tice, I am happy to say, becoming more and more prevalent both among the Particular and General Baptists, not only in this country, but in the United States of America. In these reiterated labours, his genius and erudition have been consecrated to the best interests of mankind. Mr. Hall, therefore, though he has expressed himself unguardedly on the present occasion, cannot seriously mean to recommend either an implicit faith or "the prostration of the understanding" in matters of religion. These belong exclusively to corrupt establishments, who know that free inquiry will prove eventually the implement of their destruction. Pure and unadulterated Christianity calls upon each disciple of the Cross to judge even of himself what is right, both in faith and in practice, and teaches, that for the judgment formed, however irreconcileable to "principles generally embraced," he is amenable to the Supreme Being alone. Avoid, then, every imputation which savours of uncharitableness and bigotry.

I take leave of Mr. Hall by reminding him of the truly Christian conduct of Theophilus Lindsey, a man whom Job Orton was disposed to rank among the Puritans themselves, for his uncorrupted and incorruptible in tegrity. Mr. Lindsey having dropped some illiberal expressions respecting his Arian brethren and others, Dr. Richard Price thus writes to him, with his accustomed good sense and piety: "My convictions generally are only a preponderance on one side, attended with a feeling of difficulties; and I am often ready to wish I was more assured of the truth of my opinions. But in forming this wish I am checked by reflecting that this assurance is most enjoyed by those who are most in the wrong, Trinitarians, Calvinists, Papists, &c; and that were I possessed of it, with respect to my opinion of the dignity and offices of Christ, I might possibly be led to a sad loss of candour, by charging Socinians as you do Arians with resisting an evidence so insurmountable that all the rational are seeing it every day more and more,' and so vast that every eye must see it that is not wholly blinded by prejudice;' and also by saying of some of the ablest and best men who differ from me, but of whom I have

6

every reason to believe that they inquire as fairly and as diligently as myself, that they see things through a mist,' that they are ignorant and gloomy,' that 'they have narrow minds bound down to a system,' and have never properly searched the Scriptures to see what Christianity is."" The venerable Lindsey, feeling the justice of the rebuke, apologized, and promised in a future edition to make due reparation, with which Dr. Price was satisfied. "Thus," says Mr. Belsham, "did these two Christian worthies, of congenial spirits,' equally lovers of truth, of virtue, of unrestrained freedom of inquiry, and of political and religious liberty, by mutual forbearance, explanation and concession, put an end to the misunderstanding which for a short time cast a cloud upon their countenance, and interrupted their accustomed harmony."*

In a word, difficulties adhere to every theological system in this state of twilight and imperfection. The creeds of Locke and of Newton, of Watts and of Doddridge, of Price and of Priestley, were not without them. These embarrassments are felt by thinking minds only; the herd of professors are strangers to them. But the truly pious turn them to good account, by exhibiting a spirit of "gentleness, humility and modesty." In the eye of God these unostentatious virtues are more effulgent than the rainbow that encompasses the heavens; and seeing, as we do, through a glass darkly, such a spirit is best befitting. the narrowness of our faculties, the scantiness of our information, and the mysterious destiny that awaits us in a better world.

"Wait the great teacher Death, and God adore!"

These remarks, which have run out into a far greater length than I intended, shall be closed by a passage taken from Mr. Hall's tract on Free Communion. And I transcribe it with pleasure, not only because it is more congenial to my temper to agree than to disagree with my fellow-Christians, but because it contains the sum and substance of the Reflections attached to my Sketch of the Denominations of

Memoirs of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, by Thomas Belsham.

the Christian World. The paragraph depicts in vivid language the inmost sentiments of my heart :

"To see Christian societies regarding each other with the jealousies of rival empires, each aiming to raise itself on the ruin of all others, making extravagant boasts of superior purity, generally in exact proportion to their departure from it, and scarcely deigning to acknowledge the possibility of obtaining salvation out of their pale, is the odious and disgusting spectacle which modern Christianity presents. The bond of charity which unites the genuine followers of Christ in distinc tion from the world, is dissolved, and the very terms by which it was wont to be denoted, exclusively employed to express a predilection for a sect. The evils which result from this state of division are incalculable. It supplies infidels with their most plausible topics of invective, it hardens the consciences of the irreligious, weakens the hands of the good, impedes the efficacy of prayer, and is probably the principal obstruction to that ample effusion of the spirit, which is essential to the renovation of the world!"

