APPENDIX.

NOTE A.-[See page 35.]

MISCELLANEOUS GLEANINGS FROM MR. HALL'S CONVERSATIONAL REMARKS.

I AM perfectly well aware that no memoranda can convey an adequate idea of the vivacity, originality, and brilliancy of Mr. Hall's conversational powers. It was usually easy to remember the sentiments which he expressed, and sometimes the images, whether sportive or tasteful, by which he illustrated them; but the beautiful language in which his remarks in conversation were clothed could seldom be recalled, except when he fully communicated his meaning in a very short but happily turned phrase.

This note, therefore, while it may serve to record some of his sentiments and opinions on interesting topics, must be understood as giving a very faint notion of his manner of expressing himself, except in those cases where the language, at once brief, clear, and characteristic, fixed itself indelibly upon the memory.

The connected series, first presented, has been kindly transmitted by the Rev. Robert Balmer, of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and is selected from his recollections of the substance of three or four conversations which he had with Mr. Hall in the years 1819 and 1823.

In the course of some remarks on various theological writers of our own times, he said, "Dr. Smith is the best Biblical critic with whom I am personally acquainted; and I should think him one of the most learned theologians now alive." On my asking, if he did not consider Archbishop Magee superior in ability, and equal in learning, to Dr. Smith? he replied, with his usual decision, "Not nearly equal in learning, sir; I do not suppose that Archbishop Magee knows any thing about the German critics, with whom Dr. Smith is intimately acquainted, and from whom, notwithstanding all their absurdity and impiety, much may unquestionably be learned. There is one thing," he added, "in Dr. Smith's work, much to be lamented; and that is, the tone of excessive lenity maintained towards his opponents. In consequence of this, his reasonings will not produce an effect proportioned to their intrinsic force; and his readers are tempted to regard the opinions which he refutes with far less horror than they deserve. The proper tone in theological controversy is, I imagine, somewhere between Bishop Horsley's intolerable arrogance and asperity, and Dr. Smith's unwarrantable softness and urbanity."

On informing him that I had been perplexed with doubts as to the extent of the death of Christ, and expressing a wish to know his opinion, he replied, "There, sir, my sentiments give me the advantage of you; for on that point I entertain no doubts whatever: I believe firmly in general redemption;' I often preach it, and I consider the fact that Christ died for all men' as the only basis that can support the universal offer of the gospel."—" But you admit the doctrine of election, which necessarily implies limitation. Do you not think that election and particular redemption are inseparably connected?"—"I believe firmly," he rejoined, "in election, but I do not think it involves particular redemption; I consider the sacrifice of Christ as a remedy, not only adapted, but intended for all,

and as placing all in a salvable state; as removing all barriers to their salvation, except such as arise from their own perversity and depravity. But God foresaw or knew that none would accept the remedy, merely of themselves, and therefore, by what may be regarded as a separate arrangement, he resolved to glorify his mercy, by effectually applying salvation to a certain number of our race, through the agency of his Holy Spirit. I apprehend, then, that the limiting clause implied in election refers not to the purchase but to the application of redemption." This representation seemed to me, at the time, to be encumbered with considerable difficulties; and I was not sure that I correctly apprehended it. Not choosing, however, to request Mr. H. to repeat or elucidate his statements, I asked him if he could refer me to any book where I should find what he regarded as the Scripture doctrine on the subject, stated and illustrated. He referred me to a book to which Dr. Smith, of Homerton, had, not many days before, referred me, in answer to a similar question,-Bellamy's "True Religion delineated."

In the course of our conversation respecting the extent of Christ's death, Mr. Hall expatiated at considerable length on the number and variety of the Scripture expressions, in which it seems to be either explicitly asserted or necessarily implied, that it was intended, not for the elect exclusively, but for mankind generally, such as "the world," "all," "all men," "every man," &c. He made some striking remarks on the danger of twisting such expressions from their natural and obvious import, and on the absurdity of the interpretations put on them by some of the advocates of particular redemption. He mentioned, espe cially, the absurdity of explaining "the world," John iii. 16, to signify the elect world, as the text would then teach that some of the elect may not believe. He noticed, further, that the doctrine of general redemption was not only asserted expressly in many texts, but presupposed in others, such as "Destroy not with thy meat," &c., and " Denying the Lord that bought them ;" and that it was incorporated with other parts of the Christian system, particularly with the universal offers and invitation of the gospel.

On the question of church government, Mr. H.'s sentiments seemed to me undecided, and somewhat inconsistent; and by many they would have been regarded as latitudinarian. He expressed his doubts whether any one form or model was delineated in the New Testament, as obligatory in all ages and in all circumstances; and said that he was much disposed to adopt the maxim, "Whatever is best administered is best." In another conversation, when mention was made of a church, which, along with its minister, had been guilty of a scandalous irregularity in a matter of discipline, I stated what would be done in such circumstances among Presbyterians, and put the question, Will the neighbouring churches and ministers not interfere? Mr. H. intimated that they ought to remonstrate and advise; but that any claim to jurisdiction would, in his apprehension, be altogether unwarrantable; adding, that the independence of churches appeared to him a principle expressly sanctioned by the Word of God.

