NOTICES. The following Subjects are appointed by the Church of God, denominated Freethinking Christians, for the instruction of the Public on the Sunday Mornings, at their Meeting-house, Crescent, Jewin Street, Aldersgate Street. The Business commences at Eleven o'Clock PRECISELY. Uncorrupted Christianity: a view of its practical application to the three stages of human life-youth, maturity, and old age.-April 6. A review of the arguments in favour of the existence of a being called the Devil.-April 13. 66 An inquiry into the claims of pure Christianity, to be considered a reasonable service."-April 20. Religious Persecution-its history, nature, and objects.-April 27. The causes and comparative effects of Fanaticism and Infidelity.-May 4. The character of Jesus as a moral teacher.-May 11. The church of Rome and the reformed churches-in what points do they agree with each other, and in what do they all differ from the church of God?-May 18. The scripture doctrines of Repentance and Conversion.-May 25. The claims of the Clergy to scriptural authority and moral usefulness considered.-June. 1. The causes which induce mankind to submit to the yoke of priestcraft. -June 8. The church of God-its progress and character, from the earliest times to its complete establishment in the apostolic age.—June 15. The Character and Attributes of Deity-with a view to ascertain the true relation in which man stands to his Maker.-June 22. 66 The truth and meaning of the common assertion, that the present isa religious age."-June 29. From pre-existing engagements we are not, at this time, enabled to present our readers with the Article on The Being and Attributes of a God;' and we are advised that J. N.'s letter cannot be published, with safety, by itself. A gross and convicted libeller asserts that our Publication " can have no end in "view but the subversion of public morals, by the inculcation of 'freethinking', "principles." This is an accusation which even the respectable of his own party will disown. In a communication from the Provisional Committee for conducting the subscription for the sufferers in Syria, our Work is recognized as a "valuable publication," and this by Mr. ALDERMAN ATKINS, ROBT. HUMPHREY MARTIN, Esq. and other gentlemen of the committee, equally conspicuous for their loyalty and orthodoxy. For ourselves, we confess we are not absolutely overcome either by the censure of the one party, or the praises of the other. HETHERINGTON, PRINTER, 13, KINGSGATE STREET. THE FREETHINKING CHRISTIANS" QUARTERLY REGISTER. ON RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.-ESSAY III. "What is man? Where must he find his Maker? with what rites Adore him? Will he hear, accept, and bless? Tis Revelation satisfies all doubts."-Cowper's Task, Book II. PUBLIC SOCIAL PRAYER-has this practice the sanction of scripture, and of the example of Jesus and his disciples? Is it a rational and a useful practice? Or, is it not, on the contrary, equally unsupported by scripture and by reason? These are the questions which I now purpose to discuss-questions comparatively new to the religious world; for, although many of the remains of paganism, and the corruptions of popery, have been removed, or reformed, this practice has, at least till within a very few years past, not been questioned by any religious body. The church of God, commonly called the Freethinking Christians, have, after a full and conscientious investigation of the subject, abandoned, some years since, the practice of praying in public, either socially, or individually. Of prayer, indeed, as a privilege granted to the Christian, but not as a duty binding on all mankind, they are warm advocates; but that which they contend for is, the prayer of the heart and the closet: prayer as directed by Jesus, and as sanctioned, according at least to their views, by reason and the nature of things. Knowing their views on this and on some other important VOL. I. NO. III. points to be peculiar, they have availed themselves of every means within their power, to bring them into discussion amongst the more enlightened professors of religion. Their efforts were chiefly addressed to the Unitarian body, as the most rational in their views, and as professing more than any other to act on the principles of free inquiry. All such endeavours, on their part, have, however, as will be seen by the following brief narrative of facts, to their great regret, proved almost, if not altogether, in vain. Having but too much reason to believe that, against them, as the opponents of priestcraft under all its forms, the pages of the Monthly Repository, the organ of the Unitarian body, were effectually closed, they themselves engaged in the publication of a *How far we could entertain any reasonable hopes of being fairly heard in the pages of the Monthly Repository, may be well estimated (amongst others which might be adduced) by the following remarkable circumstance: An effort was made, in the year 1808, by the then Lord Mayor, (Ansley) at the instigation of the then Bishop of London, (Porteus) to suppress the meetings of the Christian church, (known by the name of the Freethinking Christian church) and to refuse licences to its teachers. As a public journalist, the Editor of the Monthly Repository undertook to record the successful resistance of the members to these efforts of illiberality and persecution. But in what manner, and in what terms? The parties are described, indeed, in one part (see the number for May 1808) as acting "with a perseverance and boldness which did them honour;" but they are also contemptuously spoken of as formidable speakers, belonging to a little society, with a portentous name; terms trifling in themselves, yet well shewing the spirit in which the Editor of the Monthly Repository was willing to lend his aid to protect this dissenting church from the persecution of the civil power! More than this--the Freethinking Christians, by one of their members, had appealed to the body of dissenters, on the ground that the rights of conscience had been violated in their persons. How did the Monthly Repository answer this appeal? We quote their words on the occasion. "Dissenters "in general regard their meeting-houses as places of worship, and do not feel any particular sympathy with one debating society more than another-with a "society that debates on Sunday, more than one that debates on Monday-with one that debates theology, more than one that debates politics." And yet the Editor of this work was well aware, of his own personal knowledge, that the body in question was not, in the common acceptation of the word, a