SIR,

W. B. KENNAWAY.

December 18, 1819.
HAVE read great interest

I controversy which has taken spite in the late Numbers of the Repository respecting Divine Influences. I wish, through the medium of your pages, to request from Dr. Carpenter and H. T. some explanation of their statements. Will Dr. C., or any other of your Correspondents, favour me with the meaning of the following expressions:

"God does by his immediate influence or agency, not supernatural, nor miraculous, yet immediate, afford supplies of strength," &c. (P. 618.) I wish to have the difference explained between supernatural and immediate agency, as I have always supposed them synonymous terms.

On a very attentive perusal of Dr. C.'s letter, I am led to the conclusion that the doctrine he has stated is at variance with Unitarian principles. Dr. C. will much oblige me by presenting the texts on which he founds his view of divine influence.

May I also ask H. T. to support his positions by Scripture proofs? I acknowledge his reasoning is just, but without the concurrence of the Bible, he will " open the door to every sort of delusion." (P. 478.)

Will he tell me the difference between "God, in the exercise of his providence," leading a Heathen "to the knowledge of the gospel of Jesus,"

At a that of the

Ta time when that Christianity,

land," is identified with persecution, the following eloquent extract from a sermon by of

the Walloon Church at Amsterdam, may, perhaps, be read with interest.

"It can be no illusion; whatever is really wrong is foolish and shortsighted; and of all the errors that have disgraced mankind, intolerance is the most dangerous-perhaps the most guilty, but assuredly the most absurd. What! convince a man by violence-persuade him by main force! The stupidity which would impose a creed, can only be exceeded by the malignity which would punish its rejection. Transfer to another your powers of mind and body—lend him your emotions and your thoughtsinfuse into him your understandingand then begin the work of conversion. My conviction of truth is an internal, inalienable possession which I cannot convey to another. I may unbosom that conviction, trace its progress, and endeavour to lead men to its conclusions, but they are as free to reject as I to adopt my system, and having no right to believe them insincere, I must bear with their incredulity-but dare not punish it. To insist on their believing as I believe, is to order them to receive no impressions but what I receive-to require, that what satisfies me shall satisfy them-that their intellect shall be a servile copy of minein a word, that they shall sacrifice to

my pride and passions the sublime faculties they (like me) have received from the Father of lights.' Yet in tolerance has been called a necessary evil. How necessary? Is not every man to answer for the talents he has received, and to be judged according to the advantages he has possessed? Will you take its consequences for its justification? Short and shameful are its triumphs. It receives no involuntary tributes, for it is a tyrant that is abandoned as soon as he hides his head. Would you be gratified with false and hollow homages, and will you dare insist on their being offered to God? Intolerance makes no real proselytes. Her most obedient slaves are hypocrites and liars. Would you have such to honour the triumphs of the religion of Jesus? Mistaken men! Study his spirit, and you will find that you are the worst of apostates. And you would invite others to follow the steps of him you call your Master, by trampling on his holy laws? The gospel will neither have slaves nor tyrants for its advocates. It is founded on the spirit of liberty. Freely as we have received from it the blessings of freedom, freely and generously we are bound to give. Let our candour, our charity, be the first proof of our faith. It is better-it is nightier than the strong arm of power."

SIR,

J. B.

York, December 9, 1819.

I gave me great pleasure to see Mr. Channing's excellent discourse, preached at Baltimore on the 5th of May last, reprinted at Liverpool, and as I think it may be interesting to some of your readers to know the circumstances out of which it took its rise, I shall transcribe the following particulars from my friend Dr. H., of Dorchester, with which he favoured me a few weeks ago:

