However, indefatigable man had not lived among these new settlers more than seven years, before the urbanity of his manners, and the general benevolence of his conduct, had so won upon them, that the colony deputed him as their ambassador to the Court of Charles the First, to endeavour to procure for them some indulgence in regard to the recent impositions of customs and excise in that country.* Having now learned that the Parliament of England had relieved the people in some measure from the abuses in Church and State, he did not hesitate to return home; and, as Mr. Ludlow informs us,† he encouraged the people whereever he went, and advised them on all occasions, to appear vigorously for the Parliament cause. this as it may, this home, and upon his arrival was received with the warmest welcome by Sir Thomas Fairfax, by the Lord High Admiral Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, and by Cromwell himself.* Whether Peters succeeded in the business of his mission from the co. lony of New-England, I have not been able to learn, but it appears that he had not been long in this country before he was appointed chaplain to a brigade of troops that was sent against the Irish rebels, and accordingly he accompanied the expedition thither. In Ireland the amiable character of Peters likewise manifested itself; for having observed the deplorable condition of the poor plundered Protestants in that country, he not only did every thing he could to procure them relief among their neighbours, but kindly undertook a journey to Holland for the purpose of turning the interest, which he knew he had in that country, to their account. And so successful was he in this labour of love, that he returned to Ireland with nearly £30,000. sterling, which he had obtained from the Dutch for their relief. § This was, perhaps, the largest sum that had ever been collected by a single individual in a foreign country for a charitable purpose; and shews what talent, zeal and industry may effect, when united, for the attainment of an object deserving of such exertions. When Peters had effected his various purposes in Ireland, he returned See the Historical and Critical Account of Hugh Peters, p. xii. Ludlow's Memoirs, III. 61. Ibid. § Ibid. In the year 1643, we find Peters engaged in the benevolent office of attending Mr. Chaloner in his last moments, a gentleman who was executed for having been concerned in the scheme which had been cou trived by the Poet Waller, and usually called Waller's Plot. At the place of execution Chaloner confessed that he deserved death, and at the request Peters, fully explained the part be had taken in the said plot. Hugh Peters having then prayed with him, execution was performed upon him. † On the second of January 1644, Peters was called upon to attend Sir John Hotham on the scaffold, and he received from him public thanks on the occasion. The conversation which passed between Sir John Hotham and Peters on this awful occasion, as given by Rushworth, is interesting and na は tural; and Dr. Harris has passed au encomium upon the conduct of Peters on this occasion: "We see nothing here," says he, " but great civility in Peters, and the due discharge of his office. Here is nothing troublesome or impertinent, but as one would wish to have it in like circumstances.” § About this time Peters was engaged as chaplain to the Parliament forces, in which capacity he soon won the confidence of the different generals in the Republican army; for in the year 1645, we find him employed by them in several services of great trust, such as carrying intelligence to the Parlia ment of the state of the troops in different places, and of the reinforce ments which were required by their Harris's Historical and Critical Aecount, p. xiii. + Rushworth, Part iii. Vol. II. p. 327. See the Historical and Critical Account, p. xvii. the § The behaviour of Charles upon occasion was not quite so decent; he being ing in the habit of explaining the case of Sir John Hotham, by saying that "his head was divided from his body, because his heart was divided from the king." See Milton's Iconoclastes, 8vo, London, 1692, p. 62. of respective commanders, with other of the transactions connected with that matters of equal importance. The following cases, which are recorded by Whitlock in his Memorials, may be mentioned to shew the confidence which was reposed in Peters by the officers of the army and by the Parliament; and also the zeal and activity which he manifested in the service of the party whose cause he had espoused: Hugh Peters having been with the Earl of Warwick at the taking of Lyme, was dispatched by that nobleman to London, to give an account of the whole business to the Parliament.* At another time he was entrusted with letters by Sir Thomas Fairfax from Bridgwater, and brought to the Parliament the first news of the taking of that town. On this occasion he was called into the House, where he made so clear a relation of the particulars respecting that event, that the House voted him the sum of £100. † In the same year (1645) Peters was entrusted with another embassy from Sir Thomas Fairfax to the Parliament; when he was again called into the House, and gave them a particular account of the siege of Bristol. At this time he stated the desire of Sir Thomas to have some recruits sent him, and pressed upon the House the importance and necessity of that measure. I In the month of March, in the same year, Hugla Peters was with the army in Cornwall, encouraging the men to be valiant, and do their duty; and when the business was concluded, Sir Thomas Fairfax dispatched him to London to report the result to the Parliament. The original letter, which was printed on the 24th of March, by order of Cromwell's Parliament, is a curious document. At another time letters were brought to the Parliament by Peters, from Lieutenant General Cromwell, concerning the taking of Winchester Castle, when being called into the House, he gave a particular relation event. For this ser ce the House voted him £50.