priety to your work. It was, therefore, my wish and intention to drop the subject for the present, to finish the remarks at my leisure, and, in my own time and way, to submit them to the public.

It is natural, Sir, that you should wish to begin the new year with new subjects, and that your Correspondents should look for them. At the same time, as the case now stands, I am obliged to leave off in the midst of my argument, or rather at the precise point, where, I conceive, its principal strength lies. The communication now in your hands, with what I proposed still to add, went to shew, that Mr. Robinson's translations, with the exception of typographical errors, * is, in the main, right, and as "to recriminate is just," that Mr. Belsham's is grammatically and essentially wrong; and that several other matters, advanced by that gentleman, relating to Tertullian, both in your Repository and his own publication, is incorrect, either directly or by implication. It was, further, intended to examine Mr. Belsham's Greek translations, and quotations from Dr. Wall, by the language of the New Testament, and of the first Greek Fathers. I have already alluded to these matters, and gone over the ground in my own mind, and by a course of honest inquiry. Now, Sir, it would not be agreeable to my feelings to leave Mr. Robinson under misconceptions and misrepresentations, and I should reckon it dishonourable to have made insinuations which I cannot substantiate. Something, there-fore, is still left for future discussion.

shall dismiss the subject from my thoughts, and not resume it till I have finished my proper business. I beg leave to add, that my observations on Mr. Robinson's History will extend no further than Tertullian is concerned; for there the charge was brought; and that an examination of Mr. Belsham's Greek anthrorities, though arising out of the subject, will be a work of supererogation. These, with a few previous questions, are the points, (and I shall keep to them,) which I propose to consider somewhat at large, and critically, as leisure and opportunity are offered, which cannot be till my present engagements are fulfilled.

Personal religion (that is, what arises from real feeling and conscientious conviction, producing a corresponding practice) is not subject to man's estimate; it is as little within his reach, as it ought to be beyond his controul, and, whether a man concientiously believes, in what concerns a ceremony, that it may be practised with a few drops of water, or should be practised with much water; and whether he holds it should be administered to babes, or only on adults, or, if he conscientiously sets all water, and all ceremonies aside; in either case a truly conscientious man is equally religious. But points, as they are made the matter of theological controversy, like other literary subjects, may be properly estimated, and brought under the laws of criticism. On these principles no opposition could have been intended, nor can hereafter be, against personal religion, and in any course of future inquiry that I may enter on, I may, perhaps, think it my duty to move as independent of Mr. Robinson as Mr. Belsham.

In the mean time, I re-affirm, that Mr. B. has himself mistranslated and misrepresented Tertullian, as my papers suppressed would have more fully shewn. I wish certain of your readers to be informed, that the remarks contained in them, together with the preceding Letters, I propose to submit to their consideration, in a more public and correct form, when I am at leisure, which, however, is not likely to be for a considerable time to come.

G. D.

P.S. As, I perceive, your Correspondent pays great deference to the authorities of Dr. Wall and Dr. Priest

ley on the points which are the subJect of these Letters, it is proposed, on a proper occasion, to examine the value of their authorities.

Newport, Isle of Wight,
December 16, 1819.

SIR,
S of those un-

the charge "that the unforeseen and unexpected junction of the Arians has, in some measure, disturbed the harmony of the Society, as they have been continually pushing to alter the preamble, and in some cases, among the affiliated societies, with too much success; having actually subverted the ori

fallen under the formidable lash of Mr. Belsham's censure, [XIV. 657,] permit me to state a few circumstances which may at least serve to palliate, if they do not justify our conduct.

The London Unitarian Society, it appears, was first formed by a few individuals, who, assuming as a principle that the simple humanity of Jesus Christ is a doctrine of the highest importance, and believing that every deviation from it tends to still greater errors, and that these deviations have, in fact, proved the primary source of the grossest corruptions of the Christian doctrine, conceived that they could not render a better service to the interests of pure and practical Christianity, than by instituting a society, the direct and avowed object of which should be the public profession and promulgation of this fundamental truth."