"Of the progress of religion, of freedom of inquiry, and of literature, I could give you interesting details, but they would fill a volume rather than a letter. Some particulars you will glean from the publications that accompany this. Among them the sermon of Mr. Channing, I know will attract your first attention, because his name and fame are already familiar to you: but it is necessary to give you a

brief history of the occasion on which the sermon was delivered. It was preached at Baltimore, the capital of Maryland, and, next to New York, the largest commercial town in the United States. Some of the most respectable and opulent inhabitants of that place, went from New England, and carried with them an attachment to Congregationalism, or Independent churchgovernment; whereas all the churches there are either Presbyterian or Episcopalian, and of course highly Calvinistic and Trinitarian in their creed. Several of the ministers of our vicinity, in their journeyings to visit Washington City, and see Congress in its sessions, stopt at Baltimore. The New England inhabitants wished to hear them preach; but the Presbyterians would not, and the Episcopalians could not, invite them into their pulpits. This led the Congregationalists to unite in erecting a place of worship for themselves, and they have built a most magnificent one. They then sent to our university for a preacher, and obtained Mr. Sparks, one of the tutors, a gentleman of superior talents. At his ordination Mr. Channing's Sermon was delivered. It has passed through two large editions in Baltimore, (eight hundred copies of the first, it has been said, were taken up on the day of its publication,) and two editions have been printed in Boston. It is eagerly read, and the impression which it has made, and is inaking, is very great."

"On Mr. Channing's return from Baltimore, he was urged to preach at New York, not by the clergymen of the city, for their pulpits are not open to such as he, but by distinguished individuals, who obtained for him the Medical Hall: and on the following week two meetings were held of considerable numbers, to take measures for collecting a society and erecting a house for public worship, and an invitation has been forwarded to us for a preacher; in consequence of which Mr. Ware, one of the most esteemed Boston ministers, has gone on to New York to preach, and to assist them in the furtherance of their enlightened purposes."

I have since heard that the sensation occasioned by Mr. Channing's Sermon, has raised up a powerful opponent in support of the orthodox system in Professor Stuart, of the Andover The

ological Seminary, who addressed to Mr. C. a series of controversial letters, which passed almost immediately through two editions. "Mr. Stuart,' my friend says, "is one of the most learned, able and powerful supporters of what is deemed high orthodoxy." These letters are very ably reviewed in an interesting publication, entitled "The Christian Disciple," published at Boston every two months, by Wells and Lilly. My friend adds, "probably there will be more publications in this controversy; indeed we are promised, perhaps I should say threatened, with a vindication of doctrinal points, in answer to Mr. C., by another Andover professor." Dr. H. regrets the personal asperities that too much mingle with this controversy, but hopes and trusts that, "like the storms and tempests that sometimes visit the American region, it may have a salutary tendency, and, dispelling dark and noxious vapours, may leave the atmosphere more pure, and let in the light of heaven through a clearer medium." "We," he says, may see this light but partially diffused, yet, with good old Simeon, we may depart in peace, encouraged by the assurance that it shall not only shed more of its glories in our own lands, but also enlighten the Gentiles who now sit in darkness, and ultimately spread joy through the whole earth.""

JOSEPHUS has given a brief but

in which the Apostle James was put to death. It is to this effect, A. J. Lib. xx. C. 8. §1: "The younger Ananus, who was made chief priest, was haughty in his behaviour and exceedingly daring. He moreover ranked with the Sadducees, who surpassed all the Jews in the cruelty of their judicial sentences. Ananus being thus disposed, summons a council of the judges, and bringing before it the brother of Jesus, called Christ, whose name was James, with some others, he accuses them of transgressing the

law, and delivered them up to be stoned. But those in the city most distinguished for their probity and accurate knowledge of the laws were grievously offended at this measure."

The ground of the accusation brought against James was assuredly his belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Stephen maintained the same opinion. And they said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God," Acts vi. 11. We may be assured also that the other persons who suffered with James, suffered for the same reason. Moreover, since the enemies of James insisted that he transgressed the law in holding forth Jesus as the Saviour, we are to infer that the men whom Josephus represents as most distinguished by their probity and accurate knowledge of the law, and who were grievously offended at his death, had the same views of Jesus with the apostle. These were such men as Gamaliel and the priests who became obedient to the faith, Acts vi. 7.

