ever rank the honour of presiding at that assembly among the proudest circumstances of his life. But if language could then ill express the emotions he felt, he would endeavour hereafter to evidence their intensity by the better eloquence of deeds. By his honoured friend, their excellent Secretary, they had been in formed that he was a member of the Established Church, yet from his youth he had been the friend of Religious Freedom, and conscientiously disclaimed any approval of what was denominated the High Church. He was no High Churchman, nor could any person in that room more dislike or deplore the doctrines and conduct which that party taught and displayed. The true interests of the Church they could never promote, for high assumption would disgust and repel many whom moderation and Christian charity would retain and attach. The impressive statement to which he had listened with an eager ear, and an anxious heart, would confirm his dislike, and make him hold perfect toleration, or rather perfect Religious Liberty, additionally dear.

He almost partook the astonishment which the gentleman from America described; but felt a shame and sorrow which he trusted no native of America would ever know. Though aware that wrongs are often done from acrid prejudice, and by petty power, he had no conception that such abuses existed, and that there was such cause for complaint. He had heard the too long catalogue of ignorance and bigotry with displeasure and pain. Could he have thought of interruption to public worship, by unlawful demands of tolls-of taxation for the relief of the poor sought to be charged for buildings raised by true benevolence, for the preaching of truths that lessened the number of the poor, and gave to the necessitous their best relief!

But that in England, Dissenting teachers should be seized and sent to the Tread-mill-that interment should be refused to the departed-and that rites of marriage should be withheld, were events of which even in his moodiest moments, he had never dreamt. Of the persons guilty of those deeds he was more disposed to speak in sorrow than in wrath. Pity prevailed: he regretted that any fatuity should lead to such results, and thought that probably the contempt that must follow on such deeds might be punishment enough. The necessity and importance of that Institution who could doubt? Now public opinion too had a great and just authority, and the existence of this Institution, and their publication of such deeds, would either prevent their recurrence or ensure redress. Yet he must hope liberal principles and

a true tolerant spirit did not decline; he thought that he discerned their exercise, and though there were dark clouds, yet the sun of knowledge was daily diffusing new and brighter beams, and finally the clouds would be dispelled. On general education he placed a great reliance. A well-instructed people could not be slaves or bigots; and he should ever strive to promote on liberal principles the universal and religious education of the poor. In the resolution of the meeting as to the Test and Corporation Acts, he concurred with all his heart. No difference of religious ceremonies or opinions should exclude from office, or lead to a monopoly of power. Those acts were founded in injustice, and their retention could only be intended as an insult to the great and useful portion of the people who were thereby oppressed. That insult ought to end. Too long had the Dissenters allowed those acts to remain various and good reasons might have delayed their exertions, but those circumstances have now ceased; and a general, respectful, but hearty application for their total abrogation should now be made, nor should they be daunted if they did not meet with immediate success. Again, again, and again, should they renew their applications; and the righteous cause of a body so great and so respectable must finally prevail. And whenever the application should be made, his principles, his inclinations, his gratitude, would all induce him to afford his support. Renew ing his acknowledgments for the pleasure received, and the honour conferred, the Chairman retired amid universal acclamations, and the meeting was dissolved.

The newspaper from which we take this report says, with self-evident truth"Mr. JOHN SMITH, the Chairman, is not Mr. W. Smith, M. P., for Norwich," and adds, "but is M. P. for Medhurst, brother to Lord Carrington, and uucle to the Hon. R. Smith, M. P., for the county of Bucks."

Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Unitarian Association.

THE Third Half-yearly Meeting of this Association was held at the Chapel on Delamere Forest, on Tuesday, the 27th of September. [At the last meeting, held at Nantwich, Mr. Bakewell of Chester pro. posed that the next meeting be held at his chapel, supposing that it would meet the approbation of his congregation, and probably contribute to the advancement of the cause of truth in that city. On communicating this design, many approved, none objected. But after ministers were engaged to preach, and public notice

