culation in the neighbourhood, under the title of The Unitarian Doctrine Briefly Stated, has been so unfortunate as to incur a somewhat severe censure from your Plymouth correspondent I. W., in your number for March, (pp. 155, 156,) and as I do sincerely value the good opinion of my brethren, I cannot rest contented without saying a few words in the way of vindication. What he blames is this, that I have said that "Unitarians may be, and often are, consistent members of the Established Church" a sentiment which he deems "destructive of all honest and open profession, and all fair prospect of the advancement of truth." This is a serious charge, but I apprehend I. W. would not have made it had he fairly considered the drift of my argument. I have not recommended it to Unitarians to continue members of the Establishment: I have merely asserted that they may continue so, and, in fact, often do; or, in other words, that entertaining Unitarian opinions does not, ipso facto, separate a man from the Church. Whether it is right, or expedient, for a Unitarian to remain a member of the Church, is quite another question, and one which I have neither proposed nor resolved. Your readers will remember that a gentleman of this neighbourhood, a regular attendant on the worship of the Establishment, was attacked by our clergy, and displaced from a certain honorary post, on the ground of his not being a member of the Church, inasmuch as he avowed the sentiments of Unitarians. Now it is one thing to secede from the Church freely, and another to be turned out against one's will. The Church is not simply an institution for religious services: that is, its direct and proper object but it is also made a door of admission to various honours and advantages, to be cut off from which is no small detriment. When, therefore, I see an attempt to exclude a Unitarian from the Church, I see an attempt to injure him, to deprive him of official dignity and influence and debar him from profitable employment: I see an attempt on the part of the so-called orthodox to maintain their monopoly of good things, and all such attempts I feel heartily disposed to resist. This feeling it was that made me come forward to assert

that a Unitarian might, notwithstanding his opinions, be a very good Churchman, and the arguments which I urged in my pamphlet, to make good this assertion, and which I. W. has quoted in your pages, still appear to me just and valid. A Unitarian who has been baptized in the Church, and is still accustomed to partake of her worship and communion, appears to me entitled to rank himself among her members.

It is, as I observed before, quite another question, how far it is expedient for a Unitarian to maintain a connexion with the Establishment, and as I have not decided this point in my pamphlet, so I shall not pretend to discuss it here. It is really a matter on which a great deal might be said, and would easily furnish out a respectable essay. A few cursory remarks are all that I at present have to offer. In the first place, as I do not see why a man should be supposed to join in the whole of a religious service at which he is present, so I do not see that there is any thing necessarily repugnant to a good conscience in a Unitarian's attending a worship which, in parts, expresses Trinitarian sentiments. It is only necessary, in order to guard against misconception, that he should freely and openly state to his neighbours that there are certain doctrines of which he disapproves. This done, I think he is quite clear from all hypocrisy, both with God and man. All is perfectly well understood: Mr. is an avowed Unitarian, and though he goes to Church, yet, of course, he does not join in several parts of the service. But why, it will be asked, should a Unitarian join in a form of worship which presents so much that it is repugnant to his conscientious opinions? I answer, in the first place, there may be a necessity for his doing so; at least the only alternative may be to join in public worship with Trinitarians, or not at all; a dilemma, in which I really am placed myself, and certainly I have no hesitation in preferring the former measure. Then, I must own, I do not much like the spirit of Nonconformity: I think there certainly was, and is, such a thing as the sin of schism. Christ desired that his church should be one, and Christian unity is best expressed and felt in common

took up their abode at Dedington, and one or more at Empton; from which places they could easily slip down, across the open fields, to Milton, without being much noticed by their enemies.

The first minister, according to the best information that I have received, (for we have no book of records,) who preached at Milton, was a Mr. Whatley. I find a very short account of him in the Rev. Samuel Palmer's Memorial of the Ejected Ministers, Vol. II. p. 491.- Sutton-under-Brails,' (a few miles west of Banbury,) Mr. Thomas Whatley, son of Mr. William, baptized September 10, 1620. After his ejectment he preached sometimes at Milton, near Banbury, sometimes at Woodstock, and sometimes at Long Crombe, near it. He was buried Jan. 27, 1698.'

"There is sufficient reason to believe that he was the son of the very celebrated William Whatley, Vicar of Banbury, who died at Banbury in the 56th year of his age, Anno Dom. 1639; for the Banbury Parish Regis ter informs us, that Thomas Whatley, the son of the Rev. William Whatley, was baptized in 1620; his residence was but a few miles off, and he was the ancestor of the late Whatleys, of Banbury.

