greater part of the short space allotted to the conference was occupied by singing, a prayer, and an opening speech, on the part of the president, before the discussion; and that time was always to be reserved for a closing speech, also, on the part of the president, for another prayer, and, if we recollect aright, another hymn at parting-when it is stated that our friends were constantly and systematically interrupted, and informed that they could not enter on certain points which, at least, they thought to the subject under discussion, an obstruction which they saw confined almost exclusively to themselves and which occupied no small portion of the quarter of an hour to which they were confined--when it is observed that no adjournment was, on any account, allowed, however large or important the subject, or whatever difference of opinion might arise in its discussion-when it is remembered that the subjects chosen were generally, and, we think we may say, studiously, such as in no way touched upon the points in difference between us-and that, although the proposing of questions for a future season was permitted to the audience, yet that those proposed by our friends were at first dropt in silence; and, when they respectfully pressed for an answer, were rejected with anger and acrimony-when these circumstances are considered, our readers will probably agree with us in thinking that it was in vain to look for a discussion of the differences subsisting between the Unitarians and ourselves, at the "Winter "Evening Hackney Conferences." Of the want, not only of candour and true liberality, but even of attention to the common courtesies of life, and civilities of society, which our friends met with on these occasions, they have not thought it worth their while to complain; but they did lament, and they still do lament, that so fair an opportunity, for so valuable a purpose, should have been lost; and that talent which they could not but admire, should be thus turned to a purpose which they could not do otherwise than deprecate.

As, amongst other reasons for not entering on the special subjects of difference between us, the peculiar rules of the conference and fixed nature of the subjects, were pleaded, the Freethinking Christian church determined themselves to hold conferences, at which these objections could not be adduced. During the months of January, February, and March 1816, they announced, therefore, "Winter Evening "Conferences," at their own place of meeting, in the Crescent, Jewin Street. Amongst the questions there proposed, was the following: "Is public social worship founded

"on expediency or scriptural authority?" A copy of the hand bill, which was distributed at the doors of the Unitariam chapels on this occasion, now lies before the writer. It is headed "An Appeal to Conscientious Unitarians;" and after some strictures, pointed, indeed, yet but too well founded, upon the then recent conduct of one or two "privileged "individuals," at the Hackney conferences, it contains the following invitation: "Intelligent and candid Unitarians are respectfully solicited to attend these conferences—they are "promised an impartial hearing, and shall be allowed the prece“dence (PARTICULARLY UNITARIAN TEACHERS) to all other speakers." A copy of this announcement was forwarded to Mr. Aspland, Mr. Vidler, Mr. Belsham, Mr. Gilchrist, Dr. Rees, Mr. T. Rees, and other Unitarian teachers, in or near the metropolis, accompanied by an official letter from the Secretary of the Church, in which the following passages occurred: "To invite you, Sir,-to request your company "at this conference is the object of my now addressing 66 you. In your situation, as a public teacher, it will occur "to you that the Unitarian body will naturally look up to you as one of the chief defenders of its practices; and every lover of truth will, as naturally, avail himself with "eagerness of an opportunity thus presented, of either "himself receiving, or communicating truth to others." After adverting to the recognized principles of free inquiry, in consistency with which, under the circumstances of the case, these individuals must have felt compelled to meet us, this circular thus proceeds; "I have now only to state the terms on which we wish to meet you. On the points in "difference we believe that we have truth and argument on our side; as men, however, and fallible men, we are aware "that we may be mistaken, and we therefore are the more "anxious to hear fairly stated, the opinions of those who differ "from us. For this purpose, therefore, we invite and earnestly "request your presence. You will be heard in preference "to ourselves-in preference to others; we shall be glad"the more glad to hear you, because you profess to think "" us in error. Meet us and we will listen to you readily. "Convince us-and we will own our error. Hear us-and we will give our reasons and our arguments. Truth is our only object, and we wish to seek it, wherever it may be "found. Should, therefore, any other means, in addition "to the above, present themselves to you, by which it may "be gained, we make it a request that you will point them On all occasions, and in every place, we shall "be happy to meet you, to discuss the differences (of opinion)

66

"

"out to us.

subsisting between the Unitarian body and ourselves. The time, the place, and manner, so as they be consistent with Christian principle, and the laws of fair discussion, we leave "to your appointment."

This invitation, addressed, as has been stated, to all the Unitarian teachers in or near London, was accepted by none of them. Considerable numbers of the Unitarian body attended without, however, entering into the discussion; which they, naturally enough, left to their hired teachers. But evening succeeded evening, and neither Mr. Aspland, Mr. Vidler, Mr. Belsham, Mr. Gilschrist, Dr. Rees, Mr. T. Rees, nor any other of the parties thus pressingly, but respectfully, invited, appeared to take part in this inquiry: Except in two instances no notice whatever was taken of the invitation. The exceptions were on the part of Mr. T. Rees, who pleaded the then state of his health, hinting, however, at other impediments! and of Mr. Belsham, who, in the first instance, sent a polite note, apparently approving highly of" the proposed conference," but stating that it would not be in his power to attend it. As he appeared from this note to suppose that the discussion was fixed for one evening only, the Secretary hastened to point out to him, in a second letter, that the conferences were to be continued through a period of some weeks; and as, by implication, Mr. Belsham had spoken very favourably of the objects of the intended discussions, the Secretary strongly pressed for "the pleasure "and the advantage of his company." Mr. Belsham, in reply, begged leave to say once for all, that it SUITED NEITHER

HIS INCLINATION NOR CONVENIENCE TO ATTEND THE

PROPOSED CONFERENCES!!!" There was, at least, openness and candour in this confession, and (always excepting his having first implied an approval of our objects) the avowal of this gentleman was certainly frankness itself, compared with the studied silence maintained by the other parties. We are constrained, indeed, to admit that Mr. Belsham, in this case, both for himself and his associates, spoke the plain and unvarnished truth. Why it should thus suit neither the inclinations nor the convenience" of these gentlemen, to take a part in discussing the scripture authority and the rationality of pulpit preaching, public social prayer, &c., we might not, if called upon, find it difficult to divine;-having stated the facts, however, we prefer leaving our readers to form their own conclusions.

