your readers do not require to be informed. Nor need it be stated, that the bulk of modern Unitarians are their descendants. It is not, however, so generally known, that these English Presbyterians ceased virtually to be Presbyterians, long before they changed either their creed or their name. And even this circumstance, I presume, requires no proof from those at all acquainted with their history.

That this "English Presbyterian" is a professing Unitatarian, is pretty unequivocally told us, by the tenor of his communication. But what claim has an Unitarian to that title? Presbyterianism is simply a system of ecclesiastical government. Unitarians, may, as well as any others, adopt that system, and then they have a right to the name. But I cannot learn that this is the case. As far as my information extends, they have no Presbyteries-their congregations are not under the controul of courts of review of my name; nor is one single distinguishing principle of Presbyterianism carried into operation by them. It is not sufficient to establish their title to the name, that the majority of the Chapels they now occupy were built by the Presbyterians, and that they are their descendants. In these matters, I am not disposed to carry courtesy so far, as to allow names to be hereditary, to the violation of every law of common sense and common consistency.

Some people may consider this a matter of no moment; as taking umbrage at a mere word. But, Sir, it is far from being a mere logomachy. I agree with your Correspondent, the propriety of whose "assumed cognomen" I now dispute, that there is "a considerable force in terms, that much is involved in vulgar estimation by (in) a name." And I suspect that to the force of terms, and the vulgar estimation of a name, and to men not distinguishing betwixt names and things, Unitarianism has been not a little indebted for a very considerable proportion of its members. No doubt, it obtained its principal entrance through the injudicious endowments of well-meaning Presbyterians and the subsequent silence of their nominal successors on those orthodox prin

ciples-the belief and influence of which made the first English Presbyterians so pre-eminent for elevation and sanctity of character; and so pre-eminent also in embodying the "lofty spirit and true principles of English Protestant Dissent." But its introduction was aided greatly by coming forward under the Presbyterian name. Numbers of careless people (and there have always been numbers of this description in every denomination) would never dream, that while they were retaining their former designation, they were getting palmed upon them a new and opposite religious system. Even at the present day, it is not uncommon to hear the terms Presbyterian and Unitarian used interchangeably. The mistake, in fact, in certain quarters, is prevalent, of confounding modern Unitarians with existing religious bodies, who actually are Presbyterians, and whose principles are the antipodes of those of Unitarianism.

It has been the observation of this mistake, and a wish to expose it, which indeed have principally prompted this communication. Every system, I conceive, ought to have its appropriate name, and ought to stand on its own merits. In this sentiment, I question not, I have the concurrence of your Correspondent; whom, as an individual, I do not mean to charge with a design of making advances, under colours not his own. He adopted his present "cognomen" probably, without hesitation ;—without even bestowing on the matter so much thought as he has bestowed on those "assumed cognomens" he seems so much to dislike, and that appears to have been very little. But however this may be, I do maintain that in this country, real Presbyterianism never formed any alliance with Unitarianism, and that Unitarians are not Presbyterians. And as a professing Presbyterian, I hope I am justified in disclaiming all connection with your Correspondent, and the body to which he appears to belong; and I call upon him to desist from the assumption of his present title, till he belongs to a body which possesses a tenable claim to it.

Νου, 17, 1824.

A SCOTCH PRESBYTERIAN.

To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette.

"Thou shalt not steal."-Ex. xx. 15.

Sir,-Alarming intelligence, respecting the vast preparations of the Unitarians to answer my former letters, reached me some days ago, like the hollow, distant murmurs of an approaching storm. Two productions have now appearedthe accredited document, signed" An English Presbyterian," and the auxiliary contribution of "A Non-conformist." I find these, as Dr. Johnson said, to be "not of more than mortal might,” though the latter is certainly the better of the two. Yet, I suppose, in point of "lofty" dignity and official importance, the letter of "An English Presbyterian" will claim my principal attention, while the lucky Non-con must be content, if a passing remark or two be all the attention that I can bestow upon him. Amidst the fumes, therefore, which these gentlemen have raised, I calmly sit down to my task.