Not so, the Southern Unitarian Society: this Society was formed by persons, some of whom held that our Saviour, before his birth, existed in a state of great glory and happiness; others, that he was by nature, in all respects, like his brethren; though they all believed in his subordination to the Father and complete dependence upon him. They all acknowledged the absolute unity and unrivalled supremacy of Jehovah, the almighty, all-wise, and allgracious Creator and Preserver of all things, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. To teach this great doctrine was the object which the forma tion of the Society had in view: its members were far from adopting the contracted notion, that in order to associate for this purpose it was necessary that a complete similarity should exist on minor points of opinion.

In order to bear their united testimony to the unity of God, they no more conceived it necessary that they should think alike as to the age of Christ, than as to his stature and complexion. Where, then, is the justice, as far at least as we are concerned, of

sion of the simple humanity of Christ"?

But, Sir, we have great examples to plead in excuse of our " modern Latitudinarian principles." At the first annual meeting of the Southern Society, held at Portsmouth in 1812, the secretary informed the committee that he had obtained the consent of the Rev. Thomas Belsham to preach at the next anniversary; it was subsequently resolved, after thanking Mr. Belsham for his obliging compliance with the request that had been made to him, That he be informed that this Society is associated only in the doctrine of the Divine Unity." Now, Sir, I have not Mr. Belsham's sermon before me; "but I fear that, instead of the good old original practice of preaching the truth as it is in Jesus," he adopted," the modern principle of the reformed societies," which is, "not to give offence to their new friends," and that something else was "substituted in the room of a plain, energetic declaration of the absolute unity of God and the simple humanity of Jesus Christ, as the great and fundamental articles of the Christian faith;" for I find in the record of proceedings at the meeting for business, held immediately after the morning service, the following resolutions:

That it be entered as a minute on the journal of the Society, and printed with the list of subscribers, that by calling ourselves Unitarians, we mean only to avow our belief in the simple unity of God."

"That the thanks of the Society be given to Mr. Belsham, for the candid manner in which he received the information of the Society's character and design, as well as listened to their request of adopting his discourse."

Mr. Belsham, who had become a member of the Society, is stated to have been present when the above resolutions were passed, and it does not appear that any objection was made to them. Several of our succeeding preachers, like Mr. Belsham, adapted

their discourses to the character and design of the Society, and among the rest, the gentleman who preached at its last anniversary: he, it is true, warned his hearers "not to be ashamed of Christ and his words"-" a duty certainly in these times of no very difficult performance;" but he was far from resting in this general exhortation; he defined the leading articles of Christian faith to consist in a belief of the unity of God, the placability of the Divine character, and the remedial nature of future punishment: these fundamental doctrines he earnestly exhorted his hearers openly to avow and ́maintain; though, like some of his predecessors, adapting his discourse to the character and design of the Society, he forbore to insist on any peculiar opinion as to the person of Christ. In conclusion, Sir, allow me to express a hope, that the respected gentleman so frequently alluded to, will see the propriety of abstaining in future from so severely censuring those who have only followed the line of conduct which he himself assisted to mark out.

SIR,

VECTIS.

Norwich,

December 14, 1819. UCH as I admire and applaud

M the spirit which pervades the

letter of your Liverpool Correspondent T., [XIV. 672,] I am not so much aware, as he seems to be, of the absolute necessity of a General Unitarian Association. It appears to me that the exertions of the Unitarians have been, though slowly, yet gradually and powerfully directed as a body towards the accomplishment of those ends which, as Christians, they are bound to promote. They are bound to make known their sentiments and opinions, to attack unscriptural creeds and idolatrous worship, to wage unceasing war with error, bigotry and superstition, and never to relax till these be no more. This they are associated for the purpose of effecting, by their London Unitarian Book Society, which, in the course of thirty years, has lived to see in existence and in action a numerous and thriving progeny-by the unwearied and valuable labours of their Missionaries, and by the various objects which the Unitarian Fund pursues with equal zeal and prudence. They are bound to watch over and protect (as

far as they can) the civil rights which they enjoy, and to obtain an extension of them. This they do by the Association for that purpose. They are bound to provide a place at which education may be given to those persons who desire to become public instructors; and this they do by supporting the College at York. They are also bound to afford assistance to the wants of their brethren, and this they do by their Fellowship Funds.