debating society-but a religious society-a Christian church, whose aim and profession it was to be framed on the model of the primitive church, as described in the New Testament; but who had been guilty of the never-to-be-forgiven sins --the dispensing with the priest, and acting upon the Christian principles of searching the scriptures and judging for themselves that which is right. What follows, however, is yet more to our present point. Feeling, not merely themselves, but the cause of religious liberty in general injured by such language, from such a quarter, the church deputed one of its members to write a reply to the above attack upon them, for insertion in the Monthly Repository, The individual so employed was Mr. Thomas Anthony Teulon, 46 periodical work, which, under the title of The Freethinking Christians' Magazine, was published monthly throughout the years 1811, 12, 13, and 14; in which work they strongly and especially invited the communications of the Unitarians -particularly of their teachers-but without effect. After the close of this work, unwilling, whilst a chance of success remained, to lose an opportunity.of publicly discussing the important points of difference between the Unitarians and ourselves, some individual members of our church attended, on several occasions, the "Winter Evening "Unitarian Conferences," held at Hackney; and there, by proposing certain subjects for discussion, and speaking upon others already adopted, endeavoured to bring the important questions of public social prayer, and pulpit preaching, as Christian ordinances, into debate. By every means, however-and, looking at the facts of the case, at that time a member, and who had previously been a frequent and a favoured contributor to the Universalist's Miscellany, when under the auspices of Mr. Vidler. This reply was not inserted. The only notice taken of it was in the "correspondence," at the end of the June number, where the Editor states that he has received such a letter, and adds that "had it answered its professed end-that of correcting the errors of their "reporter-they would have gladly laid it before their readers." It should be borne in mind that this article, thus rejected, was not one respecting some theoretical point of controversy, in which the Editor would have been fully justified in exercising a sound discretion, whether to admit or reject, but that it was a reply, from the parties aggrieved, to his own published calumnies and misrepresentations. When he himself, therefore, informed his readers that the reply did "not convict their reporter of one real error," he acted as judge in his own cause; surely his readers, after hearing both sides, would have formed a more impartial tribunal! He proceeds, however, further than this, and actually gives a critique-a candid critique on this suppressed reply, describing it as being “ill-written, frivolous, unintelligible, and boastful;" adding that, "in becoming writers for the Monthly Repository, persons must restrain themselves within certain limits, viz. those of orthography, 66 grammar, and sense." Now the varied literary accomplishments essential to forming a correspondent of the Monthly Repository, we did not then, any more than we do at present, feel any ambition to lay claim to; we are plain, unlettered men, seeking a plain, yet important object, namely, Christian truth; but it should be remembered that, in this case, the correspondence was not sought for upon our part, but that we claimed to be heard, even in our own unlettered way, in our own defence, when we had been traduced and misrepresented. At any rate, without further comment or illustration, the reader will see in the above, a sufficient justification of our assertionthat the pages of the Monthly Repository were, for the discussion of all points of difference in opinion, effectually closed against us. Other instances might be adduced to the same purport. We lament the fact, and shall, with pleasure, record the appearance of a better spirit, should such, at any future time, be exhibited. they think themselves justified in saying by every artifice --which could be adopted, they were here prevented from fully explaining their views, or bringing these questions fairly under discussion. Any particular details on this subject it is not now my intention to give. The facts that we earnestly sought for inquiry into, amongst other subjects, the scriptural authority for public social prayer; and that, at least the president of the Hackney conferences, aided by one or two individuals of influence at the meeting, as anxiously opposed, and, as we think, shrunk from that inquiry, are all that we, at present, wish to establish and put on record. The task of describing, particularly at a distant period, all the difficulties and embarrassments which, whilst preserving the forms of debate, may still, by men of talent and ability, be thrown in the way of free inquiry, is not an easy one; yet, if challenged to prove the assertions made above, we have by us sufficient materials fully to support our case. At the Hackney conferences our friends who attended were, indeed, never directly forbidden to speak; and on one occasion the subject of social prayer was actually spoken upon; yet, by adroitness and management, all real discussion of the question was as effectually avoided as though no opponents of the practice had been present. Whenever they appeared an endeavour, even previously to the discussion, was studiously made to raise a prejudice against them, as intruders and disturbers of the harmony of the meeting; repeated efforts were made, by one or two individuals, to fix on them the charge of disorderly and indecorous conduct, and "by every specious and plausible “insinuation, to degrade the speaker, the more effectually "to paralize the thing spoken;" they were even, on more than one occasion, prayed at, in the opening petition of the president; and prescribed forms of debate which, at least as far as they saw, or have learned, were never, or but rarely, enforced against others, were rigorously, and almost invariably, enforced against them. The chief of these was the rule that each speaker should not exceed one quarter of an hour; a rule which, without objection being raised, they have seen more than once infringed upon, by the fanatic, and even the deist, and yet oftener by the president himself; but which (particularly on the occasion above referred to, when social prayer was the subject of inquiry) was endeavoured to be enforced with strictness against the members of the Freethinking Christian church. When to this is added that the |