see sin at all, the other that he does not see sin in his own people. Those who are at all acquainted with the controversy between us and those who style themselves Unitarians, know that they found an objection to our scheme of Atonement on the very words of Scripture, viz. that God is not said to be reconciled to us by the death of his Son, but we are said to be reconciled to God.': The preacher then refers to "Drs. Magee and Wardlaw," as having "most satisfactorily answered the objection," and quotes a preacher who styles himself a high Calvinist," who had preached that "it was never necessary to reconeile God to his dear elect: he was reconciled to them from all eternity; all that was wanted, was something to reconcile his dear elect to him." The note concludes with a censure On "ignorant men" and "their ill-digested schemes." For this Note, "the ministers and congregation" who requested the publication of the sermon, are not responsible. It serves, however, while bringing "those who style themselves Unitarians" into strange company, to shew how a learned orthodox theologian may prove himself (to indulge the charity that “hopeth all things") ignorant as the most "ignorant men" respecting the "creed taught by Socinus." Those who, from their inquiries into the subject, have a right to describe the creed of Socinus, are well aware how that Christian Confessor, from a pious apprehension of encouraging "unscriptural and inadequate views of sin," and of thus representing it as altogether venial," was betrayed even into an infringement of the divine prerogative of prescience, lest he should represent God as the author of sin, or diminish, in any degree, the accountableness of man. Yet if the writer of this note can quote any "creed taught by Socinus," in which that reformer made an "attack on the divine law," and thus attempted to "destroy the very principles of morality," your pages are, I know, at his service; for Tros, Rutulusve is the maxim of your administration. Let him, then, avail himself of your impartiality, and produce his authority for such an injurious imputation on the " creed taught by SoSocinus." It will otherwise be con N 15th February last, a notice ligencer, (Washington city,) stating, appeared in the National Intelthat next day (Sunday) the Rev. Robert Little was to preach at the Capitol in the Hall of the House of Representatives, by permission of the Speaker, at eleven, A. M. Then fol lowed a notice by the Chaplain, a young Presbyterian minister of the Princeton school, to this effect: "The Rev. Mr. Breckenridge gives notice that Mr. Little is not to preach in the Hall of the House of Representatives by his request." The Editors of the paper, both of whom attend on Mr. Little's ministry, added, "Mr. Little does not preach in the Capitol by his the desire of several highly respecown request, but in consequence of table persons communicated to the Speaker:" and on Monday morning an article appeared in the same paper, written by one of the most distinguished Members of Congress, expressing great pleasure in consequence of hearing so able a discourse as that which Mr. Little delivered on the preceding day. This was not all. The Chaplain was so unwise as to attempt to catechise the Speaker for allowing Mr. Little to officiate, but he was informed that the disposal of the House on Sundays belonged not to the Chaplains, but to the Speaker; and that his interference was considered as impertinent, arrogant and offensive. The rule has always been for the Speaker to invite ministers of all persuasions who are introduced to him, to preach in the Hall. The Chaplains, as a matter of course, preach in rotations when no such appointment is made, but they have no right to interfere with what the Speaker does; and it is notorious that all sects stand precisely on the same level. Mr. Little's sermon was so much liked, that 200 or 300 copies were immediately subscribed for, chiefly by Members of Congress. The subject was, Public Usefulness: it has been published, but I have not yet seen it. Nobody thought of asking any of the orthodox Reverends to publish what they delivered in the same place. Chichester. SIR, easy to trace the progress of error in the Christian Church, from the first alteration which took place in the prevailing creed respecting our Lord, till the doctrine of the Trinity assumed to itself its greatest power. And to those who consider Unitarianism to be synonymous with Christianity, we may suppose it would be matter of interest to have information, how the plant which appeared buried under the rubbish of the cloister, has been able again to shoot forth successive leaves, and is in our day so promising, as to give us the pleasing hope that it will become a great tree, bearing leaves for the healing of all the nations. This object might, I conceive, be easily accomplished, if some one connected with our different places of worship would publish, with your permission, through the medium of the Repository, any authentic particulars that could be obtained relative to the introduction of the Unitarian Creed into their respective neighbourhoods. Under