All these Societies and Associations have arisen, because the want of them has become manifest, but what other objects your Correspondent has in view besides these, is not, I think, very apparent. He has referred to the state of the Chapels at Stafford, Stone, and Newcastle-under-Line, in proof of the necessity of such an Association, but surely these cases come immediately within the province of the Unitarian Fund, which has successfully interposed to rescue some of our old Presbyterian Churches from entire decay, and if its funds had been sufficiently ample, would, probably, have used the same exertions in behalf of these places. In counties where there are no Unitarians, of course no Associations can exist, but in those in which they are at all numerous, Associations of one kind or other have sprung up, and these, I conceive, may be rendered quite adequate to the necessary exertions of their respective districts. Each of these Associations has a secretary, whose name is generally announced every year in the Repository, and to whom, of course, the London Societies apply whenever necessary. The following list will shew how much has already been effected, and how much still remains to be done in various parts of the kingdom. is, probably, not a complete one, but it may serve as an attempt or a beginning of a more perfect one:

London.-Unitarian Book Society.
Unitarian Fund.

It

Association for Protecting the Civil Rights of Unitarians.

Western Unitarian Society, including Somerset, Gloucester, Devonshire, Dorsetshire, Wiltshire.

Southern Unitarian Society, including Hampshire and Sussex.

Northern Unitarian Society, including Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, and the South of Yorkshire.

Warwickshire Unitarian Society,

including Warwick, Leicester, Stafford, Nottingham and Worcestershire.

North Eastern Unitarian Society, including Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Isle of Ely, and part of Norfolk. Eastern Unitarian Society, including part of Norfolk, Suffolk, and part of Essex.

Kent and Sussex Unitarian Christian Association.

West Riding of York Unitarian Tract Society.

Devon and Cornwall Unitarian As

sociation.

Gainsborough Association. Scotch Unitarian Christian Association.

South Wales Unitarian Society.
Lancashire and Cheshire Unitarian

Christian Association.

Southern Unitarian Fund. Manchester Quarterly Meeting of Ministers.

Midland and Northern Meeting of Unitarian Ministers.

Welsh Unitarian Ministers' Quarterly Meeting.

Assembly of Ministers in Devon and Cornwall.

cester, Liverpool, Hull, Framlingham, Warrington and York.

Now, comparing this list (in which I hope there are several omissions) with the number of Unitarian congre gations, it appears to me, that it is to its extension, our efforts ought to be chiefly directed. Here is abundant scope for more to be done. The means are easy and attainable-the utility obvi ous, the success certain. Every society can do according to its ability-much to whom much is given, and little to whom little. If universal, all our institutions and all the objects embraced by them might be easily, effectually and liberally supported, and supported in the best possible way; not by the exertions of a few opulent individuals, but by the collective strength of the whole body.

The formation of a General Association would necessarily bring with it a fresh pecuniary call upon Unitarians. Now, the multiplication of societies, unless their utility be most apparent, is an evil. If they be too numerous, they necessarily starve each other. But in the Fellowship Funds the sum required from each person is so small, that they cannot decline or decay if once esta

Rossendale and Rochdale Association of Unitarian Brethren.

This list comprises twenty-four distinct Societies, of which the objects are various, but they all have one common principle and effect, that of bringing different churches into fellowship. They are all both able and willing to promote the various objects which, as a body, we ought to have in view. The counties which are not embraced by any of these Associations, are Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Durham, the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire, Shropshire, Rutland, Hereford, Northampton, Huntingdon, Bedford, Hertford, Bucks, Oxford, Berks and Surrey.

Then in addition to these District Associations, there appear to have been Fellowship Funds formed in London, (Parliament Court,) Southwark, (Dr. T. Rees's,) Hackney, (Gravel Pit,) Manchester, Birmingham, (Old and New Meetings,) Swansea, Exeter, Lewes, Newport, Warwick, Southwark, Kidderminster, Sheffield, Leicester, Brighton, Tenterden, Norwich, Palgrave, Yeovil, Lynn, Sidmouth, Glou

while to give up a subscription of a penny-a-week. They are at present only in their infancy, and yet we see that for the erection of one place of worship they have furnished £79, (see Repos. Wrapper for Nov.) the whole of which is raised without inconvenience to any one, and without the deduction of a shilling for travelling expenses, or the irksomeness of repeated and often unavailing personal solicitations.

