Correspondence.

Rey. C. Voysey and Unitarianism.

To the Editor.

Sir,—I have no doubt that many of your readers have read with the same pleasure as myself some of Mr. Voysey's published sermons, and those who have not had this opportunity must have rejoiced that he has had the courage page 286 to publish his opinions on the popular theology in a way at once so bold, so manly, and so self-sacrificing as to bring him to trial at the bar of the Church of England for assailing her time honoured but untenable doctrines. Perhaps, too, we have all felt that the result of his trial was a satisfactory one; for if the Establishment were broad enough to keep him in her bosom, why should not all religious free-thinkers be nestling there instead of incurring odium for conscientiously keeping aloof from what they hold to be false? It was satisfactory, however, to see that, although Air. Voysey publicly stated his determination not to identify himself with the Unitarian body—what other body, by the way, could he identify himself with?—that he had been preaching in some of their pulpits; and I, for one, as a Unitarian, am prepared, from the bottom of my heart to wish him god-speed in his work. It is with surprise and regret therefore, that I notice an article in the Unitarian Herald of July 7, on the Rev. Mr. Voysey, which, after accusing him through two columns and a half of meanness and dishonesty in having entered the Church merely to dole out heretical opinions which he had held for years seriatim—goes on to criticise his doctrines, accusing him, among other things, of deliberately trying to undermine the reverence of men for the Bible and their discipleship to Christ. The Herald is impatient with Mr. Voysey for having enunciated his unbelief in graduated portions; yet advises him, with strange inconsistency, to maintain more of reserve in the expression of his opinions for the future. It concludes by disowning him as worthy of Unitarian fellowship.

In the following number of the Herald, however, Mr. W. H. Herford has a protesting letter which, if I could, I should be glad to condense for the consideration of your readers; showing, as it does, how Unitarians can compromise their position in condemning one who, like Mr. Voysey, has been and is being persecuted for opinion's sake. We have, at any rate, in the Herald's article an unmistakeable indication of the narrow spirit, which, under the guise of liberality would take upon itself to assign limits to religious free thought, and has, I fear, much to do with the apparently small hold which Unitarianism exercises on the public mind. Happily times are changing, and the younger representatives of the faith of Priestley, Channing and Parker are evincing a determination to join with all of every creed and nation who, whatever their opinions, strive to fulfil the two great commandments of Love to God and Love to Man. Yet is it to be feared that there are still many Unitarian Churches where, should the teacher supplement his statement of the doctrine of the Unity of God with an expression of his logically-resulting belief in the simple humanity of Christ, he would be greeted, not perhaps with a storm of indignation, but, in all probability, with cold looks and deserted pews.

To be loyally true to conscience under such circumstances requires, if I mistake not, a type of character in respect of which many and many a Unitarian Minister has something to learn from the outspoken author of "The Sling and the Stone."

Veritas.