dentally, and that, but for a trifling letter in a newspaper, you might have slumbered on, with the character merely of a well-behaved and upright Glasgow merchant. This acknowledgment will not appear the less sincere, when I state to you my humble but deep conviction, that these talents were misapplied; and that your work, with all its undoubted ability, while it held out little probability of reforming or converting the Catholics, was unquestionably calculated to nourish that pride in spiritual matters, which so peculiarly distinguishes the people of this country, and to add fresh fuel to those heart-burnings which have so long wofully subsisted between the two Churches. As a Unitarian, I cannot be suspected of the slightest partiality to Popery. Popery I disavow, in all its bearings, civil and religious; and, considering it as a system which held Europe for many a century, and still partially holds it, in deplorable intellectual bondage, no one could possibly more rejoice than I, in its total and irremediable extinction. But I am fully persuaded, that, in this country, there exists (to say the least) enough of prejudice and aversion to it— a prejudice, which is, in many instances, carried to a most unchristian and illiberal height; and the spirit of which, cannot be better illustrated than by the fact, that, up to this day, in this vaunted land of liberty, a Catholic is excluded from his civil rights as a man, and a member of the British Empire. The fear which you expressed in your work, of Popery gaining ground, or of the people becoming less alive to its baneful doctrines and practices, I consider to be absurd and unfounded. Education and information are spreading rapidly, and Popery must necessarily hide its face before the light of knowledge. If, therefore, you composed your work under the above feeling, you were, I make bold to say, combating with a phantom of your own creating; or, if you composed it, with the view of confirming your readers in their aversion to Popery, you were (to use a familiar phrase) carrying coals to Newcastle; for, in Scotland, and in this quarter of Scotland particularly, where your work was chiefly read, the people were already more than sufficiently grounded in their abhorrence of Popery; and so far from there being any necessity of exciting or increasing that abhorrence, there was every need for subduing the sinful ⚫ extent to which it was often carried, and for infusing a spirit among them more becoming the gospel, and more

befitting themselves as erring and dependent creaturesa spirit of humble unprejudiced inquiry after truth, and of good-will and charity towards their fellow-men of every denomination. You, Sir, who, I doubt not, have mingled considerably in the religious society of your countrymen, must have observed-what forms, in fact, their prominent characteristics-the stubborn pertinacity with which they cling to their doctrines, and the unqualified contempt which they entertain for all who choose to differ from them. There is a wide difference, you are well aware, between an attachment to peculiar dogmas in religion, and an attachment to religion itself; and that the former is more prevalent than the latter, may be inferred from the rancorous spirit which is very generally betrayed towards those whose views in doctrinal points do not accord with the popular one. How much your work tended to increase that spirit, I shall not pretend to inquire, especially as it is possible that you may, by this timenow that the fervor of controversy is over-have repented of the asperity in which you so often indulged, and of the unmeasured severity with which you invariably treated your opponents. The great body of the public went along with you; you could scarcely go too far in such company: the party to which you belonged, was the popular and powerful one for the time being; and, while others of a different belief-if they expected a hearing at all-were obliged to use the utmost caution and discretion, you possessed the privilege of speaking out, in unrestricted freedom, sure of being heard and of being applauded. Such a privilege no one can accuse you of having neglected to turn to account.

Was it love of truth or information, think you, that drew so many readers to your pages? If that had been the motive, they would, of course, like judicious inquirers, have read both sides of the question; but the fact is notorious, that not one of them in a thousand, ever, for a moment, looked at "The Catholic Vindicator," although it was a work written professedly in answer to "The Protestant." In an advertisement of "The Catholic Vindicator," in a Glasgow newspaper, it was properly enough requested, that the public should "suspend their

judgment" of "The Protestant," until they read the reply by Mr. Andrews; upon which you made the following strange commentary:-"Suspend their judgment!—that is, in plain English, Don't think for yourselves till you hear Mr. Andrews, and then think as he bids you. This is Popery with a witness!" (Appendix to Letter to James M'Hardy, Esq.)—I know not what could induce you to put so absurd a construction upon so simple and reasonable a request, unless you really felt timorous about a reply, and privately considered Mr. Andrews a less contemptible antagonist than you held him out to be.