"The next of your ministers that I have any knowledge of was a Mr. Durell. The following facts make it appear that he came here about the year 1692. He was a French Protestant, educated at Sedan, and fled to England from the bloody persecution of Louis XIV., who abolished the Edict of Nantz.

"He first taught the French language in London; after a time procured a place in the Church of England near Woodstock; but not being able to take an oath of allegiance to the Prince of Orange, while King James II. was living, he was obliged to leave his place in the Established Church, the consequence of which was, that at length he became the minister of the two Dissenting congregations of Bloxham and Milton, though he was not a Dissenter in principle. He, therefore, often attended the services of the Established Church of Bloxham. There is no church at Milton.

"He appears to have been a very humble and pious person, but I sus

pect a poor preacher, for some of his most intelligent hearers went to Banbury to hear a Mr. Davis, who, at that time, preached at the great Meeting there.

"A fire breaking out at the north end of the village of Bloxham, and the wind setting so as to blow the flames into it, Mr. Durell went to the place, and there offered up a prayer to God, that he would prevent the threatened evil. The wind changed, and the fire spread no further. This might, by the good providence of God, have taken place, if Mr. D. had not prayed. But it is a serious fact, that he did offer up such a prayer, that the wind did change, and that the people of the village took notice of it. Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.' Psalm L. 15.

"He had so tender a conscience that it sometimes led him to act without much judgment. To give one instance. When a thief was taking away some of his raiment from off a hedge, he seeing him do it, cried out,-You don't steal them, you don't steal them, I give them you, I give them you. He had a daughter who lies buried by him in the south wing of the parish Church of Bloxham. I shall give, in the Appendix, the inscription that is on the stone that covers his grave. I apprehend that a clergyman, of the same name and family, came, a number of years ago, from the island of Jersey, into this neighbourhood, to make inquiry concerning Mr. Durell's family, but we know no more of it than what is related here.

"Your third minister was a Mr. Hancock, who appears from the time of Mr. Durell's death to have settled among you about the year 1726. He continued with you but a little while; for his father dying, and leaving a wife and family, he removed to Dudley, that he might be near them to assist his mother in carrying on his father's business, for the benefit of the family.

"After him a Mr. Nicklin became your pastor, but he falling, in a few years, into a low and melancholy state of mind, laid aside preaching, and went to reside in or near Dudley, where he died, as the Rev. Job Orton informed me, about the year 1781.

"The Rev. Thomas Brabant was your fourth minister. He was born at Ab

bey-Milton, in Dorsetshire; received his classical learning under Dr. Milner, &c.; afterwards removed to Glasgow, and from thence was placed under the care of Dr. Doddridge for one year, if not longer, whom he afterwards as sisted as classical tutor to his pupils for about five years. From Northampton he came to Bloxham about the year 1748, and was your minister for about thirty years. He died at Bloxham, January 19, 1804, in the 85th year of his age. He was a learned, sensible and pious man, a good preacher, but often wanted energy. "After Mr. Brabant resigned his office, Mr. Benjamin Carpenter became your minister. He was the son of a respectable farmer at the Woodrow, near Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire. He was educated at Daventry, under the Rev. Dr. Ashworth, who succeeded Dr. Doddridge in the care of his Academy. Mr. C. was ordained minister of Bloxham and Milton Dissenting societies, at Banbury, in the latter end of the year 1774.

After continuing here about two years he removed to Westbromwich, below Birmingham, and in a few years after he went to Stourbridge, and in about eight or nine years more he removed to Clapham, near London; and in a few years returned into the neighbourhood of Stourbridge again; and at length became the minister of the congregation of Stourbridge a second time, where he continued to the time of his death, which took place November 22, 1816, when he was 64 years of age. He was married three times, but left no child behind him. He was a good, learned and sensible man, but rather a heavy preacher; and was much esteemed by those persons who knew him best, for his learning, meekness and earnest desire to promote the best interest of his people. He published some short_discourses on our Dissent from the Established Church; a single sermon on Charity; a Liturgy, which was used one part of the day in his place of worship at Stourbridge; two small volumes of Sermons on Various Subjects; and a work on Natural and Revealed Religion. He also had a controversy with Mr. Belsham on Ari

anism.

"When Mr. Carpenter left you, a Mr. Samuel Withers became your mi

VOL. XIX.

