its utter destitution of all spiritual and moral efficacy. The consequence was, I gradually lost all confidence in it, and all affection for it, and kept aloof from it as much as I well could, and was so heartless in the cause, that some who had known me as a preacher, both in Scotland and in Derbyshire, said I was not like the same person. Indeed I was not the same person; my soul had been smitten with a curse, that caused a ruin and desolation, which in pensive mood often threw a gloomy horror around my understanding, that appalled my reason, with all its daring hardihood. I was fain to betake myself to intellectual labour, in hope of finding in it that satisfaction which I could no longer experience from religion, or rather to escape from the disquiet, caused by my doubts and perplexities concerning religion. Over-exertion, in part, but most of all, I am persuaded, that mental disquietude, which was ever recurring, produced a malady, by which my life was despaired of. My recovery was, in the good providence of God, (who, I humbly trust, had a merciful purpose in my preservation) ascribable to the skill and assiduity of the medical gentlemen who attended me, and whose disinterested and unwearied attention produced a sentiment of admiration of the generous character of the medical profession, which I never had before. I would willingly name and eulogize them, as some small tribute or testimony of gratitude, if I could do it with propriety in a work of this nature. One of them, who was as a father to his patients, and every poor man's friend in his neighbourhood, has fallen a sacrifice to his profession; another is so nearly related to me, that it might not be seemly to publish my opinion of his merits; a third would, perhaps, be offended, if I were to proclaim to the world, especially in this narrative, the high opinion which I entertain of his professional ability. To bis penetration, and skill, and decision, my recovery was, amongst human means, mainly ascribable."--pp. 10--17.

He tells us, in another passage, how far he never agreed with the party with which for many years

he had become identified.

“As I am now drawing near the period of avowed dissent from the Unitarians, I will state, as briefly as I can, in what respects I was never in unison with them; for I was always a sort of nonconformist in opinion among them; a heretic among beretics, and a disbeliever of those very things which are received by them almost with universal consent.

"1. I never admired, recommended, or used, either in chapel or family, the New alias Unitarian Version of the New TesN. S. No. 30.

tament. I always thought it a poor party thing, got up with as little ability as candour, merely for a theological purpose. The only one of all the Unitarian brethren (in the ministry) I have ever heard approach my own opinion respecting the New Version, is Mr. Aspland; as he is likewise the only one of them who ever seemed to coincide in opinion with me respecting that great author and finisher of the Humanitarian faith, Dr. Priestley. He has long been considered unsound, and he made no small noise about two years ago, as if actually abandoning Unitarianism in toto. It is at least seven or more years since he proposed that we, the London ministers, should meet to discuss certain subjects, alleging that we had gone too far, and ought to retrace our steps; and when he appealed to myself, whether Humanitarianism did not put a very forced construction on some parts of the New Testament, and particularly the first chapter of the Gospel according to John; I promptly admitted that I thought it did. There were some things, indeed, which rendered me indifferent to the proposed conferences or discussions: my mind was very unsettled respecting the great previous question: whenever it should be satisfied respecting that, it was my purpose not to be content with gently and silently retracing my steps.

2. I never lectured to the people against the existence of the devil, or in favour of Universal Restoration. These were very tempting, easy subjects; but independently of all higher considerations, I loathed the charlatanerie of declaiming on topics calculated to gratify vulgar and vicious minds, and which were identified with such men as those who first employed them to attract attention and acquire notoriety.

"3. I never embraced or advocated the doctrines, as they are called, of Materialism and Necessity. I had experienced doubts and perplexities respecting them, but I never thought them fit, or useful, or safe subjects for the pulpit, and I despised most of the reasonings put forth in support of them.

4. I never entertained such low and degrading notions of the person, and

office, and character of Jesus, as those of

Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham. Indeed I had no conception that such notions were really expressed in printed words, by even Mr. Belsham, till I resolutely read the Calm Inquiry through, within these twelve months. In the most sceptical state of my mind, the character of Jesus presented something higher than the beau idéal of human excellence; and frequently my faith has been strengthened and my heart warmed when contemplating it; and I have been disposed to exclaim, what need is there of other evidence of divinity than 2 T

that which is presented in him who is styled the Son of God? Those who have regularly listened to my preaching, can bear witness, that however dull I might be on other subjects, I was often animated on this, though my animation was frequently damped by the foolish fear of enthu

siasm.

"5. 1 never entertained such opinions, and employed such language, as those of Priestley, Belsham, and others, respecting the apostles and their writings.

