reminds us of that of Huss and Jerome before the Council of Constance.'

This conduct on the part of the Genevese ecclesiastics has found an apologist in Mr. Bakewell, upon two grounds; first, that the old Calvinists of Geneva manifested the same intolerant spirit; secondly, that every religious society has a right to form and to enforce its own regulations. To the former argument, Dr. Smith replies :

It is to no purpose to dilate, as Mr. Bakewell has done, upon the intolerant and persecuting spirit of the old Calvinists of Geneva. My papers hare admitted and deplored and condemned it. In this respect, they fell under the same condemnation as, I mourn to say, all the Reformed Churches of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, except the Congregationalists of England, the Antipædobaptists, and the Quakers. But the more modern Church of Geneva has no excuse if, in this greatest of all respects, it has not kept up with the march of the age, the progress of liberal and just opinions. The chief Authors of its altered state, when they imported Mr. Locke's · Dotions as a theologian, ought also to have paid him practical honour, as the noble and unanswerable advocate of Religious Freedom. Consistent Christians of all denominations, in the present day, lament the slowness of their predecessors, at the period of the Reformation, to perceive the universal right of full religious liberty. But this mischievous defect was not peculiar to Calvinists: the Lutherans, the English Arminians under Laud and the Steuarts, and other classes of Protestants, were deeply infected by it. However, it should not be forgotten, that the body of men who first stood forwards as the advocates of toleration, were the English Independents or Congregationalists, and that they were CALVINISTS.

For what purpose, but that of creating an unfair odium, does Mr. Bakewell introduce the sanguinary executions of Geneva for the crime of witchcraft, in the times of the Calvinistic ascendancy? He cannot but know that, during that period, most, if not all, civilized nations laboured under the same delusion; and that, in England, a considerable number of persons was executed for that imaginary crime:

Mr. Bakewell's second argument comes with an admirable grace from an enemy of creeds and articles of subscription. Admit that every religious society has a right to form its own regulations, and the Act of Uniformity itself can no longer be regarded as an act of malignant intulerance and ecclesiastical tyranny. Then hath the Church power to decree rites and ceremonies, and every little congregation of faithful men may enact its peculiar terms of communion. Then the Convocation of this country might rightfully, had they but the power, exact from the clergy, on the penalty of expulsion, not subscription VOL. XXIII. N.S.

R

to the Thirty-nine Articles merely, but to all Bishop Marsh's questions. If the regulations which a religious society forms for its internal management, be of an intolerant character, laying undue restrictions upon its members, determining by authority what it is not in the province of authority to determine, and exacting an obedience which ought not to be surrendered, -the right of the society to make such regulations must be a right to be intolerant! The plea set up for the Genevese clergy, is precisely the same as has been made for every infringement of religious liberty,-that their object was to secure peace, and order, and uniformity. Dr. Smith very forcibly asks: Were the ministers of Geneva freed from the authority of a known, clear, and intelligible Confession of Faith, in order to receive the far heavier yoke of the undefinable and mutable opinions of those who, from time to time, might form the majority in the Consistory?'

the great points at issue between the chief denominations of Protes tants. Its two Catechisms and its Liturgy are, I conceive, the only documents that can be considered as declaratory of its faith; and they are of that kind that persons of very different sentiments may build their own doctrines upon them. Its clergy also are very far from being united in sentiment. While some are Arminians of the school of Episcopius and Limborch, others are Arians, and some go near to the verge of the German disguised Deism; there is a number, not inconsiderable, who still hold the doctrines of the Reformation, and who adorn their Christian profession by the fidelity of their preaching and the purity of their conduct. From this class I apprehend that M. Malan does not differ in any material respect: and had he been advanced to the pastorate previously to the change in his religious convictions, it is probable that he would have met with no more than the petty harassments which they have to endure. At the same time it must be confessed that their situation is full of snares and difficulties, from their ecclesiastical connexion with persons so opposed to their most important views and feelings. From these infelicities M. Malan's ejection has happily freed him.

Mr. Bakewell appears to me entirely to misunderstand the nature of tolerance and intolerance. He affirms that M. Malan " has evinced more of a persecuting spirit than his opponents;" and he endeavours to prove this position by the following argument: "I hold that man to be a persecutor in the worst sense of the word, who depreciates the character of his neighbour, because he does not adopt the same creed as his own, who, on this account, represents him in his public discourses as irreligious and an enemy to Christ, and who endeavours to destroy his respectability and influence in society. I say such a man is a persecutor, whether he have or have not the temporal power to punish those whom he defames."