From this passage we may gather, that, in the dispute between the apostles and their adversaries, the terms Gospel and Christianity were not employed. The sole question between the parties was, which of them rightly understood the laws of Moses. The believers in embracing the gospel, so far from professing a new or exclusive religion, professed only a more adequate and refined knowledge of the Mosaic law. The writings of Josephus, in an eminent degree, illustrate this fact. In his immortal work against Apion he has given, under the title of the law, a beautiful delineation of the gospel; and he asserts that, in his time, there was not a place, nor scarcely a family in the whole civi

Lardner and some other sagacious critics reject this passage of Josephus as a forgery, and one reason for the rejection is, that it gives an account of the death of James different from that which, through Eusebius, (H. E. Lib. ii. C. 23,) we have received from Hegesippus. But the two narratives are perfectly consistent with each other, only that the Jewish historian, in his brevity, has omitted the particulars related by the other. Josephus does not say, as Lardner represents him saying, that Ananus had James and

that the persons, with Josephus in the number, grievously offended at his death, did look on Jesus in the same light, or in other words, that they were believers in Christ.

I

SIR,

JOHN JONES.

January 7, 1820.

AM not ashamed to profess myself one of those “Bible only" Christians, who while they recognize, in the utmost possible latitude of the terms, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as the one and only true God," cannot go so far as to deny the honourable name of Unitarian to many a fellow Biblist who would refuse to subscribe assent to a tenet so unscripturally EXPRESSED, as that of the simple humanity" of the Saviour of the world. Shall I be accused of more than venial effrontery by the great majority of my brethren, if I follow up the avowal by even presuming to doubt the expediency, nay, the propriety of laying so unnecessary a stumbling block, as it now appears to me to be, in the way, at the very threshold, of that great desideratum to the Protestant community, "the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"? The dogma of the Trinity, (itself scarcely more reprehensibly, because not more unscripturally expressed,) has evidently seen its better days, and as the phraseology of the Sacred Records regains its due estimation in the Christian world, will more and more lose ground. Now, what more cogent or effective argument has ever been urged against this doctrine by its opponents, than that it usurps a name which neither Jesus nor Paul knew, and which no disciple, at their feet alone, can ever justifiably adopt? Why then ourselves imitate so justly-deprecated a precedent of deviation from the language of a common oracle? Decipitne Exemplar, &c.? Surely, on the contrary, of all other men, it most be hoves us, whose peculiar boast it deservedly is, that we require no phrase or term in which to express any article of our creed, but what has fallen from the lips of the great Author and Finisher of our faith, or of his immediate missionaries, to be punctiliously scrupulous about travelling out of the Sacred Records in any confession of our faith, or any exposition of our tenets. As we wish to bring back the religion of Christ, let us prove our un

impeachable title to so proud a distinction. Such Shiboleths as unscriptural compendiums of belief offer no equivalent for the reproach of inconsistency. The unity of the church of Christ cannot be contemplated as possible till they shall have been unanimously abandoned. With their abandonment, the principal obstacle to a consummation so devoutly to be wished, would be removed. In the glorious enterprise, what church so fit to lead the way, never turning to the right hand or the left, as that which would build, not chiefly, but only, on Christ as its corner stone? J. T. CLARKE.

I

SIR,

AM the wife of a professor of music, and the attraction of that delightful art brings to my house many people of superior station and abilities, with whose company I am much pleased. Among these I have often heard Mr. L. talked of as a surgeon of extraordinary merit and abilities; but I will confess to you, Mr. Editor, that I have been the cause of my husband's not employing that gentleman professionally, because I understood he was a Materialist. Now, Sir, this Mr. L. has lately published a book on the natural history of man, which has excited so strong a feeling of hostility against him, that he has been obliged to recall the publication, or he was threatened with the loss of all his public situations as Surgeon to Bedlam and St. Bartholomew's, and Lecturer to the College of Surgeons. I mentioned this yesterday to a physician who is a great friend of ours, and of whose judgment I have a high opinion, but who, to my great surprise, reprobated the whole business in very strong terms, and said it was founded on the most ignorant bigotry and groundless prejudice, and that it ought to be quite indifferent to the public whether any man was a Materialist or not. I said it appeared to me of great importance whether we had souls or not, and that I freely confessed I could not like any body who denied the existence of that noble part of my nature. "Your dislike would be reasonable, Madam," said the doctor, "if the denial had any influence on the nature of things, and in all cases, before we entertain dislike of an individual for his opinions, we