this impression, I have taken the liberty of transmitting a copy of some brief memorials of the introduction and state of Nonconformity at Chichester, which are preserved in the book of Baptismal Registers belonging to the Chapel in Baffin's Lane; the record is headed with these words, "An Account of the Succession of Dissenting Ministers at Chichester from the beginning." It then proceeds: "Dr. Calamy, in his Account of Ejected Ministers, Vol. IV. p. 832, mentions JOHN WILLIS (ejected from Wollavington) as preaching very privately at Chichester, and dying before King Charles' indul gence, so that he probably was the first who preached as a Dissenter in these parts. In these troublesome times the Dissenters met for social worship at Kingston, and having spies at the outer gate, they gave notice to the congregation when they saw informers approaching. One time, on notice given, the minister disappeared by means of a trap door in the pulpit. The congregation were singing Psalms when the officers entered. I conjecture this minister might be Mr. Willis, or his successor, Mr. JoHN CORBETT, ejected from Bramshot. Vide a very advantageous account of him in Calamy's Abridgement, Vol. II. p. sermon for him. He died Dec. 26, 1680. "Mr. JOHN BUCK. In 1691, he preached and printed a funeral sermon for Mr. Thorowgood of Godalming. And when Mr. Smith of Binderton died, he was buried in his own chapel, opposite his house. His pall was supported by six clergymen, who dropt the pall at the door, and would not enter in, as the chapel had never been consecrated. Mr. Buck preached in the chapel his funeral sermon; and that was the only sermon ever preached in that chapel. He lies buried in the Cathedral (or subdeanery) churchyard. The date upon his tombstone is November 1700. "Mr. JOHN EARLE was pastor of a church at Gosport, in Hampshire, from whence he immediately sneceeded Mr. Buck at Chichester. He was the son of Mr. Earle, ejected from East Tarring, and a relation to Dr. Earle, Bishop of Salisbury. Vide Calamy's Account, Vol. II. p. 687. He lies buried near Mr. Buck. The date upon his tombstone is February 3, 1705. The poetry upon it was the composition of Mr. John Bouchier. In his time there was a separation in his church, with Mrs. Le Gay at their head. They chose Mr. John Eaton their minister; and their meeting-house, though much smaller than the present, was on a part of the same ground. The Presbyterians in that time met in Little London. Upon Mrs. Le Gay's death, the congregation broke up, and joined the Presbyterians, then under the pastoral care of Mr. Robert Bagster, and Mr. Eaton was chosen pastor of Stoke Newington, where he died, "Mr. ROBERT BAGSTER was minister here about 26 years. He was a worthy man, and quite the gentleman. Before he came here, he was chaplain to Lady Hanby. He lies buried near the north side of St. Andrew's, East Street, Churchyard; but has no stone. He died about the year 1730. Mr. Browne of Portsmouth published a sermon preached at his ordination, January 9, 1706-7; and Mr. Loveder, of Havant, preached his funeral ser mon. "Mr. John Bouchier never was pastor of the church at Chichester; but he preached there alternately with Mr. Bagster, some years. At one time they held Arundel, at another Midhurst, but the longest time Havant with Chichester; and preached alternately at these places. He lies buried in the aisle of St. Andrew's Church, East Street. The date upon his stone is September 20, 1720. "Mr. JOHN PREDDEN came to Chichester Dec. 25, 1730, and continued pastor of this church to the day of his death, the 26th January, 1761. He lies buried in the south west corner of St. Martin's Church, in this city. He was the son of a gunsmith in the Minories, London, where he was born. He received his academical learning under Dr. Thomas Ridgley, a very rigid Independent. He preached first at Andover, a borough town in Hampshire; afterwards at Whitchurch, another borough town in the same county. From whence he removed to Guildford, in Surrey, where he was ordained by Mr. Daniel Mayo, of Kingston-upon-Thames, Mr. Daniel Neale, (author of the History of the Puritans,) and others. Mr. Neale, being an Independent, did not join in laying his whole hand on his head in the imposition of hands, but his little finger only. He remained pastor at Guildford twelve years. Dr. Avery retiring to Guildford two or three summers, Mr. Predden fell into an intimate acquaintance with him, which proved a great happiness to Mr. Predden. For as Dr. Avery told me himself, he found in Mr. Predden great honesty and integrity, and a mind strongly disposed to embrace truth; but at the same time as strongly shackled and fettered by the prejudices he had imbibed in his education, from which, by his acquaintance with VOL. XVIII. 