning

*We have just seen, when a Methodist preacher "made gross misrepresen"tations, beginning with a direct attack on Ünitarians and their doctrine,” that Mr. Wright, instead of therefore withdrawing from the contest, manfully stepped forward, declaring that he "could not remain silent when their views were grossly misrepresented, and false charges openly alleged against them." Doubtless Mr. Wright felt that the more gross the misrepresentation, and the more false the charges, the more easily he would be enabled to explain the one, and confute the other.

ર