think that non-inquiry would lead to truth, and inquiry to error. In your case, I know that your mind is entirely candid; and that no man will conduct an inquiry with more perfect fairness: you have, therefore, the less reason for abstaining from inquiry altogether. I can assure you, that I never remember to have held a conversation such as those which we had last summer, without deriving benefit in some way or other from the remarks urged in opposition to my own views; very often they have modified my opinions, sometimes entirely changed them—and when they have done neither, they have yet led me to consider myself and my own state of mind; lest even whilst holding the truth, I might have bought the possession of it too dearly (I mean, of course, in lesser matters) by exercising the understanding too much, and the affections too little.

....

IV. TO THE REV. JULIUS HARE.

Rugby, March 30, 1829.

I am much obliged to you for sending me your Defence of Niebuhr; and still more for the most kind and gratifying manner in which you have mentioned me in it: there are few things more delightful than to be so spoken of by those whom we entirely respect, and whose good opinion and regard we have wished to gain.

I should not have troubled you with my pamphlet on the Catholic question, had it not involved points beyond the mere question now at issue, and on which I was desirous to offer you some explanation, as I think our opinions respecting them are widely different. From what you say in the Guesses at Truth, and again in your Defence of Niebuhr, you appear to me to look upon the past with feelings of reverence, in which I cannot participate. It is not that I think we are better than our fathers in proportion to our lights, or that our powers are at all greater; on the contrary, they deserve more admiration, considering the difficulties they had to struggle with; yet still I

cannot but think, that the habit of looking back upon them as models, and more especially in all political institutions, is the surest way to fetter our own progress, and to deprive us of the advantages of our own superior experience, which, it is no boast to say, that we possess, but rather, a most disgraceful reproach, since we use them so little. The error of the last century appears to me to have been this, that they undervalued their ancestors without duly studying antiquity; thus they naturally did not gain the experience which they ought to have done, and were confident, even whilst digging from under their feet the ground on which their confidence might have rested justly. Yet still, even in this respect, the 16th and 17th centuries have little cause, I think, to insult the 18th. The great writers of those times read, indeed, enormously, but surely their critical spirit was in no proportion to their reading-and thus the true experience to be gained from the study of antiquity was not gained, because antiquity was not fully understood. It is not, I believe, that I estimate our actual doings more highly than you do; but, I believe, I estimate those of our fathers less highly; and instead of looking upon them as in any degree a standard, I turn instinctively to that picture of entire perfection which the Gospel holds out, and from which I cannot but think that the state of things in times past was further removed even than ours is now, although our little may be more inexcusable than their less was in them. And, in particular, I confess, that if I were called upon to name what spirit of evil predominantly deserved the name of Antichrist, I should name the spirit of chivalry-the more detestable for the very guise of the "Archangel ruined," which has made it so seductive to the most generous spirits—but to me so hateful, because it is in direct opposition to the impartial justice of the Gospel, and its comprehensive feeling of equal brotherhood, and because it so fostered a sense of honour rather than a sense of duty.

V. TO THE REV. DR. HAWKINS.

May 29, 1829.

[After refusing to reprint the pamphlet on the Roman Catholic claims, and expressing his belief that the school has not and will not sustain any injury from what he has done.] I claim a full right to use my own discretion in writing upon any subject I choose, provided I do not neglect my duties as master in order to find time for it. But those who know me will be aware that, to say nothing of duty, my interest in the school far exceeds what I feel in any sort of composition of my own; and that, neither here nor at Laleham, have I ever allowed my own writings to encroach upon the time, or on the spirits and vigour of mind and body, which I hold that my pupils have a paramount claim upon.

As to the principles in the pamphlet, it is a matter of unfeigned astonishment to me, than any man calling himself a Christian should think them bad, or should not recognise in them the very principles of Christianity itself. If my principles are bad, I only wish that those who think them so would state their own in opposition to them. It is all very well to call certain principles mischievous and democratical; but I believe very few of those, who do so call them, would be able to bear the monstrous nature of their own, if they were obliged fully to develope them. I mean, that they would then be seen to involve what in their daily language about things of common life their very holders laugh at as absurdity and mischief. For instance, about continual reforms, or the wisdom of our ancestors-I have heard Tories laugh at the farmers in their parish, for opposing the mending of the roads, because, as they said, what had been good enough for their fathers was good enough for them; and yet these farmers were not an atom more silly than the people who laughed at them, but only more consistent. And as to the arrogance of tone in the pamphlet, I do not consider it to be arrogance to assume

that I know more of a particular subject, which I have studied eagerly from a child, than those do who notoriously do not study it at all. The very men who think it hard to be taxed with ignorance of modern history, and of the laws and literature of foreign nations, are men who, till this question came on, never pretended to know any thing about them; and, in the case of the Evangelicals, professed to shun such studies as profane. I should consider no man arrogant, who, if I were to talk about some mathematical or scientific question which he had studied habitually, and on which all scientific men were agreed, should tell me that I did not and could not understand the subject, because I had never liked mathematics, and had never pretended to work at them. Those only who have studied history with that fondness that I have done all my life, can fully appreciate the pain which it gives me to see the most mischievous principles supported, as they have been on this question, with an ignorance truly audacious. I will only instance Mr. C.'s appeal to English History in proof that God's judgments will visit us if we grant any favour to the Catholics. On the point

of Episcopacy, I can only say, that my notions, whether right or wrong, have been drawn solely from the New Testament itself, according to what appears to me its true meaning and spirit. I do not know that I ever read any Low Church or No Church argument in my life. But I should like to develope my notions on this point more fully hereafter. I have some thoughts of publishing a volume of essays on various points connected with Christian doctrine and practice: I do not mean now-but if I live, and can work out some points, on which I have not yet got far enough to authorize me to address others, yet I think I see my way to some useful truths. Meantime I trust I shall not give just cause of offence to any good and wise man—or of personal offence to any man.

VI. TO A PARENT HOLDING UNITARIAN OPINIONS.

Rugby, June 15, 1829.

I had occasion to speak to your son this evening on the subject of the approaching confirmation; and, as I had. understood that his friends were not members of the Established Church, my object was not so much to persuade him to be confirmed, as to avail myself of the opportunity thus afforded me to speak with him generally on the subject of his state as a Christian, and the peculiar temptations to which he was now peculiarly exposed, and the nature of that hope and faith which he would require as his best defence. But, on enquiring to what persuasion his friends belonged, I found that they were Unitarians. I felt myself therefore unable to proceed, because, as nothing would be more repugnant to my notions of fair dealings, than to avail myself indirectly of my opportunities of influencing a boy's mind contrary to the religious belief of his parents, without giving them the fullest notice, so, on the other hand, when the differences of belief are so great and so many, I feel that I could not enter at all into the subject, without enforcing principles wholly contrary to those in which your son has been brought up. This difficulty will increase with every half year that he remains at the school, as he will be gradually coming more and more under my immediate care; and I can neither suffer any of those boys with whom I am more immediately connected, to be left without religious instruction, nor can I give it in his case, without unavoidably imparting views, wholly different from those entertained by the persons whom he is naturally most disposed to love and honour. Under these circumstances, I think it fair to state to you, what line I shall feel bound to follow, after the knowledge, which I have gained of your son's religious belief. In every thing I should say to him on the subject, I should use every possible pains and delicacy to avoid hurting his feelings with regard to his relations: but