given, some individuals signified their disapproval of such a meeting, and their minister, finding that he could not remove their objections, consented to annul all the arrangements that had been made. It being so near the day appointed for meeting when this unexpected opposition was made, there was scarcely time for making other arrangements, nor any possibility of giving proper notice of those which were hastily made. If any persons were disappointed, this explanation, it is hoped, will exculpate the person who gave the notice that the meeting would be held at Chester. In justice to the Chester congregation it must be mentioned, that nearly twenty of its respectable members attended this meeting to testify their approval of the existence of such Association.] In the morning there was a public service at the chapel, the devotional parts of which were conducted by the Revds. Green and Ashton, and the sermon was preached by the Rev. J. G. Robberds, from John x. 30, "I and my Father are one;" shewing that the Oneness of Christ with the Father was not that of essence or nature, but of will, design, and co-operation, in effecting the glorious purposes of the Gospel. The argument was clear and powerful, illustrating, by a happy reference to other parts of scripture, the meaning of the passage under consideration. In contending for the truth, the preacher earnestly sought to produce impressions cheering to the mind and improving to the heart. Should this sermon ever make its appearance in print, it will be a valuable tract to put into the hands of those who so confidently declare that God and Christ are one Being; and of those too, who, having embraced correcter views on this controverted subject, have yet to learn the practical value of Christ's declaration, "I and my Father are one." After the usual business of the Association was transacted, the friends, both male and female, to the number of forty-five, repaired to a small village, about a mile distant from the chapel, to partake of a friendly dinner.

The circumstances under which the meeting was held at that place led to a general expression of opinion with regard to the utility of forming and supporting such associations. During the afternoon the meeting was addressed by Messrs. Robberds, Hincks, Bakewell, Hawkes, Astbury, Cooper, Ashton, Philp, Green, Marriott, and Johnson. Most of the persons who attended the morning service, with several strangers, went to the chapel in the evening at half-past six. The Rev. J. Marriott conducted the devotional service and read the Scriptures; and the Rev. W. Hincks preached from Eccles. vii. 10, "Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this." The words declare the object of the preacher, viz. to shew the superiority of the present over former times in respect to the improvement and condition of mankind.

RICHARD CARLILE is said in the newspapers to have been let out of goal without fine or bail. We understand that a petition was sent to the Secretary of the Home Department, for his release.-Application has been made to the present Lord Mayor, (VENABLES) to put a stop to the Christian Evidence Society, meeting in Cateaton Street, under the conduct of a Mr. Taylor, formerly a clergyman, for the sake of impugning the doctrines of Divine Revelation. The worthy magistrate states that similar applications had been made to his predecessor, GARRATT. He says that the "irreligious conduct of the persons promoting the ob jects of the Society is disgusting in the extreme-but that he does not entertain the slightest intention of noticing the communications made to him in any other way than by expressing publicly his contempt for the Society, about which so much unnecessary alarm had been felt." This appears to us to be the right course. Had the same wise policy been adopted with regard to Carlile, he would never have been looked up to either as a hero or a martyr.

No. CCXL.]

[Vol. XX.

SIR,

Yarmouth,
Nov. 7, 1825.
OME manuscripts were a few

care which belonged to the late Mr. Manning, of Ormesby, (see p. 497,) amongst which I found a letter directed to his ancestor, the Rev. Mr. William Manning, of Peasenhall, who was one of the Ejected Ministers. [Mon. Repos. XII. 377 and 478.] The letter is without signature, and has no other date than the day of the month but from the circumstances mentic ed in the first paragraph, I conclu ed that it must have been written by T. Emlyn during his imprisonment in Dublin, and on referring to Emlyn's narrative, p. xxxiv. (Tracts, Vol. I. 2nd edit. 1731,) I found the same facts which are stated in the letter. I afterwards found another letter in the same hand-writing with the signature T. E. So that there can be no doubt that the enclosed was written by that amiable and persecuted minister. Thinking that a letter written by such a man and at such a moment of suffering, when he could not suppose that what he was writing would ever come before the world, would be interesting to your readers, I have carefully transcribed it, preserving the few peculiarities of orthography, and send it you enclosed. The original is written in a very small character, but perfectly clear and legible. On every part of the paper left blank by Emlyn, his venerable friend had noted down such reflections and observations as occurred to him on reading the letter. These remarks, which are written in the old secretary hand and in a very small character, I have also copied. If you think them worth attention, I have two or three others which, by their date, must have been written by Emlyn during his confinement, each of which is also accompanied by many remarks and observations of the Rev. W. Manning. I will send you copies

VOL. XX.

of them on the first opportunity. It must be both delightful and improving to contemplate that calm, philosophic

detail with such simple and unaffected meekness his cruel and unmerited sufferings, give himself up with such quiet resignation to a life of imprisonment and solitude, without expressing any other regret than that he could not improve his confinement as he wished for want of his books, and then turn with perfect composure to the consideration of the same speculative opinions for which he was unjustly imprisoned. Nor can the remarks of Mr. Manning be considered less interesting, who though not fully satisfied that the Scriptures were clear in the point between the Arian and Socinian hypotheses, had no hesitation in deciding positively against the commonly received doctrines which subvert the unity of God and envelope the object of our religious adoration in impenetrable obscurity.

