dibood of assertion not easily to be exceeded. Such a wanton attempt to identify and confound modern Unitarianism with the faith of the English Presbyterians of the founders' era, would surpass the assurance of some recent writers, who in their attempts to prove the indifference of those founders to all religious doctrine, have admitted that they were themselves in fact Trinitarians and otherwise at least moderately orthodox. Mr. Murch, however, afterwards admits that the faith of many of the pastors whose memoirs he records was 64 very different from what Unitarians regard as that first delivered to the saints."*

We shall now introduce to our readers some extracts from Mr. Murch's book, illustrative of that subserviency to the promotion of Unitarian views and principles alleged against the writer, and we shall take the articles relating to Presbyterian congregations, in the order in which they occur.

Gloucester.The article relating to this place (the first in the volume) is opened by a brief notice of John Bidle, who lived and taught a school here, and of his persecution by the Presbyterians, for denying the Deity of the Holy Spirit. In recording the attempt of the venerable Primate Usher, during an occasional visit to Gloucester, to "convince him of his dangerous error," Mr. Murch charges the good Archbishop with "coarse ill nature and determined prejudice," fortelling him, that either he was in a damnable error, or else that the whole church of Christ, who had in all ages worshipped the Holy Ghost, had been guilty of idolatry!" To us, we confess, this alternative proposition appears, on the contrary, a just and

* Preface, p. xvi. † P. 6. N. S. NO. 141.

fair statement of the real fact. Mr. Murch admits, that the old dissenting congregation at Gloucester" cannot be said to owe its origin to Bidle." He, no doubt, attempted to disseminate his pernicious error; but "the cause of nonconformity at Gloucester, was founded by two Ministers" of very different principles, who planted wholly a right seed.' These were Dr. Increase Mather and Mr. James Forbes, both ejected ministers of the congregational order. The latter fact Mr. Murch conceals.

Mr. Forbes, for whom the present chapel in Barton Street was built in 1699, bequeathed his library and four silver cups for the use of the society there.* These are now in possession of the Independent congregation which arose out of a separation about 1713. Mr. Murch insinuates that they rightfully belong to the Unitarian congregation which now worships in what he calls "the Presbyterian chapel." Mr. Forbes, who himself belonged to the congregational denomination, and had gathered a church of that order while he preached in the cathedral, was of a catholic temper, and no doubt approved and supported the union formed in 1691, between that and the the Presbyterian denomination. Accordingly, he does not describe the congregation who met in the original chapel as belonging to either, but calls it "the Protestant Dissenting congregation in the city of Gloucester."

If he did not intend his benefactions specifically for the use of a congregation of the same order as he himself practised; neither would he, we may be sure, have approved of their being subsequently appropriated to the use of "his [Unitarian] successors at the Presbyterian chapel;" nor would he,

P. 11.

4 E

being himself, as Dr. Calamy informs us," a strict Calvinist," have recognised as Christian ministers men who, like one individual who has, in recent times, occupied the pulpit of that chapel, consider as "unscrip. tural," and consequently renounce "the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and other doctrines of the Church of England" and embrace" Unitarian Christianity."* Mr. Murch tells us, indeed, that "the original supporters of Protestant dissent here were the firm friends of religious truth;"† and the inscription on the tomb of Mr. Forbes, who died in 1712, states, "that for about fiftyeight years he was a faithful minister of Christ, and witness to the truth;" but the truth which they firmly maintained, was in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England.

Cirencester.-Mr. Murch says, "all the ministers, of whose writings or opinions we have any knowledge, were Antitrinitarians;"§ but after Mr. Gregory, the ejected minister of the parish, five at least of the successive ministers (the last of whom died in 1742) have left no memorials. The presumption from history therefore is, that not one of these was an Antitrinitarian. We have recently been informed, that a considerable proportion of the small congregation now assembling in this chapel would prefer a Trinitarian ministry.