With regard to the question of "Terms of Communion," we had repeated conversations. On this subject he spoke with uncommon interest and animation; and seemed surprised at the arguments of those who were opposed to his views. I recollect, in particular, the effect produced on him, when I stated that I had heard Dr. Lawson, of Selkirk, declare, that he would not admit a Roman Catholic, not even Fenelon or Pascal, to the table of the Lord: Mr. H., who had been previously reclining on three chairs, instantly raised himself on his elbow, and spoke without intermission and with great rapidity for nearly a quarter of an hour; expatiating on the amazing absurdity and presumption of rejecting those whom Christ receives, and of refusing to hold communion on earth with those with whom we hope to associate in heaven. During all this time his manner was exceedingly vehement, his other arm was in continual motion, and his eyes, naturally most piercing, were lighted up with unusual brilliancy.

It was interesting and amusing to observe how Mr. Hall's exquisite sensibility to terary beauty intermingled with and qualified the operation of his principles and leanings, both as a Christian and dissenter. Of this I recollect various instances; but shall give only one. While conversing respecting Archbishop Magee, his

latter part of your statement. As a reasoner, Dr. Owen is most illogical, for he almost always takes for granted what he ought to prove; while he is always proving what he ought to take for granted; and, after a long digression, he concludes very properly with, 'This is not our concernment,' and returns to enter on something still farther from the point."

I remarked that Jonathan Edwards's theory was opposed to our consciousness and our indestructible feelings; for, whenever we blamed ourselves for having acted wrong, we had an irresistible belief, not only that we could have acted otherwise if we had chosen, but that we could have willed otherwise. To all this Mr. H. readily assented, adding some remarks respecting two of Edwards's distinctions: the distinction between liberty to will, and liberty to act according to our will; and that between natural and moral necessity. Respecting the one of these (I do not precisely remember which) Mr. H. made the following ludicrous but characteristic observations.

"That distinction, sir, lies at the basis of Edwards's theory; but it is not original. It is to be found in the works of Dr. Owen: I think it certain that Edwards found it there, buried, like the rest of Owen's ideas, amid a heap of rubbish; and, finding it there, he did what Owen had not strength of arm to do, took a firm grasp of it, and dragged it into light. It proved a monster, and ought to have been smothered; but Edwards found it would be useful to frighten the enemies of Divine sovereignty and free grace, and therefore, instead of smothering it, he nursed it."

Mr. Hall made some inquiry respecting Dr. Henry, the historian, once a minister in Berwick, and afterward colleague of Dr. Macknight, the commentator, in one of the churches in Edinburgh: I informed him, that from all I had ever heard, I believed Dr. Henry must have been a very dry and uninteresting preacher. This led to a reference to the well-known anecdote relative to these two individuals; according to which, the one when coming to church on a Sabbath morning, having got his clothes wet by a heavy rain, asked his colleague to officiate for him. "Go into the pulpit," said the other, "and you will be dry enough." Some doubt being expressed which of the two it was to whom this remark was made, Mr. H. observed, "I suppose, sir, it was applicable to both." Immediately checking himself, he added, "And yet, I should think, that to an intellectual audience, an audience that had any relish for Scripture exposition, Macknight must have been interesting, if the discourses which he preached resembled his published writings."-" Pray, sir," I said, "do you admire Macknight as a commentator?"—"Yes, sir," he replied, "I do, very much; I think it would be exceedingly difficult, indeed, to come after him in expounding the apostolic epistles. I admit, at the same time, that he has grievous deficiencies: there is a lamentable want of spirituality and elevation about him. He never sets his foot in the other world if he can get a hole to step into in this; and he never gives a passage a meaning which would render it applicable and useful in all ages, if he can find in it any local or temporary allusion. He makes fearful havoc, sir, of the text on which you preached to-day. His exposition of it is inimitably absurd." The text referred to was Ephesians i. 8, "Wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence;" and the "wisdom and prudence" are explained by Macknight, not of the wisdom of God, as displayed in the scheme of redemption, but of the wisdom and prudence granted to the apostles to enable them to discharge their office.

Mr. Hall repeatedly referred to Dr. —, and always in high admiration of his general character. The following are some remarks, respecting that extraordinary individual. "Pray, sir, did you ever know any man who had that singular faculty of repetition possessed by Dr. -? Why, sir, he often reiterates the same thing ten or twelve times in the course of a few pages. Even Burke himself had not so much of that peculiarity. His mind resembles that optical instrument lately invented; what do you call it ?"-B. "You mean, I presume, the kaleidoscope."-H. "Yes, sir, it is just as if thrown into a kaleidoscope. Every turn presents the object in a new and beautiful form; but the object presented is still Have you not been struck, sir, with the degree in which Dr. possesses this faculty?"-"Do you not think, sir," I replied, "that he has either

the same.