For this sore evil under the sun, there is no other remedy than that prescribed by Christ and his apostles eighteen hundred years ago the forbearing one another in love. But the still greater evil is, that all Christians reproach each other with the crying sin of their divisions, whilst few are bent upon amendment. May, indeed, every follower of the meek and lowly Jesus, throughout the whole extent of Christendom, "both Trinitarian and Unitarian, love his own heresy less than gospel charity !" J. EVANS.

move you from the situation of President, in consequence of your avowed disbelief of the essential doctrines of the Established Church, and of your declared determination to disseminate your opinions by every means in your power. In your answer to my communication you accuse me wrongfully, and at the same time refuse me an opportunity of explanation by concluding your letter in these wordsI must beg leave to decline ang farther communication with you, us it is out of my power to read any reply to this letter. I regret your determination. I think that you will regret it. If you shut the door against me, I must address you from the street. To your accusation of my having acted dishonourably, my reply is short. The members of our society have resolved that my conduct has been throughout consistent and honourable, and they have recorded their opinion.

"You speak reproachfully of a letter which I wrote to you, persuading you to become a member of our society. I hereby beseech you to permit your amanuensis to copy that letter, that, at my own expense, I may publish it to all the world.

"The resolutions of our committee were not formed froin seeing your correspondence with me, for only three of them (clergymen) had ever seen it; but from your avowal to the Rev. Mr. Townsend, and to me, that 'your opinions were well known, that you had promulged them every where, and that you would disseminate them by all the means in your power;' that your opinions are, that our Saviour was no more God Incarnate than either of us; that he was as much of us is the son of his own father and the son of Joseph and Mary as each mother; that atonement through the blood of Christ is an absurd doctrine, and you illustrated its absurdity by expressions which I do not choose to repeat, but have recorded:- these, Sir, were the chief points of your declaration to us (though there were many others) which induced the society to form their resolutions. In your letter you say that you yield to no man in attachment to the Church or in loyalty. How is it consistent with attachment to the Church to impugn its doctrines? to send for a book

a member to be well affected to the King and his Government, and to the united Church of England and Ireland, as by law established; in every point of which I will yield to no man; nor will it be permitted to any member of it to assume the opinions of a member of the infallible Church of Rome, without contradiction, in support of the Church of England, which is founded, with all humility, as a fallible Church. The confirmation of his Majesty's subjects (by which they become members of the Church of England) requires no more than a belief in the Apostles' Creed; on the contrary, the clergy, at their ordination, are required to subscribe to other creeds. I am persuaded, therefore, you have done wisely in appointing the Rev. Canon Rogers, to be the President of the Society for promoting the knowledge you endeavour to convey. I must, however, beg leave to decline having any further communication with you on the subject; as it is out of my power to read any reply

to this letter.

"I remain, Rev. Sir,

"Your humble Servant, "ROSE PRICE. "To the Rev. C. V. Le Grice."

"MR. EDITOR,

"In the course of conversation, when Mr. Le Grice and Mr. Townsend waited on me, in consequence of the note of the 24th December, I said, If disapproving any of the tenets in the Liturgy, is to be regarded as a sign of a man's being an Unitarian, then certainly I am one;' and I mentioned many respectable persons who, I believe, might be called so, also, on the same ground, though they constantly attended Church service. To which Mr. Le Grice replied Then you say you are an Unitarian.'-My answer was- No! I say no such thing my tenets are different.'

I

say, if, for disapproving and not join ing in all the Liturgy, as it now stands, a man is to be called an Unitarian, then I am one;' which Mr. Townsend acknowledged I had stated correctly. In the atonement through the merits and death of Christ, I am a firm believer. With respect to what else I said, or did not say, in a private conversation, with two clergymen, in my

own house, who begged me to understand that they waited on me out of respect, and hoped I would consider it as such, with whom I conversed, without imagining the smallest precaution could be necessary, I shall make no further reply; and I am sure it will be allowed by most people, that Mr. Le Grice's letter of the 14th instant, bears in it its own antidote, as a mischievous and desperate attempt, in revenge for the 'arrogance of my letter-The intention of Mr. Le Grice's visit, out of respect, is evident to a demonstration. But since he has announced his intention to proclaim in the street what he hears in the house, it is a warning, to those who do not wish every thing said in the house, to be proclaimed in the street, not to admit him into their houses.