"6. I have long dissented from, and indeed preached against the Unitarian notions respecting human nature. When I came to London I was so far influenced by Dr. Cogan's Letters concerning human depravity, as to preach a sermon containing the same sort of theory and arguments; but I very soon changed my opinion on what I supposed to be philoso phic principles; and adopted a theory much nearer to that of Mr. Wilberforce, than to that of his opponent."--pp. 19

--22.

Having given an account of his distress of mind, and of the gradual progress of his return to more orthodox views; he in the conclusion of his pamphlet supplies us with some information, which is not very satisfactory respecting his present sentiments.

"Having professedly and most decisively abandoned Unitarianism, the reader may wish to know what my present theological opinions are. If it had not been to avoid increasing the size of this work, I would have written out the sermons which I have preached in both my pulpits, in direct opposition to Unitarianism, concerning the person, death, and mediation of Christ, divine influence, &c. &c. It is impossible for me to put any thing on paper more decidedly and strongly Anti-Unitarian than I have frequently preached, and that too at all hazards as to consequences.

"I refuse to be called a Unitarian, but I do not profess on the other side to be a Trinitarian (and sincerely deplore that the term exists) though I believe I am as much a Trinitarian as Calvin himself, Baxter, and many other great and good men, at the farthest possible remove from the Unitarian principles and spirit; and from which I would willingly escape to an immeasurable distance. I cannot entertain the notion of three persons in the godhead, because I cannot perceive any real distinc. tion between three coequal persons and three Gods. But I am not disposed to make this a subject of disputation. I am willing to walk in peace with all sincere Christians, however Trinitarian their faith

may be, and to leave them in undisturbed possession of their opinions concerning the adorable and inscrutable nature of God. If they will not bear with me, and leave me in undisturbed possession of my opinion on such an awful subject; if they will reject me as a stubborn heretic, wholly unworthy of the kingdom of Christ; I can only mourn in secret that such a cause of disunion among the disciples of Jesus should exist, and patiently wait till it be removed, in pleasing anticipation of that better state of the church, when all that love our Lord Jesus Christ shall see, eye to eye, and strike their harps in sweet accord without one jarring sound.

"I am not a Trinitarian in the sense that seems to my understanding to be tritheistical; but no man can hold the divinity of the Lord Jesus more firmly, or more truly than I do. I believe him to be not only truly and properly man, but also truly and properly God; for God is with, by special and intimate union, and dwelleth in the man Christ Jesus. And

though I reasoned at one time against the

notion of two natures in the person of Christ, and was disposed, like too many Unitarians, to ridicule it, I am as fully convinced, as I am of any truth of Chrisof the Gospel. tianity, that it is an all-important doctrine

"Concerning atonement by our Lord Jesus Christ, I cannot approve or employ some modes of expression in frequent use, or entertain notions which seem to be implied in them; but I am perfectly satisfied with such a statement as that of the late Andrew Fuller, as well as of other Anti-Unitarian writers. Nor am I merely satisfied with such a statement--I cannot be satisfied without some equivalent statement: for I am fully convinced, that the New Testament gives an importance and an efficacy to the death of Jesus, infinitely surpassing what can be implied in it, considered merely as sealing his mission, as an example of patient and obedient suffering, and as necessary to his resur

rection.

"As to divine influence also, commonly called the work of the Spirit, I believe it to be clearly taught in the New Testament; and, moreover, that there cannot be any true religion without it, or without the belief of it. But here, also, I cannot approve and employ expressions and statements frequently to be met with in books, or heard from preachers. And much do I deplore that there is not more circumspection in treating of the great truths and principles of the Gospel; for Christianity is cruelly wounded in the house of its friends by the unguarded, unreasonable, and unscriptural manner in which it is often spoken of. Much would I rejoice to see a respectable middle body of Christians, between the Humanitarians on the one

extreme, and those on the other who discard the exercise of reason altogether in religion, as if blind zeal, and stark absurdity could be acceptable to God, honourable to the Saviour, or profitable to men. I have been, after many years abstinence, to hear the popular preachers, and it is impossible for me to express how much I have been grieved by some of them; for it seemed to me as if they were crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to an open shame. Fain would I remonstrate, if

I could hope that remonstrance would be of any avail. Confident declaimers, who

have the gratification of haranguing their thousands of fond admirers, may measure their usefulness by their popularity; they may think that they are doing God service by outraging his holy word, as much as human reason and common sense: but they know not what spirit they are of; and whilst they vociferate their crude and senseless declamations against Unitarianism and infidelity, they themselves are a main cause of both. There are mysays teries in Providence, and some of the phenomena of what is termed the religious world, are awfully mysterious to my

mind; and I returned home last Lord's

day evening from a place of worship, with a wounded spirit, and full of gloomy thoughts.

