VII. The “thirteen Clergymen,” finding that Mr. Belsham’s “Improved Version” was not a STANDARD with us, and knowing perhaps that in our rejection of it as such we have been borne out by the Unitarian Association at its recent general meeting in London, yet determined to find a standard for us somewhere, have (p. xxvi.) put into our mouths, with marvellous naïveté, an appeal to Mr. Belsham’s Translation of St. Paul’s Epistles. We have already given up the Mr. Belsham of the Improved Version, and they, for their own easy purposes, represent us as making an appeal to the Mr. Belsham of “the Epistles.” We will yield to our reverend opponents whatever consolation they may be able to derive from their _imaginary_ triumph, in case we made this _imaginary_ appeal. The Trinitarians cannot divest their minds of the idea that we must have an Authority _somewhere_. They cannot understand what is meant by deferring to principles alone; by having no external judge of Controversies, no shorter road to conclusions, than to submit every question to the fullest light that Knowledge and Inquiry have provided, or may yet provide. The Cæsar to whom we appeal from Mr. Belsham is not some other Mr. Belsham, or the same man in a different book, but the great principles of Criticism and of Interpretation, as recognized by competent judges of all parties. VIII. For the faith of the Church of England, the “thirteen Clergymen” declare, that “it is alike their privilege and obligation to contend in that spirit of charity which becomes a believer in Jesus.” (_Preface_, p. xxviii.) We shall not open former wounds, but look simply to some of their last manifestations of “Charity” in their General Preface. 1. They say of us (p. xxiii.), that “Unitarians have borne some such proportion to the Christian Church, as monsters bear to the species of which they are unhappy distortions.” 2. They “_decline to receive us as brethren, and to give us the right hand of fellowship_” partly because our doctrinal views of Christianity are different from their own, and partly because, as they aver, we maintain our views in _dishonesty_, using language _hypocritically_. We “cannot be Christian brethren,” say they, “for we cannot tread the same road, even for an instant. They use the _language_ of Christianity, without believing its _mysteries_. How, then, can we bid them God speed, while they are influenced by this spirit of unfairness? ‘The words of their mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in their heart: their words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords.’” (pp. xxiv. xxv.) 3. We are charged with deliberately opposing our own minds to the mind of God. “That such unwearied hostility,” say they, “is waged by Unitarians _against the mind of God_, as expressed in his word, all their publications unequivocally and mournfully attest.” (p. xxv.)