It is sometimes curious to compare a man's professions with his actions: his theory with his practice. With this view I would observe that Mr. Belsham, well known, not

616

only as an able, but also as a voluminous controversialist, has lately published Two Sermons, preached at Essex-street; "the first, on the Love of Truth; the second, on the Benefits "arising from Theological Controversy." A brief extract or two from these sermons of Mr. Belsham, compared with the conduct of this gentleman on the above occasion, may prove not a little edifying. "The sincere lover of truth" (he says) "will never cease to inquire, as long as the powers of intellect and investigation remain." (P. 20.) But what, if it should not "be in the power of the sincere lover of truth to attend to inquiry! In the open ground of fair discussion, truth must possess a decided advantage over error, which must eventually "be beaten from the field; nor is there any other way of vanquishing error, but by fair and liberal discussion." (P. 43.) But what, if it should not agree with the inclination of a public teacher to enter on "the open ground of fair discussion!" Again: "Controversy is a rugged road, but it leads to a most important termination; AND IT MUST NOT BE deserted "BY THE TRAVELLER WHO IS IN SEARCH OF TRUTH." But what, if, upon certain points, it should not suit the convenience of the traveller to follow in this "rugged road!" Few know better than Mr. Belsham, gifted, as he is, with no common powers of mind and clearness of intellect, the construction fairly to be put upon such conduct. We are anxious that our readers should observe, that the subjects thus avoided were chiefly the payment of priests, and the practices of public social prayer and pulpit preaching, which alone make priests necessary. Mr. Belsham does not thus avoid controversy where (as respecting the person of Christ, the Atonement, &c.) he feels himself to be in the right.

It would probably be deemed uncandid in us, judging of intentions by actions, to assert that this able and eager controversialist, together with his reverend brethren, were kept from the field of inquiry by a consciousness that our views were correct and scriptural; and a fear lest, by discussion of these points, their craft should be put in danger of being set at nought. But thus much we are compelled to confess on their parts-that had they actually been influenced by such a consciousness, and such a fear, they could not have acted otherwise than precisely as they did on this occasion. For all knowledge of human nature, in general, and all experience of theological controversy, in particular, tend to the establishment of this principle--that, under one pretence or other, with which they have deceived others, and perhaps even themselves, it has ever been the party secretly conscious of having a weak and unscriptural

cause to defend, that has shrunk from, and avoided diseussion and inquiry.*

Various other efforts, on the same subject, have been met in a spirit not dissimilar to that above recorded. Mr. T. A. Teulon, at that time a member of the Freethinking Christian church, in a letter addressed to Mr. Vidler, printed in the year 1805, subjoined, what he termed "An Examination of Mr. R. Wright's Essay on the Object, Nature, and Design "of Religious Worship," then just published; in which he maintained, briefly, but ably, that the practice of public social prayer was, at once, irrational and unscriptural.

66

In more than one article of the periodical Work already referred to the Freethinking Christians' Magazine,† a similar position was supported; the space there devoted to the subject admitted, however, of little more than general views, the writers not professing to enter into the details of the subject. Still they had there put their sentiments upon record; besides which, we not unfrequently made the question the subject of express inquiry and investigation at our public meetings; whilst our views were practically enforced by our example as a religious body.

The Unitarians, however, or their teachers, though investigation was thus continually courted, maintained, apparently, a guarded silence. Endeavours similar to those made by the London branch of our church, to induce the Unitarians in that place to discuss this subject, have been likewise made by some of our country friends, in their several neighbourhoods, and with similar success. In the year

* As in a former note we gave the implied censure of the editor of the Monthly Repository to the debatings of the Freethinking Christian church, it may not be amiss, besides adverting to the fact that Mr. Aspland was the regular president or chairman of the Hackney conferences, which, even more strictly than our public meetings, formed a debating society, to take this opportunity of treating our readers with the bold and admirably expressed sentiments of Mr. Belsham on this subject. "Man has a right," (he says) "and it is his imperative duty-whether by instruction, or catechism, or "conversation, or conference, or debate, public or private; whether by "writing or by printing and publishing, or by public preaching or teaching, "from house to house, or by holding forth in the market place, the fields, or "the highway; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear—to 66 promulgate what he believes to be essential or highly important truth; "and to protest against what, in his estimation, is pernicious error." See "The Rights of Conscience Asserted and Defended.-By Thomas Belsham." Upon some such principles and feelings as these we have acted towards the Unitarian body, and our reward is briefly detailed above. As far as we may without presumption, we would adopt the language of the apostle, and exclaim to them forgive us this wrong!”

66

† See Vol. I. (year 1811) p. 501, and Vol. IV. (year 1814) p. 71,