ought to prove that his thoughts have power to alter the nature of the subject in question. In the present instance such an idea is manifestly absurd, and the question itself is so very abstract and difficult, that very few persons are fit to give an opinion about the matter; and of those who do, their positiveness will be found in a very direct proportion with their degree of ignorance." I begged him to give me some slight notion of the nature of those difficulties, as the question appeared to me simple and easy enough. This, Madam," said he, "is almost impossible in a short conversation, but, however, I may just hint that any one who assumes a right to decide the question, ought to begin with shewing the difference between the nature of the attraction of the particles of matter in a case of chemical affinity, a piece of zinc suspended in a solution of acitate of lead for instance, and that attraction which exists between the particles of matter in a seed, and the soil in which it is inserted. If he should succeed in this, he must proceed to the still more difficult task of tracing the cause of the distinction between the attractions in the former cases, and those exercised in the production of animal existence; which is so far from having ever been done, that we are entirely ignorant of the manner in which these operations of nature are performed. No Materialist is bold enough to say he can trace these various attractions; but he says a regular analogy may be observed from the most passive and inert matter, up to the most active and complicated; that with the first appearance of any thing like brain and nerves in an object, there is a glimpse of sensation, and that as the organization of these material organs improves, there is an equal rate of advance in the powers of feeling and intellect, till you arrive at their utmost terrestrial perfection in man; that whatever is the cause of feeling and intelligence in man, is exactly the same in nature, although differing in degree with that in all other sentient beings on this globe, and that it is no more necessary to suppose the addition of another principle, than it is to imagine the existence of a spirit of elasticity in the springs, or a spirit to move the wheels of a watch. Now this is all quite true, and the brains and nerves of man may possibly contain within themselves, essentially, the properties of intelligence and sensation, as a piece of steel does of elasticity, but till we know how the cause produces the effect, which is probably beyond the reach of the human faculties, we can never be competent to decide positively on the matter. "The Immaterialist, on the other hand, starts with the position, that there is a manifest contrast between mind and matter, and that to talk of a material intellect is as absurd as it would be to speak of a thought as being square, or an argument as being triangular. That the mind of man, glancing in an instant from pole to pole, from the earliest records of history to the present moment; darting with a ra pidity, greater far than that of light, from the sun to the utmost planet, and thence into the regions of infinite space, can never be justly considered as a mere quality of the dull, heavy clod of earth which, for a moment, it is made to inhabit. That we have even a consciousness that we ourselves are something distinct from our bodies, and that when a man's limbs are mutilated, his sense of integrity is no more affected than by a change of his clothes. But all this is evidently mere assertion, and assuming as granted the very subject of dispute; and the Immaterialist is just as incapable of proving that the mind of man is something separate from his body, as his adversary is of the reverse. If the Immaterialist denies a soul to brutes, he gets involved in an inextricable maze of contradiction, which he in vain attempts to get out of by saying that God is himself to them a soul; because that is a mere sophism,-words without meaning,an assumption without the least proof. There is still another theory on this subject perhaps more profound, more logical, and more consistent than either of the others, viz. that which supposes the non-existence of matter. Spiritualist asks, what is matter? You say, every object in nature which comes within the cognizance of the senses; any thing that is hard, soft, rough, smooth, coloured, plain, odorous, heavy, and so on-the table, chair, picture or statue in this room for instance. The Spiritualist answers, that you have only described your own sensations, and can, in the nature of The things, do nothing more; for you can never go beyond the impression made on your senses, and say what that is which produces them. He will tell you that an impression on a bodily sense is no proof of a material cause. Look in that mirror, you will see the table, chair, picture and statue expressed to your eye with the same accuracy and distinctness as the objects themselves, and yet they are mere phantasms, the reality of which only exists in the mind of the sentient being. Our other senses do not afford such plain examples, obvious to any understanding, but their case is precisely similar, and the whole world is nothing but a phantasmagoria, and sentient beings the only real things in it. Now pray, my dear Madam, can you think that your surgeon is the less estimable for having directed his attention to these high subjects; and, do you still think that the evidence for any one of these theories is so conclusive as to stamp with contempt or infamy him who inclines to a contrary? You will say, perhaps, that the Christian religion has long ago decided the question, and established the fact of our having immortal souls. The Christian religion, Madam, has, if you please, established the fact of a future state of existence, in which we are to be rewarded or punished for our moral conduct in this world; but all sound and rational divines have long agreed that the inspired writers had no authority to reveal any thing beyond the great truths of religion. It was the absurd doctrine of what is called the plenary inspiration which induced the inquisitors of Rome to imprison Galileo for proving that the earth was not immoveable. There is, perhaps, hardly an individual in England, however ignorant or intolerant, not even one of the governors of Bedlam or St. Bartholomew's, who would now attempt to screen those inquisitors from contempt and abhorrence; but they should be told that their own conduct is precisely similar, that they are actuated by the very same spirit and motives, and that it is just as probable that St. Paul might have wrong notions of the animal economy, as King David of the movements of the heavenly bodies. Unfortunately, such behaviour in public bodies towards a man of science, stamps a character on a whole age and nation, and this it is which renders it a duty on every man of public spirit or enlightened patriotism, to enter his protest against conduct so mean and disgraceful." I have only to add, Mr. Editor, that as the Doctor's discourse has had the effect of entirely changing my opinion on the subject, I have written it to you, in order, if you please, to communicate it to your readers. I S. W. WAS solicited some time since, by more than one of your readers, and, I believe, subscribers, to send you some remarks on Mr. Belsham's Censure of Mr. Robinson's History of Baptism. I was unwilling at first to engage, partly because I had paid my respects already to that gentleman's memory, and partly because I had a place in reserve, in which I meant, at the proper time, to say something more concerning him. At length, however, I complied, for which I have been justly condemned by some friends, and I have condemned myself, as Í was engaged in business at the time from which nothing ought to have diverted me, and as I could not engage in such remarks without going into detail. My motives, as I have explained them, were rather general than particular. I had no personal dislikes nor private seekings, and I was as little influenced by the love of controversy, or a desire of obtruding myself on the notice of your Correspondents. I sent, as you know, no signature, nor did I intend at first to be known as the writer. I have reason, on many accounts, to be sorry for dwelling on the subject so long, and the more so, if my aim to do justice to Mr. Robinson has at any time obtruded on more valuable communications. That some of your subscribers may wish the subject to be discontinued, I can very readily believe, and, to speak freely, I was myself before-hand with their wishes. What I said on sending my last communication I have in part forgotten: but I had determined on my return to town to trouble you no more, as well because I was aware that what I had already offered could not interest many of your readers, as because I thought what I had yet in reserve could not (in the way I proposed to treat it) be offered with pro 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, therefore, is still left for future discussion. But, perhaps, Sir, it was kind in some of your Correspondents, for the present, to put the check-string on my aberrations and certain of my friends, wish they had done it sooner, for they knew I was seriously engaged, and had brought myself into great responsibility. As the matter now stands, I That the errata and omissions in Mr. Robinson's quotations from Tertullian are merely typographical, his translation proves; Mr. Belsham's translation is itself wrong, as is all that he says, or would imply, with respect to Tertullian, as well in reference to the subject and mode of baptism, as to the time and place. It is not historically true, according to truly primitive faith and practice. 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 authorities, 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. SIR, Newport, Isle of Wight, As a member of one of those unfortunate Societies which have 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 formation 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 the charge "that the unforeseen and unexpected junction of the Arians has, in some measure, disturbed the har mony 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 original object of the Society, the profesthe sion of the simple humanity of Christ” ? 66 of 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 spirit 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 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. It 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. 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, |