2 M

nister. He was a native of Westbromwich, below Birmingham; had part of his gramınar learning at Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Addington's school at Market Harborough. From thence he went to Daventry Academy, then under the care of Dr. Ashworth, where he continued four years. The fixed period was five years, but he marrying while he was a student, caused him to leave a year sooner than he would otherwise have done. He was consumptively inclined, and, therefore, after preaching to you for about two years, he resigned his post, and went to live with his parents, where he died after a few months. He was an affable and friendly man, a popular preacher, and meant well, but wanted prudence. He, I suppose, died in the year 1780.

"The Meeting-house at Milton existed before this at Bloxham. What gave rise to this is related as follows: that a Mr. Fletcher, who was minister of the Parish Church of Bloxham, being a Welshman, spoke the English -language so very imperfectly, that his people could not understand him; and as he would not go away, a number of them determined to provide themselves with a minister that they could understand. The initial letters of the names of several of the families are still to be seen cut in the forms on which some of you are now sitting.

"Thus, my friends, I have, agreeably to the exhortation contained in our text, given you an account of the dif ferent persons whom the good providence of God hath, in a long course of years, set over you and your fathers as your and their ministers in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"It will be of use to you to recollect these things at times, and to talk them over in your families and amongst your neighbours and intimate friends, and to endeavour to imitate their faith and practice, as far as you believe that it was agreeable to the gospel of Christ. You are greatly indebted to the good providence of God for giving you such ministers; and you have a solemn account to give, to the righteous Judge of the whole earth, of the use you have made of their ministry. The Supreme Being may say to you, as he did to his ancient people the Jews, I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them.' Jer. vii. 25.

The village of Adderbury is scarcely a mile from Milton. There the Duke of Buccleugh had, till within a few years, a spacious, mansion. The celebrated Lord Rochester sometimes visited that place. I have seen the frame and curtains of a bed there that were

said to be bis. The curtains were made of a stout dark purple woollen cloth.

There appears to have been at that time, residing in or near Adderbury, a person of the name of Marshall, who was a troublesome man; and when he died, it is said that his Lordship made the following verse on him:

"If heaven is pleas'd when sinners cease to siu,

If hell is pleas'd when sinners enter in, If earth is pleas'd when it entombs a knave,

Then all are pleas'd,—for Marshall's in his grave."

SIR,

M

JOSEPH JEVANS.

Y acknowledgements are due to Mr. Sturch for the handsome manner in which he has spoken of the temper with which I replied to his animadversions (p. 220). His last paper will furnish matter for an observation or two which I wish to make, not from the love of controversy nor the desire of victory, but for the sake of truth in a matter of some moment.

Mr. Sturch acknowledges that Christianity has cast a glorious light on the

future hopes of man. But if I rightly understand Mr. Sturch's views, he considers Christianity as borrowing its principal evidence from its conformity to the Religion of Nature. Now, as far as this is the case, Christianity cannot render any truth more clear than the Religion of Nature had previously rendered it. Christianity, then, must possess a clear and satisfactory evidence altogether distinct from that which it derives from its conformity to Natural Religion; and if this evidence does not amount to certainty, it must amount to something that to practical purposes will serve as well.

By all mankind, Mr. Sturch means mankind in general. Mr. Locke meant something more. He did not, it is true, include idiots in this expression; but he, doubtless, meant all who possess the coinmon faculties of human

nature. And I must repeat, that those mankind, must be too plain to be mistruths which are intelligible to all from Mr. Locke, though not the most understood. So that the quotation appropriate that might have been selected, was not altogether irrelevant to my purpose.

I suspected that it might be necessary to call in the aid of some spiritual guide to interpret the Religion of Nature, and that its truths are not quite so clear as they are sometimes represented. And I am confirmed in the opinion that some obscurity hangs over this religion, when I recollect that different commentators annex different interpretations to the language in which it is written. To instance in the doctrine of a future life: Dr. Clarke professes to demonstrate this doctrine chiefly from the inequality of the Divine dispensations in relation to the virtuous and the vicious. This "demonstration Mr. Sturch altogether rejects; and, if my memory does not deceive me, maintains what Dr. Clarke considers as altogether untenable, that virtue is in every case its own reward. Another may be as little satisfied with Mr. Sturch's reasonings, as Mr. Sturch is with the reasonings of Dr. Clarke. And a third may reject as inefficient and inconclusive the reasonings of both Dr. Clarke and Mr. Sturch. So that it does, indeed, appear that though the Religion of Nature is certainly true, "in its general and abstract