"As to some of the popular preachers, I wish not to hear them again, and would be glad to forget that I have ever heard them; but there are others of whom I am persuaded better things: and doubtless, there are many ministers in and around the metropolis, who speak the words of truth and soberness, who handle the word of God faithfully and reverently; whose zeal is according to knowledge, and who have higher and holier aims than to court popularity by practising on the foolish eyes, and ears, and imaginations of the igno

rant.

"I had intended, as a kind of antidote to Unitarianism, to give some hints to Trinitarians, recommending a reasonable and intellectual mode of stating their opinions in writing, and of preaching them in the pulpit. But my intentions might be mistaken, and I should, perhaps, do harm where I sincerely wish to do good; and therefore, for the present at least, 1 desist, and conclude by expressing unfeigned desires for peace and prosperity to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth."-pp. 77-81.

Such is a brief view of the remarkable history contained in the two pamphlets now on our table. Both the writers are men of respectability, whose testimony is worthy of full credit. How far it will weigh with their former friends

remains to be seen. They furnish a very remarkable illustration of one thing, which, we fear, is the prevailing sin of the body, with which they were connected-pride of understanding. It is very evident, that this was the evil which ensnared Mr. Elton, in whose pamphlet we should have been pleased with finding more Christian feeling, had there even been less of scholarship. Self-confidence and contempt for others seem to have pervaded the mind of Mr. Gilchrist throughout: for in his case, contempt seems to have been poured upon the heterodox as well as the orthodox; and Mr. Belsham and Mr. Aspland seem to have been regarded only as drivellers in a smaller degree than those whom he had abandoned. Indeed, we fear the evil is not yet thoroughly cured; some of the phraseology which occurs even in the passages we have quoted, is not very becoming in a man who has undergone so many changes, and who might be expected to feel something of self-distrust. It would have been exceedingly gratifying to have perceived that his late change had produced a greater degree of humility and diffidence. We are disappointed in not finding a much stronger expression of sorrow and repentance, in reference to his own conduct and aberrations. Many years of what he must now consider apostacy from the faith of Christ, during which he has been teaching the most pernicious errors, demanded manifestation of sorrow much stronger than is here expressed. We should also like to have seen more of pity discovered for his former connexions.

a

We make these observations in the most perfect good-will to Mr. Gilchrist. We rejoice sincerely in his escape from the snare of the devil, and pray that it may be perfect. We do not perceive, if we rightly understand him, any

substantial difference between his present sentiments and those generally held on the subject of the Trinity and the Atonement, except that it appears to us he is still too proud to use the ordinary phraseology. He knows very well that the term Trinity is disliked by many as well as by himself; and that those who approve of it, never use it in a tritheistical sense. We are satisfied with his sincerity, and trust that he has found rest to his soul in the divinity and atonement

of Jesus; but we unfeignedly wish to see more humility and self-abasement, and less contempt for popular creeds and popular preachers. Such a state of mind would do more to re-establish confidence, and to promote his usefulness, than ten thousand kicks and sneers at those from whom he differs. It would also go far to promote his own knowledge and obedience to the truth, which we fervently pray may be permanent and influential in all respects.

CEREMONIAL

OF LAYING THE FOUNDATION STONE OF THE LONDON UNIVERSITY.

Monday, April 30, was the day appointed for the ceremony of laying the foundation-stone of the London University. The spot which has been selected for the building is situated at the end of Gower Street, and comprehends a very extensive piece of ground, of 7 acres, which is enclosed by paling. The weather being propitious, there was a vast number of persons present, and the preparations which had been made for their accommodation were very well calculated to secure that object. The visiters, who were admitted by cards, were conducted to an elevated platform, which was so much inclined that the most distant spectator could readily see every particular of the ceremony. The number of persons present must have been upwards of 2,000, the greatest proportion of which was composed of well-dressed ladies. At a quarter past three o'clock, the Duke of Sussex arrived upon the ground, amidst the acclamations of the people; and his Royal Highness, attended by the Committee and Stewards, went in procession to the platform, upon which the foundation-stone was deposited.