"I am, Sir,

"Sir Rose Price has the honour of forwarding to Mr. Townsend his remarks, for the consideration of the committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, held at Penzance the 13th instant. The apparent different accounts given by St. Luke and St. Matthew, relative to our Saviour's resurrection, became a subject of investigation between Mr. Le Grice and myself, in 1820, and did not terminate till 13th April, 1823. This was not a controversy between two opponents, but an investigation, confidentially entered into, between two neighbours, Mr. Le Grice being thought, from his talents, most competent to the undertaking.-In his letter to me of the 6th September, 1821, he says:- You impugn one of the leading Articles of the Church of England; nay, you go further, you give books for perusal to your neighbours, which impugn it-I mean the doctrine of the holy and blessed Trinity. Twenty years ago you presented' some of Evanson's writings to a family -an author who endeavoured to destroy a great portion of the gospel history?

"My reply to the above letter is dated the 7th September, 1821. With respect to Evanson's Dissonance, I received it from the Rev. Mr. Thomson, and not Mr. Thomson from me; and I shall ever respect him for putting it into my hands.-The Letter to the Bishop of St. David's, which I sent to a friend and neighbour, was occasioned by his undertaking to find a reply to it (which I shall be very glad to read)-nor do I despair of seeing the Creed of St. Athanasius made to bend to public opinion, which shall have my best assistance.'

"Mr. Le Grice's reply is dated the 9th of September, 1821, in which he says- I ought to mention that I do not allude to Evanson's Dissonance, but to his Reflections on the State of Religions, in which he makes our Church to be a portion of the apostate Church; and which Mr. Thomson marks, as a gift from you, in my possession.'

"It is for the committee to inquire how Mr. Le Grice did not know my religious opinions, 23rd Nov. 1818, when he recommended me to be President of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and when and of whom he obtained possession of this book.

"Mr. Thomson died in 1811, soon after which, his books were sold; and during his life he was intimate at Trereife with Mr. and Mrs. Le Grice, one of the few places he visited. It is for the committee, to whose impartiality the country will look, to inquire also, how Mr. Le Grice, (if his conscience was as tender on the 9th September, 1821, as it was on the 8th of January, 1824,) came to suffer me to remain President of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, more than two years after he knew my opinions. My letter to him of the 7th September, 1821, has this passage: I am sure you had no more the hope of turning me to your opinions, than I had of converting you to Bellamy's Translation, when I sent it for your perusal-nor would I substitute it for our own translation were I able.'

"Postscript to Mr. Le Grice's letter of the 17th March, 1823.—' I will leave it to your courtesy and honour; can you consistently continue Presi

dent of our Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, when it is a fundamental rule, that no one shall be president, or any other officer of it, but a person, bonâ fide a person, well affected to the united Church of England and Ireland, as by law established? As such I recommended you to the Parent Society-otherwise you could not have been elected.'

"I replied on the 8th of April, 1823- When you request my at tendance, I shall come to your anniversary; if I receive no notice of it, I shall stay away. I beg, however, to refer you to my letter to you on the subject, of the 28th November, 1818. My opinions were the same then as they are now, and as well known, nor do I imagine I shall alter them.'

"Mr. Le Grice replies on the 15th of April- At the close of your let ter, you refer me to yours of the 28th November, 1818, and you as+ sert that your opinions were as well known then as they are now.-To this I answer-not by me.'

66

'Mr. Le Grice, however, has de parted from leaving it to my cour tesy and honour,' by proposing my removal himself from the office of president. The resolution proceeded from him, when in honour it should have come from any one else. He now acknowledges that he exhibited our correspondence to three clergymen of the committee. His shewing it to one, was a breach of faith, and contrary to the true intent and meaning of my contract on that subject.-I feel he had no right to use a private investigation of a subject, ever to his own advantage, contrary to my intent and meaning. On the subject of shewing our correspondence, I quote the following passages:

"Mr. Le Grice in his letter of the 17th March, 1823, says You apologize about an amanuensis. I can have no objection, provided he sees my replies to your observations.'-I replied to him on the 8th of April:I have only to add that I have shewn your letters to me to my amanuensis, and that no one else has seen them." IN THE SAME CANDID MANNER, you are welcome to shew our correspondence to any one you choose; ONLY LET ME know it.'