British Reformation Society.

THE "sayings and doings" of the advocates of this misnamed Society, still call for the reprobation of every sincere friend of reformation, whether religious or civil. The speeches which they are in the habit of uttering, at the meetings of the Institution in various places, and the conduct which they manifest when challenged to prove or apologise for the assertions which they make, exhibit melancholy instances either of ignorance or intolerance. Be it which it may, it constitutes a public nuisance, and should be abated. The "Society for the suppression of Vice" should look to it. "Reformation Society" forsooth! The "peculiar occupation" of its advocates would seem to be to slander the Catholic and the Unitarian. To defame is their especial means of converting the "idolator" and the "blasphemer." They may spare their labour, for such means Heaven will not bless. Deplorable is it, that people should be so blinded by prejudice as to sanction the odious bigotry and malevolence. But whilst this continues to be the case, we know no better remedy than the public exposure of the slanderer, by challenging him to the proof of his calumny, and by exciting public attention to the controverted doctrines, pointing out by reason and Scripture, the close affinity between the Romish and English Church, and proving the real doctrines of the Reformation to be, not Calvinism, or Arminianism, or Lutheranism, but the sufficiency of Scripture, and the right of individual judgment doctrines equally violated by Churches, who declare that salvation is confined to their particular communion. Mr. Wright of Alnwick has therefore, upon this as well as other occasions, done good service to the cause of freedom. He has shown the Rev. N. Armstrong in his true colours. The pitiable plea which that "accuser of the brethren" puts forth in his letter to Mr. Wright, is worthy of the Society of which he is the agent, but it is unworthy of a man and a Christian. It comports with his "peculiar occupation" to cast about firebrands in society, to violate decency and charity, to make his progress through the land scattering calumny and defamation. His "time is quite occupied" in this his "profess'd business," and consequently, he cannot spare a thought, he cannot devote a moment to charity, truth, and peace. The Catholic has challenged him in Scotland for defamation. The Unitarian

has challenged him in England for calumny. He has refused both. He has apologised to neither. Let those who support him in his itinerant vituperation, either condemn the conduct or share the infamy.

The meeting of the British Reformation Society was held at Alnwick in Northumberland, on the 26th July. The Unitarians were the subject at that meeting, of gross and scandalous misrepresentation. The Unitarian minister rose to explain the principles which had been vilified, and was refused a hearing. The next day, he challenged the calumniator to discuss the controverted doctrines. The calumniator refused the appeal to argument and Scripture. Mr. Wright then published the letters and the following address.

"To the Inhabitants of Alnwick.

"Fellow Townsmen,-At the meeting held in the Town Hall on Tuesday evening, you witnessed the unchristian conduct and the illiberal spirit displayed, not only by the deputation from what is called "The British Reformation Society," but also by some individuals whose station and outward profession might have led us to expect more decorum. By instigating the uproar which disgraced the meeting, they outraged decency and violated the fundamental principle of all reformation-free discussion, and proved themselves unworthy of their claim to the title of Protestants. No man, actuated by correct views and honourable principles, can say that it was either equitable or consistent, that a public meeting should be convened, and a chosen few, covertly shielding under any unfair or doubtful pretext, be privileged to assert whatever they pleased, and to malign and misrepresent every person they wished, and all others be insolently denied the liberty of speech. Was it right that Unitarians should be wantonly vilified, denied the Christian name, and then debarred the right to reply and confute the misrepresentation? Let Trinitarians of every different sect and shade of opinion, even the most prejudiced and selfish, place themselves in a similar situation, let them make the case their own, and this would teach them to act with moderation and propriety. Had a deputation from the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, called a public meeting for the purpose of exposing the reformed doctrine of consubstantiation, which differs from transubstantiation only by a single syllable;'-had they denounced Trinitarianism as

an impious system, and its professors unworthy the Christian name, would Trinitarians or their ministers have considered themselves fairly treated had they been compelled to submit in silence to the accusation? Passive submission in such a case would manifest a dereliction of duty and an indifference to principle totally incompatible with love to Jesus. I had no intention of occupying the time of the meeting, and wished merely to intimate that it was dishonourable and unchristian conduct to censure or condemn any person or party, and then refuse to hear their vindication. Yet for pursuing a course, which all upright minds must approve, I was prevented from being heard, by the indecent hissing and hooting of some persons who make high pretences and professions; but such persons would more effectually show their sincerity by a more becoming and Christian practice in public.

"After Mr. Armstrong's irrelevant and unmanly attack on Unitarianism, and from his perpetual vaunting of reason and Scripture in his warfare against Catholics, I considered it my duty to transmit to him the following note, inviting him to a public discussion of the Unitarian doctrines, on his own avowed principles:

"Wednesday, July 27th, 1831. "Rev. Sir,-The principles of the Reformation are the sufficiency of Scripture and the use of Reason in matters of religion. On these principles I challenge you to a public discussion of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ. You cannot reasonably object to this request, after the charge of lukewarmness you brought against those Trinitarian ministers in whose district Catholicism may be on the increase. For why should you have less regard for the salvation of a Unitarian than a Roman Catholic?-Yours, &c. J. WRIGHT.