The Rev. Dr. Cox, of Hackney, the Honorary Secretary to the Council, then read the inscription engraved upon the

IOANNES VICECOMES · DVDLEY · ET ·

WARD.

GEORGIVS. BARO DE . AVCKLAND • &c. &c.

[TRANSLATION.]

By the good providence of the great and blessed God, the eternal Creator of the world (and may his favour grant prosperity!) in the eighth year of the reign of George the Fourth, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the illustrious Prince Augustus Frederic, Duke of Sussex, Patron of all the liberal Arts, and Grand Master in England of the very ancient order of Free and Accepted Masons, laid, with his own hand, the first stone of the University of London; amidst the plaudits of surrounding Citizens and Brothers, on the thirtieth day of April, 1827.

This work long and ardently desired, and adapted to the wants both of the metropolis and the country, has now, at length, been begun in the year of our Lord 1827, and of the World 5827.

The names of the eminent men who form the Council are-Bernard Edward Duke of Norfolk, Henry Marquess of Lansdown, Lord John Russell, John Viscount Dudley and Ward, George Baron of Auckland, the Honourable James Abercrombie, Sir James Mackintosh, Alexander Baring, H. Brougham, Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, George Grote, Zachary Macauley, George Birkbeck, Thomas Campbell. Olinthus Gregory, Joseph Hume, James Mill, Benjamin Shaw, John Smith, William Tooke, Henry Warburton, Henry Weymouth, John Whishaw, Thomas Wilson, William Wilkins (Architect).

After this inscription had been read, the stone was gradually raised by the help of pullies, and His Royal Highness having received the coins, medals, and inscription, deposited them in the hollow formed for their reception. A bed of mortar was now laid upon the ground by the workmen, to which His Royal Highness added more, which he took from a silver plate, and afterwards smoothed the whole with a golden trowel, upon which were inscribed the following words :-"With this trowel was laid the first stone of the London University, by His Royal Highness Augustus Duke of Sussex, on the 30th of April, 1827. William Wilkins, architect; Messrs. Lee and Co., builders." The stone was then gradually lowered amidst the cheers of the assembly, the band playing "God save the King." His Royal Highness, after having proved the stone with a perpendicular, struck it three times with a mallet, at the same time saying, "May God bless this undertaking which we have so happily commenced, and make it prosper for the honour, happiness,

and glory, not only of the metropolis, bnt of the whole country."

The Rev. Dr. Maltby, Lecturer of Lincoln's Inn, then offered up a very appropriate prayer to the Almighty to bless the present undertaking, of which, we regret, we have no copy.

He

Dr. LUSHINGTON stated, that he had been chosen by the Committee as the organ by which to express their opinions. He remarked, that the London University must effect good. The clouds of ignorance had passed away, and the sun had broken forth and dispelled the darkness which had hitherto prevailed. No man dared now to assert that the blessings of education should not be extended to every, even the lowest, of his Majesty's subjects. then expatiated on the advantages which were likely to arise from the establishment of a London University, among other things, in opening a door to Dissenters, who were excluded from the two great Universities. The Learned Gentleman concluded by passing an eloquent compliment upon the public conduct of the Duke of Sussex. Attached to no party, he was a friend to liberality, and promoted by his encouragement any efforts of the subjects of this realm, whatever their political opinions, if their motives were proper and praiseworthy.

The Duke of SUSSEX acknowledged the compliments which had been paid to him in the eloquent speech of the Learned Gentleman. He stated, that the proudest day of his life was that upon which he had laid the first stone of the London University, surrounded as he was by gentlemen of as high rank, fortune, and character, as any in the kingdom. He was quite convinced that the present undertaking must be productive of good. It would excite the old Universities to fresh exertions, and force them to reform abuses. His Royal Highness concluded, amidst the cheers of the assembly, by repeating that the present was the happiest day of his life.

His Royal Highness and the Committee then left the platform, and the spectators dispersed, apparently highly gratified with the exhibition of the day.

SPEECHES AT THE UNIVERSITY DINNER.

At six o'clock the same day the Members of the Council and the friends of the undertaking partook of a dinner at the Freemasons'Tavern, Great Queen-street, his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex in the Chair. Among the very numerous and select company, we noticed the Dukes of Norfolk and Leinster, the Marquess of Lansdown, the Earl of Carnarvon, Lord Auckland, Lord Nugent, M. P., John C. Hobhouse, Esq. M. P., Sir James Graham, M. P., Sir Robert Dundas, M. P., Sir Herbert Mayo,