Marshfield. An effort was made, some years ago, by individuals belonging to the Independent congregation at Bath, to obtain possession of this chapel, but the attempt was resisted on the part of the Unitarians of Bristol, who, after borrowing the trust-deeds, transferred the property to new trustees, and to obtain the requisite number, of their own sentiments, were obliged

*P. 17. + P. 13. + P. 9. § P. 27.

was

66

to include several females. To this chapel Mr. Murch's own account shews that the Independents have an unquestionable claim; for, in 1699, the society was denominated Independent; and "the trust deeds of later dates describe the congregation as Independent or Presbyterian."* The present chapel was erected in 1752. Mr. Murch inserts a copy of the inscription placed on the foundation-stone. In stating the design of the erection, it begins by declaring that the superstructure was intended not for schismatical or heretical separation;" proceeds to say, that it built for the upholding of no un-Christian faction;" and in conclusion describes it "a worthy effect of that glorious national constitution by which we enjoy our Christian freedom and liberty of conscience.” "The spirit of this inscription [says Mr. Murch] indicates that this place of worship was erected by persons, whose sentiments were those of the Unitarians, rather than [those of] the Trinitarians of the present day. However anxious the latter are for the promotion of civil and religious liberty, they are more anxious to diffuse what they deem the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel."" This witness, we admit, is true, and the same might be said, with equal truth, of the original founders of English Presbyterian chapels. Mr. Murch adds, "If the founders of this superstructure' had been of the same way of thinking as the modern Independents, they would undoubtedly have preferred recording their devotion not merely to pure religion, the glory of God, and the happiness of mankind, but to the doctrines of the Fall, the Atonement, and the Trinity." Whatever might be the peculiar views and sentiments of

the parties who composed this in scription, we have no hesitation in avowing our deliberate and firm conviction that the Presbyterians, during the reigns of King William and Queen Anne, considered these very doctrines of the Fall, the Atonement, and the Trinity to be fundamental articles of Christianity, and the practical and experimental (in distinction from the merely speculative) belief of them essential to pure religion,' and eminently conducive to the glory of God and the happiness of mankind.' We intend, in subsequent pages, to produce some portion of the abundant evidence that exists to prove this. The sentiments of the minister at the time of this erection, Mr. Murch tells us, appear to have been heterodox," but not a shadow of proof is produced. Frenchay, near Bristol, founded 1691. The first minister whom Mr. Murch mentions was there in 1715. The third in the order of succession from him, who died in 1803, we are told, "was probably an Arian."†

Calne, Wilts.-The excellent Mr. Samuel Bourn, who was minister here from 1679 to 1695, removed to Bolton, in Lancashire, where he died in 1715. "His sentiments on doctrinal points were consonant to those of Calvin and the reformed churches." The same, we believe, might be said, generally, of the body of Presbyterian ministers, who were his contemporaries.

Bradford, Wilts.-The society, like many others of the same denomination, gradually adopted Unitarian views of the Gospel." So early as 1793, an Unitarian liturgy was used.§ This representation may be taken as a specimen of the general fact.

Warminster.--A church was formed here some years before the Revolution, and a church-book P. 61. § P. 65.

* P. 37.

+ P. 50.

In

has been kept since 1687. 1710, there were 100 communicants," the hearers" then amounting to "some hundreds." In 1719, a charge having been made, or insinuated, against the minister, Mr. Bates, of "favouring the Arian notion," forty-four members signed a representation in the churchbook, declaring "this to be a vile slander."+"It is probable that Arianism gained ground about the middle of the last century."‡

Of some of the early ministers at the two important places which occur next, we have means of information not to be obtained from the pages of Mr. Murch.

Bristol. Mr. Michael Pope, settled as pastor at Lewin's Mead, in 1705, and continued till his death, in 1718. Mr. Murch says,

"During his ministry the congregation continued large, increased in opulence, and were distinguished for Christian zeal and integrity. It is worthy of remark, that at this early period, and even still farther back, there is not the slightest proof that the ministers and people at Lewin's Mead ever professed the opinions, and adopted the practices now called orthodox. If such had been the case, it is natural to suppose there would have been traces of it in the correspondence (copied into the records) between the society and their spiritual teachers, preparatory to the settlement of the latter."-p. 107.