"To this note I received the following reply:—

"Sir,-My public and numerous engagements prevent me from acceding to your wish respecting the Socinian controversy. I am liable to repeated challenges on questions not quite relevant to my peculiar occupation. If I comply with one, a precedent is establish'd for another, and my time is quite occupied and my profess'd business neglected. If you really desire fairly and fully to examine what Trinitarians can say upon the subject, and if you have not time for the larger and more learn'd works-there are a few Sermons by Dr. Wardlaw on the subject, which you may read with profit. Stuart of Andover also, has written a few able Letters to Mr. Channing. I mention these, because they are very short and simple. I trust the Lord whom you deny, may assert his power over your mind, and display his love to your heart, whilst you read the works of his servants and his own blessed Word.-Yours, &c. N. ARMSTRONG.

"Such is the evasive answer of the itinerant champion of the misnamed Reformation Society. The subjects I invited him to discuss are, it seems, not quite relevant to his peculiar occupation.' This is equivalent to saying, that the subjects themselves are either anti-scriptural or his occupation is anti-christian. His 'professed business' is to excite the bad passions of the multitude against Catholics, and this would be neglected were he to turn his attention to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. These subjects appear to him of minor importance, therefore he thinks it enough to refer me to a few Sermons by Dr. Wardlaw, and a few Letters by Professor Stuart of Andover."

"Mr. A. concludes his letter by accusing me of denying the Lord. This charge I declare before God and man to be false. I reject it with that indignation which so atrocious and foul a calumny merits. From the censorious spirit of presuming and fallible men, Unitarians appeal to the Scriptures of truth, which do not teach that their Lord and Master was a twofold being of opposite and incompatible natures, but simply one person in the strict and true sense. Their religious opinions are founded on the New Testament alone; Jesus Christ and his Apostles are their only guides and instructors in religion. They discard all human creeds and confessions of faith, as the polluted offspring of designing and fallible men. With the

apostle Peter, Unitarians believe Jesus to be a man approved of God, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him.' With Paul, they believe that there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' The apostle also declares, that Jesus was raised up of God, and received all his power from God. Numerous passages might be quoted, to prove that the declarations of Christ and his apostles are the sum and substance of the Unitarian's faith, and to follow unreservedly these inspired guides to happiness and peace, can never be pronounced unsafe, except in the frenzied and misguided zeal of blind and erring mortals.

"It is evident from Mr. A.'s conduct and the tone of his letter, that he dare not meet the Unitarians at a fair tribunal. Revelation and reason are as much at variance with the doctrines held by Trinitarian Protestants, as with those received by Catholics. The Trinity and its kindred doctrines are unnamed and unnoticed in Scripture. Tra

dition and the infallibility of creed and confession makers are the perishable bases on which they rest. But Unitarians adopt the language of the apostle, and say, 'other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. To the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus we constantly appeal, and supported by this high authority, we fear not to challenge the most acute and subtle of our opponents to an investigation of the subject.

"ALNWICK, July 28, 1831.

J. WRIGHT. "Lectures on the following Subjects will be delivered in the Unitarian Chapel, Alnwick, on the succeeding Sunday Evenings, at 6 o'clock. July 31.-The Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Protestant Doctrine of Consubstantiation compared.

Aug. 7.-The Trinity a Traditionary Doctrine, contrary to Scripture and contradictory to Reason.

Aug. 14.-On the Collect in the Church of England Prayer-Book, for the first Sunday in Lent.

Aug. 21.-On the Collect for Good Friday."

SIR,

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

PADIDAM, Aug. 16th, 1831.

AN account of a public meeting of the Unitarians at Padiham, and of the conduct of the self-named orthodox, in consequence of that meeting, may prove acceptable to the readers of the Pioneer.

On Monday, August 1st, a public meeting was held by the Unitarians of Padiham and the neighbourhood, for the purpose of mutual encouragement and support. In the morning, the Rev. F. Howorth of Rochdale opened the religious service of the day with a hymn and prayer. The Rev. W. Gaskell of Manchester, then delivered a most excellent discourse, on the praise bestowed upon the Bereans for searching the Scriptures; which was listened to with deep interest by a large congregation. At one o'clock, one hundred persons, male and female, sat down together to dinner at the Starkie's Arms. At half-past two o'clock, the people re-assembled at the Chapel; the Rev. J. J. Tayler of Manchester took the chair, and in a very neat and appropriate speech, opened and explained the business of the meeting. A series of resolutions was then moved, seconded, and spoken to, by the Revds. J. R. Beard, F. Howorth, G. Heaviside, W. Gaskell, H. Clarke, and G. White; Messrs. Nicholson, Ashworth, Robinson, Pollard, Ingham, and Taylor, and the Chairman. When the first