EDWARD TAYLOR.

factory to myself or to others, I am desirous of making some remarks upon the subject of the Divine Influence, in reference to the communication of your Correspondent L. J. J., inserted in your Number for November (XIV. 675). I feel it, indeed, to be a duty to enter a protest at least against that cold scepticism, which must tend to chill the warmth of pious affections, to weaken the power of virtuous emotions, and to make religion itself little else than an altar without an offering.

If the arguments employed by your Correspondent to get rid of "the pe titionary part of devotion" be examined into, they will be found to have very little solidity, and I cannot but regret that the comfort and support of many pious, but, perhaps, not well-informed Christians, should be in any respect endangered by the promulgation of opinions which I deem so contrary to reason and Scripture.

The great error which your Correspondent appears to me guilty of, is, his taking it upon himself to settle and limit the powers and modes of the operations of the Deity. Admitting the premises he has laid down to be correct, his reasoning is fair, but believing them, as I do, to be false, I cannot attach the slightest importance to his conclusions.

After stating that all the phenomena of the universe depend upon certain laws fixed by the Supreme Being, he adds, "These laws, however, excepting in miraculous times, seem to act uniformly, regularly, and without any interruption, even from any interference, direction or controul, of their great Former himself:" and in reply to a remark of your Correspondent H. T., (XIV. 477,) that there is nothing irrational in praying for spiritual guidance, or that God would exercise his providence in placing in our way the means of improvement, and adapting our principles to our trials, L. J. J. observes, "I confess it appears to me very irrational, and the more so, as "God has actually revealed his will to us in a supernatural manner,' that he should now so order his providence,' that is, interrupt the action of his own laws, that this holy will may be understood by us.""

So ignorant as we are, and must in this state of existence be content to remain, of the manner in which God has ordered the laws of nature, or chosen to accomplish the designs of his providence, it is presumptuous to assert that any end may not be produced without a departure from, or an interruption in those fixed laws. And what is there irrational in the supposition, that our prayers may be some of the means appointed by himself to bring about particular ends?

For reasons which we cannot doubt are the wisest and the best, the Deity has not permitted us to penetrate the

veil that conceals the workings of his. providence. We know not the influ ences which he calls into action in the production of events, and it is not allowed us to conjecture to what extent he regards the supplications of his creatures. But this ignorance should be a check to our presumption only, and not to our humble hope that our prayers may find acceptance in his sight. I should pursue this point farther, but it has been so ably treated in the chapter on "The Parental Character of the Deity," in Dr. Cogan's Theological Disquisition on Christianity, that I cannot do better than refer your readers to that work. The whole of L. J. J.'s arguments will be found there fully anticipated, and most satisfactorily answered.

I cannot well imagine how a person who peruses the New Testament, with a sincere desire to discover truth, and who believes in the Christian religion, can feel the doubt implied in L. J. J.'s question respecting prayer, "if it be a duty enjoined upon us in the New Testament," &c. There are, in my opinion, few duties more clearly de fined and commanded than that of prayer, and the arguments which may be employed to prove that it was only enjoined upon those of the apostolic age, will equally prove that all the other duties and obligations of Christianity were confined to its earliest professors.

Your

To a believer in the authenticity of the New Testament, I should think that the first part of the sixth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, would be quite convincing of the duty of prayer in its petitionary, as well as in its other forms. Christ has there given a model for prayer. Though in a preceding verse he says to his disciples, Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask him," so far from discouraging them from presenting petitions to their Father, he instructs them to pray even for temporal blessings, "Give us this day our daily bread" and because Christ has not informed us in what manner or degree our prayers will be answered, it is no reason why we should be induced by any speculations of our own upon the mode in which God may please to act, to omit the performance of a duty so clearly defined.

But not only to the instructions of