2 U the Doctor, he became at length entirely free and generous in his sentiments. The single point he had in view, was to discover the truth, without any fear of the consequences; which he was fully convinced must always in the end prove right, as he firmly believed God himself made that the rule of his own actions. That freedom of sentiment which he imbibed from his conversation with Dr. Avery, he ever after retained through his whole life, without wavering, for I declare I never conversed with any one more candid and generous in his sentiments. Mr. Predden was so sensible of his happiness from the Doctor's acquaintance, that he has often repeated it to me, that to him he was indebted for his right sentiments and freedom from bigotry.' "N. B. The above account was communicated by Mr. Thomas Baker, surgeon, in King Street, London, an intimate friend of Dr. Avery's and Mr. Predden's. "Mr. THOMAS JOEL came to Chichester Nov. 1760, as an assistant to Mr. Predden, in which capacity he continued till Mr. Predden's death; and in about a fortnight after that time, he was chosen stated pastor, and continued to officiate in that relation till July 17, 1763. "JOHN HEAP came to Chichester August 6, 1764." Thus far the record in the alreadymentioned book: by whom it was made does not appear. It is all in one hand-writing. And the remarks about Mr. Predden are given as an extract, as it is afterwards said, from Mr. Baker, of London. The family of that Mr. Baker originally, I believe, attended the chapel. Some of the descendants or relations live now in Chichester and its neighbourhood, but are members of the establishment. Dr. Baker of St. Alban's, who is also of this family, supports the Unitarian interest in that place, and perhaps he could communicate many more interesting particulars relative to the early state of Nonconformity in this city. After the words " August 6, 1764," some one else has added respecting Mr. Heap," that he preached till 1788, when becoming infirm, he resigned." Mr. Thomas Watson succeeded him, and continued pastor till 1803, when he declined preaching, and removed to Bath. His successor was Mr. Youatt, who, in March 1812, was succeeded by Mr. Fox, who removed to London in March 1817. In the absence of any further authentic information, it may be conjectured that Kingston, where the first congregation is said to have assembled, is the place called also Kingsham; which is a field or two distant from Chichester. That Mr. Predden, whom Mr. Neale would touch with his little finger only, paved the way by his liberal sentiments for the introduction of what some would call greater heresy, which was silently gaining strength under the successive ministrations of Mr. Watson and Mr. Youatt; so that Mr. Fox was cheered, at an early period of his ministry at Chichester, by the annual meeting of the Southern Unitarian Book Society being held there on the first of July, 1812. I have only to remark, that Binderton, where the clergymen dropped the pall, is about four miles from Chichester; and that if you think this communication suitable for your valuable monthly work, and I can glean any more particulars connected with the above persons or subject, I will with pleasure transmit them. SIR, J. F. Penzance, May 14, 1823. THERE a HERE is a discouraging feeling, acquainted who are in the habit of contemplating public improvements. It is this, that what an obscure individual can effect towards these great objects, is so trifling and insignificant, so insensible and evanescent a quantity, compared with the mighty sum required, that it is not worthy of consideration, and can never afford a sufficient reward for much self-denial or exertion. From such thoughts as these, two bad results are likely to be produced in the mind. In the first place, they tend to enervate virtue; for it cannot be expected that the bestdisposed man will persevere in benevolent exertions, any longer than he sees before him a reasonable prospect of success. Without this, indeed, virtue, becoming separated from wisdom, ceases to be venerable. But, in the second place, such thoughts form an excuse for wilful and sinful negligence. We can seldom attempt to produce any favourable change in the state of society, without encountering more or less that is unpleasant; painful opposition and misapprehensions, if not ridicule or persecution. And even when these are still absent, there is much unthankful and, to present appearances, fruitless labour. With whatever ardour, therefore, the young philanthropist may enter on the prosecution of his schemes, however he may have been animated while tasting in forethought the pleasures of benevolence, and the luxury of doing good, a little real experience of the world will convince him that he has taken an erroneous view of the subject. Many, indeed, are the pleasures of virtue, nor are any sweeter than those which spring from deeds of love and compassion; yet I apprehend that the practical philanthropist will find his feelings harmonize not so well with the sentimental descriptions of the pleasures of virtue, as with the words which encourage us to patient continuance in well-doing, and bid us not to be weary, for that in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. This, then, being the true state of the case, we are likely enough to entertain very willingly ideas which represent our exertions as unavailing, inasmuch as they seem to excuse us from an irksome duty, and allow us to sink into the apathy