SIR,

H. R. BOWLES.

Decem. 23.

I have yours of Oct. 27th: since my last to you I have been under some new hardships: on the 6th of Oct. our Lord Chief Justice ordered the Sherif to remove me from my private confinement (which I had been at expence to procure) into the common gaol, where for five weeks I was greatly incommoded in a strait place crowded with prisoners, there being six beds where I lay, and about seventeen persons lying in the room next to us; but upon a petition to the Court I was by Habeas Corpus removed to the Marshalsea, where I have better accommodation. I learn that I am in execution for the £1000*

and that it is not in the power of my judges to reduce it, but absolutely in the hands of the government, nor doe there want several petitioners who have tryed to beg it for some publick uses and some for private, so that I suppose it either is or will be granted, though I know not to whom. The way you mention of getting some friend to beg it is what I long since suggested to our friend Mr. H. at London, (for I cannot pretend to any such here who have interest enough,) but I perceive there is none will use their interest at Court that way, or care to appear in so despised a cause. I hear 'tis said by some of the great ones, that if I were released I should be but further troublesome; indeed I know not what way to attempt any thing more to any purpose, and therefore intend to sit down in silence, being determined to spend my few days in a prison, rather than to pay any thing considerable to the impoverishing myself and the prejudice of my child. I hope I can be content with my confinement and solitude, though having sold my books I cannot improve it as else I might.

Notwithstanding the difference between my sentiments and Dr. Cudis, Fowl, &c., which you mention, yet I conceive they have in effect said the same with me, though they wou'd fain bring themselves off with a few healing expressions. But as they directly deny the essence of Father and Son to be numerically one and the same, so I think they deny it to be of the same sort, or to have the same or like propertys, for what can make a difference in species if not this, viz. that one is self-originated, independent and supreme, and the other a derivative depending Being? These are very different, nay even contrary propertys. As for a likeness in power and knowledge, ab extrà, commensurate to the world, I have not denyed it more than they (I take the Father's secret purposes to be ab intrà, Acts i. 7). I avoided assertions that Christ was created, not knowing what other ways of production there may be, nor do I see any difference between creation and emanation, only I fear to assert with them a necessary emana

Qu. Cudworth? ED. + Qu. Fowler?

ED.

tion from the Father, lest it imply imperfection in the Father, for since nothing more than all perfection can be necessary, if the Father have all perfection in himself, what necessity is there on him to produce more, any more than there can be that he should create other beings? In short, I am not concerned about his origination as to the modus, (supposing his preexistence,) 'tis enough that he is begotten or produced from the first original Being.

I grant indeed that many controversys have perplexed the church when the preexistence was granted by the Arians, but as there will be more difficult controversys (I judge) if it be denied, so I do not think those ancient controversys about the unity of the two natures to be any way de pending upon the preexistence, which needs suppose no more of two natures in one person than is in every man : all will grant Christ consists of soul and body, whether the former preexisted or not, and there may be the same questions also put as to his origination, either way.-The question is only whether his preexistence be proved from Scripture: you think no proof but a priori is sufficient: you require it to be proved that any part of Christ's nature or person did preexist to the union to flesh; to this I think it may be replied, that most of what we know even by revelation itself, is known a posteriori by consequences. Perhaps I could not know from Scripture that man has a soul distinct from the body but by implication and consequences, but in this case I think the Scripture asserts Christ's preexistence to his descent on earth in express terms, particularly John xvi. 28, ch. i. 17, Col. i. 15, 17. I conceive his coming from the Father was in a literal sense, else there was no antithesis between the two parts, and nothing could be more violent than a metaphorical sense of such places; but as to any other ascension than one to his Father, I think there is no pretence for it either a priori or a posteriori, except John iii. 13, which is far from asserting it, only it says, he had been or was there; no man else had been there (which must be by ascending) but he who (not ascended, but) was there. I do not think that the bare predications of the propertys