The English Presbyterian" has evidently employed what ingenuity he possesses in endeavouring to divert the attention of the public from the real points at issue. Yet, that he may not say he is unanswered, I shall wait upon him a little in his lordly flights-He commences by declaiming, in "lofty" style, against the introduction of "polemical theology" into the newspapers. But pray, by whom was "theology" first introduced into the newspapers, in the present instance? Who inserted in the newspapers that mighty article of "polemical theology," the speech of the Reverend George Harris? Who introduced the touching death-bed scenes, first to the jovial, laughing, shouting gentlemen at the Spread Eagle, and afterwards into the newspapers? Who favoured the public, through the same medium, with the speech of the worthy Chairman, in which that gentleman is so "much" and tenderly "affected," that he breaks out into sneers at his neighbours, the "evangelical preachers ?" To the practice of his own people (for several of the speeches bear internal evidence of having been furnished by the

speakers,) at the commencement of this discussion, the objection of my adversary may possibly apply; but the case is now different. The matter has taken such a turn, that it is no longer a theological subject, but a question relating to PROPERTY, which may be as fitly discussed in the newspapers, as the public accounts of the town of Manchester.

The tirade upon my use of the terms "orthodox" and "orthodoxy," has I confess, somewhat astonished me. Really, these Unitarians will try my patience after all, for I can neither do, nor say as they do or say, but they are offended with me. Were not these the very terms, by which they, themselves, chose to designate us in the commencement of this business, both at their ever-memorable meeting, and afterwards in the newspapers? To accept such terms at their hands, after all the reproach which had been poured upon them by the Reverend Mr. H., and which Unitarians are in the habit of pouring, I felt to require an act of self-denial, rather than to foster all that pride which they charge upon me. When, therefore, my opponent tauntingly asks me to define " Orthodoxy," I reply, " Define your own term, Sir, or, at any rate, that of your party; and, while your hand is in, have the goodness, too, to give us a definition of Unitarians." "I am not a regular reader of" Unitarian publications," but occasionally I have the opportunity of "turning over" their " pages," and this I can testify, that, amidst the opposite and discordant opinions of that people among themselves, upon almost every subject that can be mentioned, it would puzzle a college of archangels to tell what Unitarianism is. But it is mere quibbling of my opponent to ask for a definition; what are the leading points in which we differ from them, is well-known to every body.

It is a curious fact, that by adopting the vocabulary which the Unitarians had supplied, I have incurred the censure of both friends and foes. Some friends have objected to my applying the term "Unitarian" to this people, which they think, has the appearance of conceding a point in dispute. I have replied, that I thought both the word "Or

thodox" and " Unitarian," were generally understood to be mere terms of convenience, and have persisted in my course. My friends will now tell me that I am rightly served, and I shall bow to the reproof; only remarking, that I really did think Unitarians had taken a more liberal and enlarged view of things, than now appears to be the

case.

The term "Orthodox" I will give up, whenever the Socinians will consent to use one equally convenient; but I really cannot so easily part with that of "Dissenter." It was cruel, therefore, in the " English Presbyterian," to divest me of this, while he left me to guess in the dark, at his reason for such an injurious proceeding.-Is it because I maintain, that property set apart for one purpose, ought not to be devoted to another which is directly contrary? To show that this is the true state of the case between us, I appeal to the words of even one of my new opponents, who ranges the Socinians and us, respectively on the the sides of “truth and error," which "never were, and never will be friends," but "must despise and hate each other." What, I ask, can be more contrary than " truth and error," which are thus engaged in eternal warfare? Now I take their own statement, and I ask, “ Is it just to apply property left for one purpose to another which is so directly the contrary of it? Or do I forfeit my claim to the name of "Dissenter," by holding the contrary of such a diabolical principle? If I do, then let the name go, and give me, in the place of it, any other that can he found in any language spoken on the face of the earth.

Let me ask again, was Mr. Belsham "lamentably ignorant of the true principles of English Protestant Dissent," when, upon embracing Socinian sentiments, he resigned his situation, as principal of the Academy at Daventry, because he was "no longer able to fulfil the design of his situation," which was inseparably connected with the advancement of Orthodox principles? Of whatever else he might be ignorant, he seems to me, and to many, to have understood, in that instance, what were the "lofty" principles of an honest