and supineness to which, It is There are three considerations by which, I think, we should principally endeavour to counteract the injurious influence which we have been considering. In the first place, we inay inquire whether we do not underrate the real value of our exertions. true, that very few individuals can sensibly influence public events, opinions or manners. He that can do this performs, for an individual, an iminense work. Every thing involving the interests of that vast and eversucceeding multitude which constitutes the public, is a matter of great magnitude and importance. In order to estimate aright the value of individual exertions in these things, we may conceive a sort of rough arithmetical operation. The amount of good or evil produced is to be divided fairly among all those who have contributed to it. The number by which we divide will of course be great, but so will also the dividend; and on this account, the quotient resulting to each individual may be much larger than he would expect. Let us suppose, for instance, that the country is on the eve of a war, and that the actual occurrence of this war or not, is likely to depend on the expression of public opinion. If the war should really take place, it is probable a hundred thousand human lives may be wilfully and violently destroyed, that is, a hundred thousand murders may be committed; for this is the crime for which the aggressing party has to answer, in relation to every man that falls in battle, or by any other unnatural death. A hundred thousand murders may, therefore, become chargeable on the country, if a war be unjustifiably undertaken. And among how many individuals is this awful amount of guilt to be divided? We have not here to consider the whole population, because the great majority, from various causes, exercise absolutely no voice nor influence in the matter. When we select from the mass that number only who take an active interest in political subjects, though without any official character, how many hundred thousands of such there may be, I will not pretend to say, but I think it is plain, that a very awful share in the causing of a murder may be assignable to each. The same kind of reasoning will apply with equal force to all other instances of public good and evil, whether in religion, politics or manners, and may convince us, that we have more in our power than we might at first suppose. In the second place, we are to consider not merely the effects of an individual action, but of the principle which we admit, and, therefore, sanction. The part which a single man can contribute to the common weal, must indeed be small; but the principle that each man is bound to do his part, if admitted and observed, will secure all that can be desired. The effects of general principles are something very different from those of individual actions; such principles are rules deduced from the general and average tendency of actions, and, therefore, they will not fail to produce their intended effect, in the long run. To discern the general tendencies of actions is not difficult, but to calculate what may be expedient in a particular case, considered alone, is commonly beyond human sagacity. It is safer, then, for man to adopt rules of conduct which he is assured will answer on the whole, than to trust to his judgment in particular cases. Moreover, it is to the adoption of general principles, that we owe the confidence and mutual understanding which are the foundations of society. The same is the foundation of morality, and its important connexion with the present subject we have already noticed. Lastly, whether our influence on public affairs be great or small, we are still bound to use it faithfully, because it is our proper personal duty so to do. If it is right that a certain thing should be done, we cannot be absolved from performing our part in it, because numbers must co-operate before it can be accomplished. We have to answer for our own part, and neither more nor less. But if we neglect this part, it cannot be said that we shall only share the guilt, nor if we perform this part shall we only share the merit. The whole guilt or merit of the whole transaction attaches to every agent. If a thousand join in a murder, each is guilty of the entire crime; and with this remark, which seems to suggest very important reflections, I will conclude. YOUR T. F. B. Bath, SIR, May 30, 1823. YOUR valuable Miscellany frequently contains very interesting communications concerning the state and progress of Unitarianism, a cause to which I sincerely wish success, believing it to be that of truth; but the more earnestly I wish it to prevail, the more I am concerned to observe the manner which some of its advocates have adopted in their zeal for its diffusion. Zeal is good or bad in its consequences according as it is employed by wisdom and knowledge, or stirred up by injudicious, though wellmeaning persons, who mistake the excitement which may be occasioned by many external circumstances for that real, permanent conviction, which can proceed only from sober thought and seriously repeated examination. |