* When the town of Dartmouth was taken by storm, in the beginning of this year, Peters was also sent to London to communicate to the ruling powers the particulars relating to that event; and we are told, that on this occasion he was also called before the Parliament, and that when he had given an account of the valour and affection of the army, he presented letters, papers, crucifixes, and other Popish relics which had been found in the town. The first news of the taking of Dartmouth was sent by another individual, but on the following day Peters was dispatched to Town with further particulars. Both the original letters from Sir Thomas Fairfax, printed by order of Parliament, are now before me. "It is plain," says Dr. Harris, in allusion to these circumstances, "that Peters must have been in favour with the generals, and that he must have made some considerable figure in the transactions of those times." ↑ This opinion may, however, in some measure be confirmed by the following relation: When the city of Worcester was besieged in the year 1646, by the Parliament forces, and the governor had consented to deliver up the town, upon condition that passes were given to the soldiers, and to the principal inhabita.is, Hugh Peters was the person who was entrusted with that commission. Mr. Habingdon, who wrote a very particular account of this siege, & relates, that on the 23rd of July 1646, many gentlemen went to six o'clock prayers, at the college in Worcester, to take their last farewell of the Church-of-England service, the organs having been taken down three days before; and that at ten o'clock in the morning the several regiments marched forth to Rainbow- . hill, and all the gentlemen with the baggage; and that at one o'clock Peters brought them the passes. lands." The whole of this production Here it may be observed, that Peters · may be perused with interest. questioned every individual, and ob[To be concluded in the next Number.] liged him to promise "not to bear arms against the Parliament of England," which they all did before their passes were delivered to them. This circumstance shews the zeal with which he laboured in the service of the Republic, and the faithfulness with which he discharged the several trusts that Cromwell and the generals of his army reposed in him. In the course of the next year I find he was engaged in drawing up an address to the army, which he published in a quarto pamphlet, entitled "A Word for the Army, and Two Words to the Kingdom. Forced in much Plainuess and Brevity from their faithful Servant, Hugh Peters." This production has all the customary quaintness of the time; but I do not recollect ever to have read any work of that period, which contains more good advice, or that breathes a better spirit. An extract or two will justify this opinion. "Good men," says he, "not good laws only, must save kingdoms. What if every fifty in every county were to choose one to choose for them." He proposes, "that salaries may be appointed to all places of trust, that temptations to deceit take not hold of officers." "That no Nash's Collections for the History of Worcestershire, 2nd Ed. folio, London, 1799, Vol. II. p. 105 of the Appendix. All his books abound with exhortations to Christian charity. "Why," he used to say, cannot Christians differ and yet be friends?" SIR, A Philadelphia, June 18, 1819. FEW days ago I had occasion to look at the 110th Psalm, in the Essex-Street Liturgy, and found, to my astonishment, that the word Lord, in the 5th verse, is printed in capitals, thus: "The LORD upon Prayer Book of 1802, the reading is, In Dr. Disney's thy right hand." i. e. Jehovah on the right hand of “JEHOVAH on thy right hand," Jehovah! Were this reading cor rect, it would follow that there are becomes of Unitarianism? I regret two Jehovahs at least. What then word is not Jehovah, but 178, a so great an oversight. The Hebrew lord, master, supporter, base, &c. and has no necessary relation to Deity; whereas Jehovah is the appropriate is no where applied to our Lord. name of Him who is self-existent, and I am surprised that none of Mr. themselves of this application, or ra Belsham's opponents have availed notorious that the Psalm is referred ther mis-application of Jehovah. It is to our Lord in the New Testament, not casually, but directly and repeatedly, and by authorities which, to my mind, are conclusive. SIR THE J. T. Exeter, August 11, 1819. copy of the Theological Relate Mr. Bretland, has fallen into my pository which belonged to the hands since his death, and I am enabled by means of it to add something to the list of writers in that work, T. R. S. [XII. 526.] How far the communicated by your Correspondent following information may be new to your readers, I cannot judge, but if you think it likely to prove interesting derived from notes in Mr. Bretland's it is at your