-if it had led to a trial according to the evidence, and to a decision such as would be given in Westminster Hall, or in the Court of Session upon any ordinary case, between man and man, or between the Queen and her subjects,-no one could have rejoiced more than I should have done. But Dr. Candlish must permit me to doubt, whether I or any man brought before one of his tribunals would have experienced this kind of justice. I must suppose that he is a fair, an advantageous, specimen of the temper which would prevail in them. And I do say, that I should use the old formula, God give thee a good deliverance, with a very solemn and a very melancholy feeling to any accused man having a righteous cause, who had this representative of the Scotch Free Church to conduct his trial, and to pronounce his judgment. For I cannot pretend to regard that man as having in him the conditions of a righteous judge (I ask for no mercy or courtesy) who took advantage of a moment when he knew that I was under a stigma from a learned body in my own country, and that the religious press of Great Britain was almost without exception' denouncing

1 I am bound to name the only exceptions which I know; and I do it with the greatest pleasure, for reasons which will be immediately apparent. The Nonconformist Newspaper had every reason to dislike

me, to appeal to your passions and your ignorance, and to the passions and ignorance of the clergymen and Dissenting ministers who were countenancing him on the platform of Exeter Hall, in support of a charge which I solemnly declare (and I call upon the authorities of the College which has condemned me, upon the Bishops of my Church who suspect me, upon all who have impugned my preaching and my manner of life, and who personally dislike me, to say if they know, to examine if they do not know, whether I am speaking truly or falsely), is belied by all that I have written or preached, by every line of the book upon which he professed to rest it.

Did I not then say, in that book, that I had learnt much from Unitarians, and that what I had

me, as one who had defended publicly, not only the formularies of my Church, but the union of Church and State. The writers in it seized the moment when they might have had a triumph over me, to treat me with peculiar consideration and kindness. The Guardian Newspaper had generally expressed for me and my writings suspicion and aversion. Instead of manifesting these feelings more strongly, when I lost my respectability with the class for which it was written, and which it represents, that was the time in which it showed me an indulgence and courtesy which was the more honourable and grateful, because the Editor thoroughly disapproved of my opinions, and approved of my expulsion. Instances of generosity so rare-as far as I know, so unprecedented-in the history of religious periodicals, ought to be recorded.

learnt from them were truths-essential truthsthe very staff of my being? Have I not confessed as much in this Letter? Most assuredly. I said there I say here-that just as I accepted the positive teaching of Mr. Irving, and of his Calvinistical Scotch forefathers, respecting God and His righteous government, and His war against evil, and did not accept that negative teaching which seemed to me to weaken and darken His righteousness, to contract His power, to make His war with evil ineffectual;-just as I accepted the positive teaching of Barclay and the Friends, respecting the Inward Light, and rejected that negative teaching which made the manifestation of this Light in the acts of the Son of God on earth and in heaven, of such small significance; just so I testified the most entire and cordial sympathy with the declaration of the Unitarians, that God is pure and absolute Love that God is a Father; and therefore expressed the most thorough dissent from every one of those negative doctrines of theirs, which, as I affirmed, and in my book endeavoured to prove, turn the love of God into an unreality; into an indifference to evil; into a tolerance of the sins and miseries which are destroying God's creation. This language I used at the outset of that book which called forth Dr. Candlish's lecture; this

language the whole of it is written to explain and illustrate. I have maintained that the Unitarian denial of the fact, that the Son of God-being of one substance with the Father, being the Eternal Word of God, the express Image of God, the only Lord, and Teacher, and Guide of Man-took human flesh and died man's death, and that by these acts God reconciled man to Himself, justifying us in Christ from all things from which we could not be justified by the Law of Moses, glorifying our Nature at the right hand of God, is, ipso facto, a denial that God loves man, and has interfered to rescue our race from the misery and curse, which all history shows that mankind has felt and groaned under, which each one of us groans under. I have said that the denial, by the old or ordinary' Unitarians (to use Dr. Candlish's word), of a Spirit, or personal Comforter, and the substitution for that denial, by some modern Unitarians, of a vague belief in Influences or a pervading universal Spirit, empties God of His fatherly character, and robs us of the privileges of sons. I have further contended with great-some of the orthodox journals seem to think with excessive-vehemence, that the denial of an Evil Spirit, of a Devil, confuses the facts of the universe, our own inmost experience, and the divine witness concerning God's

'

victory over evil. It is in this way, members of the Young Men's Christian Instruction Society! that I have shown the agreement of my opinions on all the leading points of Christian doctrine with the ordinary Unitarians,

The Unitarians

But there are exceptions. believe in a resurrection under certain modifications,' There, says your lecturer, I am not in agreement with them. Will you listen for a moment to the ground upon which this charge stands? I find the ordinary Unitarian acknowledging, as Dr. Candlish says, a resurrection. The Resurrection of Christ from the dead seemed to him a proof, which he could not obtain elsewhere, that men are immortal, that they do not perish altogether, when the breath leaves their bodies. I rejoiced, I said, that any had that faith, because more was implied in it than those who held it knew. But I contended that this was not the meaning of Christ's Resurrection, as St. Paul sets it forth to us. According to him, Christ died for our sins and rose again for our justification. If He did rise to prove that we were immortal, he would have proved what the conscience of men confessed, with trembling and horror. To deliver us from that horror, to show us that God claimed us as His sons and daughters, was