Here I would respectfully suggest to my opponent, that he confounds two things which are essentially different; religious toleration (I would rather say RELIGIOUS FREEDOM) and religious approval. I trust that no attentive reader of my former letters can fail to have perceived that I have always kept in view this vital distinction. The former, no human being has a right over his fellow-man, either to give or to withhold. The latter cannot be exercised without a simi larity of sentiments and practice on the principal points of religion, I trust that Mr. Bakewell admits the divine authority of the Christian Scriptures. He must, then, believe that there are some doctrines essential to the Christian faith, and some states of mind and conduct essential to Christian practice. It inevitably follows, that a person who rejects those essential parts, cannot be regarded as really a Christian; and to him the numerous passages must apply which speak to this effect: "He that believeth not is condemned,-he shall not see life,-the wrath of God abideth on him." Undoubtedly, Sir, many of your readers look upon me as an idolater, setting up other gods besides the Only JEHOVAH; because I believe in the Deity of the Saviour and of the Sanctifier. Now the Scriptures uniformly represent idolatry as among the most dreadful of crimes

against God, and declare in the strongest terms that no idolater can be saved. But if any persons should apply this inference to me and other Trinitarians, would they, in so doing, violate the rights of religious liberty; or could I charge them with indulging a spirit of intolerance and persecution ?-Most assuredly not.-Neither is M. Malan or any other man to be called intolerant, because his studious and serious convictions compel him to profess his most solemn per, suasion that to reject the Divine Person, the Atoning Sacrifice, and the Influential Grace of Jesus our Redeemer, is to cut the cable of human hope ; and that those who preach any other

way

of salvation for the sinful children of men, are themselves deluded, and are the awful instruments of delusion to others. It is for ever impossible that persons holding these opposite views, upon the most interesting and awful of subjects, can regard each other with religious approval : and, if they be honest men, they will urge their respective arguments and warnings with the utmost zeal and earnestness. But does their so doing involve any violation of the rights of citizens and the courtesies of society? Does it entitle either of the parties to charge the other with a persecuting spirit? Every man of sound discernment will say, No. pp. 49–52.

This important distinction has not only been lost sight of, but attempts have continually been made to obliterate it, especially in the minds of the young; but the latitudinarian is not unfrequently the most intolerant of men. Intolerance lies not in the creed, but in the character. Those who hate religion, will tolerate it, only so far as they are compelled do so, by policy or a regard to their own character. We have no room for further remarks, but strongly urge on our readers an attentive perusal of this interesting publication.

Art. XIII. Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. William Ward, late

Baptist Missionary in India : containing a few of his early Poetical' Productions, and a Monody to his Memory. By Samuel

Stennett. 12mo. pp. 312. Price 6s. London. 1825. THE *HERE is, perhaps, no medium of religious instruction

which unites so many advantages as ecclesiastical biography. We cannot but regard it, indeed, as one of the most efficient modes of counteracting many theological errors. Without attempting their direct refutation, it draws off the mind from the speculative to the practical, shews how unreal is the system of the Antinomian, how insufficient the religion of the formalist, and presents to us, in the life of a good man, a palpable theology. For vestry libraries and village reading, such works are the best adapted of any, provided that the characters thus held up to imitation be really exemplars. The lives of missionaries seem, next to those of martyrs, to claim a record : and if in the life of Mr. Ward there was little variety of incident, his character was in a high degree both interesting and exemplary

Mr. Ward, we learn from the memoir drawn up by his friend, was born at Derby, on the 20th of October, 1769. His father, a carpenter and builder of that town, died when he was young. To the conversations and prayers of his excellent mother, he ascribed his early religious impressions. From a child, he was thoughtful and remarkably grave and mild in his demeanour. On leaving school, he was bound apprentice to a printer and bookseller at Derby, with whom he remained two years after the expiration of his apprenticeship, during which time he was engaged in conducting the publication of the Derby Mercury. He then removed to Stafford, where he commenced the publication of a newspaper, the property of a branch of the same family. From Stafford, he removed to Hull, where he continued to follow his business as a printer, and was for some time editor of the Hull Advertiser. Here he first made a public confession of his faith, and joined the Baptist church then under the pastoral care of a Mr. Beatson. Through the means of his religious friends, he was introduced to a gentleman of large property, who, on ascertaining the desire which was now awakened in Mr. Ward to devote himself to the ministry, munificently undertook to defray the expense of his preparatory studies. In August 1797, he was sent to Ewood-hall, the residence of the Rev. Dr. Fawcett, under whose tuition he remained for about a year and a half, prosecuting his studies, and preaching in the neighbouring villages; and here it was that his purpose was formed to devote himself to missionary labours.

It seems that, four years before, Mr. (now Dr.) Carey had met with Mr. Ward, in one of his farewell visits to his friends, previously to his departure for India. Mr. Ward was then following his business as a printer ; and Mr. Carey said : “ If

the Lord bless us, we shall want a person of your business, • to enable us to print the Scriptures; I hope you will come • after us.' Whatever impression these words may have produced at the time, Mr. Ward never expressed his feelings on the subject, till after his removal to Ewood-ball, but they must now have recurred to him forcibly. It might almost seem to him like the call of Elijah to Elisha. On the 7th of May'1799, he was solemnly set apart to the office of a Christian Missionary at a meeting held at Olney, together with Mr. Brunsdon; and on the 24th he embarked for India, in company with his