service. It is entirely hand-writing, written in his copy above-mentioned: of course, I am in no degree answerable for its accuracy, but I believe it may be relied upon. WILLIAM HINCKS. * Harleian Miscellany, VI. 65, &c. of the last of the four Letters, into I WAS gratified by reading the which that History is divided, is the just and candid admissions of Mr. Molineux, [p. 287,] that "Unitarians appear to have as much reason for their belief, as any sect of Protestantism;" that Dr. Carpenter has appealed satisfactorily to "the internal evidence of the Scriptures;" and that, according to "the Catholic rule of faith,-Scripture is not of private interpretation." The "Brief History of the Unitarians was printed in 1687," and again in 1691, in the first volume of 4to. Unitarian Tracts. At nearly the end SOD This paper is sent by the same peras that signed A. O. C. Vol. III. which T. R. S. ascribes to Rev. G. Waters of Bridport. He was unquestionably the author of the Translation of Psalm cxxxix; but Mr. Bretland observes, he is nearly certain the communicator of it, A. O. C., was Mr. Merivale of Exeter. I believe the "Occasional Contributor," Vol. II. was also Mr. Merivale, whilst the accompanying paper was written by Mr. Waters. †There is a paper signed Philander in Vol. II. which is not Mr. Bretland's. He says "it was communicated by a gentle man in the North of Ireland to Archdeacon Blackburne, from whom an answer was expected, if the Repository had been continued." following passage, which corroborates, and may suitably accompany the representations of Mr. Molineux. "As to the Catholic Doctors, (so called,) Chr. Sandius hath made a great collection of testimonies out of them, to this effect, that neither the Trinity nor the Divinity of the Lord Christ, or of the Holy Spirit, can be proved by the Scripture; but by tradition only. Some of them confess. that the Scriptures rather favour the Sociniau doctrine; and that the Trinity is not only above, but contrary to reason; finally, that if the authothem to be Catholics, they should rity of the church did not oblige choose to be Socinians. See for these things, Sandius, Hist. Eccl. L. i. C. de Ario and Cingallus, in Script. Trin. Revel. An English author of the Ronish persuasion has these words, (in Fiat Lux, pp. 879, 380,) I may truly say, Christ is the Pope's God. For if the Pope had not been, or had not been so vigilant and resolute a pastor as he is, (ie means such a persecutor,) Christ, whom the Pope both worships himself, and propounds to the world to worship as the very true God, that made all things, Christ, I say, had not been taken for any MR. sion of the twenty-fifth chapter of T. C. H. On the Rev. Samuel Newton's Objections to the Improved Version. 6. SIR, LETTER III. celebrated characters, and the most admired for piety, charity and learning. Did not the author of the " Ap peal," &c. know that controversies concerning the miraculous conception, the genuineness of the Introductions to Matthew and Luke, concerning the doctrine of an intermediate state, the existence of angels and devils, and the case of demoniacs, existed long before the Improved Ver great learning and high character have taken different sides of these interesting questions, and have defended their respective opinions with a calmness, dignity and gravity which became the subject? Did he not know that the Editors in these cases have done nothing more than exhibit the versions or comments of their eminent. ly learned and distinguished predecessors, to whose authority they have commonly appealed, and whose words they have often cited? What occa sion then was there for treating the Editors with such contumelious language and outrageous abuse, as I who have been pretty conversant with theological controversy never recollect to have witnessed before? But let me ask, have the Editors given any just provocation for such rude and uncourteous treatment? Have they given any example of it? Have they from the beginning to the end of their work suffered a single invective to escape them, either against the opt nions or the persons of those from whom they differ most widely and essentially? Have they in any one instance done any thing more than simply state their judgment and as sign their reasons? And is it for this that they are to be branded with an accumulation of coarse and vulgar epithets, which if they had even been deserved, no man who has the feelings T is the custom of the author of IT the "Trinitarian's Appeal De. fended," who has undertaken to demolish the credit of the Improved Version, whether from artifice or ignorance he best can tell, to repre- of a gentleman and a Christian would sent certain doctrines and interpretations of Scripture as quite new and peculiar to the Improved Version, and then without any critical exami permit himself to use? Can the re verend appellant think that he come sults his own character, or the credit of his cause, by such intemperate lan nation to denounce his anathemas guage? He tells us, p. 93, that "he upon them, and to lavish the most believes there are Unitarians who are unqualified abuse, and the bitterest ashamed of the Improved Version." invectives against the Editors, with- There may be such: heaven bless out seeming to be aware, and perhaps them! But can the author believe indeed without knowing it, that he is that he has a friend in the world. spitting his venom at some of the most whose opinion is worth regarding, |