Mr. Murch then inserts, as 66 a fair specimen," Mr. Pope's letter, announcing his acceptance of the invitation to "the solemn and weighty concern" of a pastoral charge. This answer to their call was " read at a general meeting of the Society (the whole being summoned), September 7th, 1705." It concludes with these words:

"I beg your prayers, and beg for you, that the grace of our Lord Jesus may be with your spirits, whose I am, and for whose sake I shall endeavour to serve you as the minister of our common Lord, as becomes your humble servant, "MICHAEL POPE." + P. 91.

*P. 86.

+ Pp. 89, 90.

"If any think it reasonable not to believe as true, what they cannot com. prehend, they may soon excuse themselves from giving credit to any thing, and so deceive themselves by a continual scepticism. If we believe in a proper sense, it must be on the authority of the person that declares it, and not on the evidence of the thing declared; for if the assent of the mind is grounded on the evidence of the thing, it is not faith, but reason; and, therefore, if I believe nothing but what I can compre

hend, I don't, in a strict sense, believe at all. We are so far from having a comprehensive knowledge of any one of the divine perfections, that we have not a perfect knowledge of the least particle of matter, degree of motion, or moment of duration, and yet we think fit to be lieve what is generally agreed concerning them. Is there a greater mystery in the possibility of Three being One (in some undeclared sense), than in the omnipresence of the Godhead, requiring absolute unity and identity in the most distant times and places? I am persuaded that those persons that are so apt to dispute about the mysteries of the Gospel, are not the greatest friends to the purity of the Gospel; their want of faith is not so much owing to the want of external evidence, as internal affection. They love darkness, rather than light, as their deeds are evil. An irreligious practice is the occasion of an infidel principle. Many break the table of the Commandments, and then easily make void their Creed. If persons would hold the mystery of faith, it must be in a pure conscience; but some do oftentimes put away a good conscience, and so make shipwreck of their faith. They don't do the will of God, and no wonder then if they don't know whether the doctrine be of God or no. It becomes such persons seriously to consider what a desperate hazard they run by opposing their uncertain reason to a sure revelation. What they apprehend as unintelligible, and not fit to be credited, is plainly revealed, and has been the common object of the faith of the Church of God for 1700 years, received as Gospel-truths by persons of the greatest learning and wisdom, as well as piety and humility, and have prevailed as matters of the greatest concern, notwithstanding the opposition of earth and hell. If they should believe them, they can be no losers, as to this or another world, and if they should not believe them, they may for ever destroy themselves for want of due faith; if the matters in debate should appear false, they are but deceived, and have reason to think that God will pardon their mistake, when they have

been serious and diligent in informing their minds for his glory, but if they should be found to be true, how can they hope to escape damnation, when to such it is so often threatened in the Gospel."— pp. 75, 76.

Mr. Murch will scarcely venture to assert that these passages, from the pen of Mr. Pope, "contain nothing that might not be written by an Unitarian minister of the present day;" or that they afford "not the slightest proof that the minister and people at Lewin's Mead then professed the opinions now called orthodox.” The extracts, on the contrary, furnish ample evidence that Mr. Pope, who appears from this book to have been a very intelligent and judicious person, and while firmly and zealously orthodox, yet moderate in his sentiments and liberal in his views, associated Socinians with the Freethinkers of his age, and denounced them in common infidels. Would that the present amiable, learned, and, in many respects, excellent senior-minister, at Lewin's Mead, could be induced seriously to ponder these solemn and faithful warnings recorded by one of his predecessors..

as

Mr. Murch inserts the copy of an excellent farewell letter from the Rev. Samuel Bury, another minister at Lewin's Mead, addressed to his "most loving and dearly beloved flock," written shortly before his death, March 10, 1730. To this letter he con

We beg distinctly to disclaim the intention of applying what Mr. Pope says concerning vicious inclination or criminal practice to modern Unitarians, who, we cheerfully acknowledge, are not to be impeached on the score of purity of morals, and in discharge of some of the social and relative duties, are even exemplary. In saying this, however, we must be permitted to add that in every other respect, we consider the passage above quoted susceptible of application to them, with literal and unquestionable accuracy.