Nothing, however, in the whole course of your controversy, more surprised and perplexed me, than to observe how tremblingly alive you were to the absurdities of Popish doctrines, and how dead, at the same time, to the absurdities of your own. Transubstantiation, for instance, although a doctrine held by the Greek and other churches, as well as the Roman Catholic, appeared to you to be in the last degree preposterous and unreasonable; and so highly did you chafe yourself about it, that you went the length of saying,-"If a man were to tell me that he really believed this doctrine, I should hesitate before I would believe any thing he should say; in short, I would not take the bare word of such a man, or even his oath, in order to verify any fact whatever!" PROT. vol. II. p. 47. This, by the way, is a specimen of the intolerant language in which you so often indulged, and tends to show for what class of readers your work was written. But let us see how transubstantiation is supported by Scripture: Mat. xxvi. 26, 27, "This is my body," &c.-John vi. 33, “The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."—35, 48, "I am the bread of life."-51, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread which I give is my flesh," &c.-53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." 55, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."-1 Cor. xi. 29, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." These passages, if taken literally, certainly countenance the doctrine of transubstantiation; and it is only by an exertion of our reasoning faculties, that we are enabled to reject the irrational sig

E

senses.

nification which they literally imply. You fully succeeded, by reason and argument, in proving its absurdity; yet that reason, which you were so ready to employ against Popery, you would not admit to bear against your own creed. "It is not true," you say, "that transubstantiation rests upon the same evidence as the real mysteries of our religion, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation, &c. These are plainly revealed in the Word of God, which transubstantiation is not; and there can be nothing more reasonable, than to believe what God has said, though we cannot understand how it should be. In point of fact, however," you continue, "God has said nothing that is contrary to our reason, or to the evidence of our The Bible contains all that he has to say to human creatures, till the day of judgment; and I defy the world to prove that it contains any thing contrary to sense or reason. It does, indeed, make known things which human reason cannot reach, and things which cannot be subjected to the scrutiny of human senses; but on this very account it is impossible to show that such things are contrary to reason and sense. We must have the perfect understanding of a thing before we can pronounce it contrary to sense and reason; but we have not such understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity; we cannot say it is unreasonable; and we have nothing to do but to believe what God has revealed on the subject." PROT. vol. II. p. 61. Now, in the first place, I deny that the doctrine of the Trinity is " 'plainly revealed in the Word of God," and to use your own energetic phraseology, I defy you to the proof. When you wrote this sentence, you must have known, that you could not produce a single passage in the whole Bible, wherein the doctrine of the Trinity was "plainly revealed;" you must have known, that you could not even produce passages to support it, of equal weight with those I have just quoted, in support of the real presence-that, in short, the infinitely important doctrine of the Trinity, rested entirely upon a few phrases unwarrantably strained to serve the purpose-and that it was contradicted by innumerable passages of the most direct and incontrovertible nature. The Papists acknowledge the traditions of the fathers to be a rule of faith, and therefore (whether these traditions be correct or not) may be said to have some foundation for their dogmas; but you, who assert that you reject all authority in religion except

the Bible, retain dogmas which the Bible does not countenance, and which, but for your education, a perusal of the Bible would never perhaps have suggested. In the second place, I deny that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proved to be unreasonable, or that it is not equally subject to investigation as transubstantiation. You say it is "plainly revealed in the Word of God," and yet you afterwards add (somewhat inconsistently), "we can have no perfect understanding of it." If it be above the reach of our reason, we cannot, of course, prove it to be either contrary to or in accordance with reason; but must, as Mr. Yates has admirably shown, confine ourselves to the exact terms by which the doctrine is expressed. How, then, is it expressed in the Bible? I know not. I cannot find it. But in the Trinitarian Catechism, it is said, that "there are three persons in the Godhead, the same in substance, equal in power and glory, and these three are one." This is your creed-not the words of the Bible,and therefore is as subject to scrutiny as transubstantiation. Even admitting these words to be above the reach of human reason, still, so far as reason can go, they are unreasonable. The doctrine of the real presence is inconsistent with our senses;-the doctrine of the Trinity is a contradiction in terms- -an arithmetical absurdity. I could as easily believe that my five fingers were composed of wheaten bread as that they were only one finger; indeed, if there be any difference in such absurdities, the latter is the greater; for the unimpeachable testimony of anatomists and chemists might possibly persuade me that I was mistaken with regard to the composition of my fingers, but all the world could not persuade me that I was mistaken with regard to their number; and even supposing that it did succeed in convincing me, that I had only one finger on my hand, another equally insurmountable difficulty would remain, to convince me that one finger was five. It is most unpleasant thus to descend to familar illustration of subjects so serious and important; but it is absolutely necessary at times, if we would know the import of the terms we are using. The truth is, Trinitarianism is Tritheism, in spite of every effort made to prevent such a conclusion; and to say that three distinct Gods are one God, is a wretched subterfuge to escape the many Scriptural passages which declare the undivided Oneness of the Almighty. I am, SIR, your obedient Servant,

GLASGOW, 23d Sept. 1826. A UNITARIAN PROTESTANT.