NEW PUBLICATIONS.

A Complete List of Books on Theology and Morals, for Dec.

The Rev. W. Richards, of Lynn, is the Britons. Part 11. Cambro-British preparing for the press, a Volume on the Biography, or The Welsh NonconforECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF WALES; mists' Memorial; being sketches of the in Two Parts: Part 1. An Account of Lives and Characters of the most eminent the State of Christianity in that Country, Dissenting Ministers in the Principality, from its first Introduction to the present from the Reformation to the close of the time. To which is prefixed, A Sketch 18th century. The same Gentleman is of Druidism, the Original Religion of also engaged in a History of the town of the Welsh, in common with the rest of Lynn.

CORRESPONDENCE.

We are obliged to. A Lover of Truth for taking so zealous an interest in the suecess of the Repository: he is mistaken in supposing that it is intended to raise the price of it. Profit is not the object of its conductors.

We have been so unfortunate as to excite the anger of a very sensible correspondent, who signs himself J. D. by a passage in our Review of Hutton's Hera Ecclesiastice, of which however he acknowledges that "his opinion is no better than our ●wn. J. D. complains bitterly that we have "warped and twisted" Mr. Hutton's remarks upon the system and practice of the law, and that we have flippantly insulted a respectable profession, in which "many Unitarian Disciples are nursed. Thus far is very well; and here is good ground on which our Reviewer and J. D. might have met and we should have rejoiced to see J. D.'s talents displayed on the arena of the Monthly Repository. But J. D. insists upon "assuming" that the Editor of the Monthly Repository is, in propria persona, the Reviewer of Mr. Hutton's Book: regardless of the Editor's repeated declaration, that the Review department of his work is, as much as any other, occupied by volunteers; and apparently unapprized that no man would review a foolish or mischievous book, if he must expose his name and person to the attacks of the author and his partizans. The Editor pronounces no opinion upon the "exclamation" of the Reviewer, who will, if necessary, in due time and place, defend himself; but he wishes it to be understood, for the satisfaction of his correspondents in the Review, that neither remonstrances nor menaces shall prevail on him to violate the trust which they repose in him; he will not arrogate to himself the merit of papers which are generally acceptable, nor shrink from obloquy by disowning such as are disapproved.— Having thus unwarrantably identified the Reviewer with the Editor, J. D. proceeds, with equal indecorum, to indulge in personalities with the Editor, who, as he has never given his name to the public, ought to be skreened from impertinent curiosity and petulant animadversion. The Editor may or may not be "an Unitarian mi sister as J. D. may or may not be a lawyer, or (in Mr. Hutton's phraseology,) a friend of lawyers; he may or may not be "a young man' as J. D. may or may not be an old one; he may or may not "abound with zeal. as J. D. may or may not be bound up in frigidity; but what is this to the public, who look for arguments not names, and who will estimate the Monthly Repository according to its intrinsic merits whether J. D. be right or wrong, whether the Editor wear black clothes or coloured ones, whether his face be ruddy or wrinkled, whether he be zealous or lukewarm.-So confident however is JD. in the truth and the propriety of his conjectures and remonstrances that he challenges the Editor to publish his letter "if he have the courage, ""accompanied with such an apology as will atone to the profession (of the Law,) and redeem his own (the Editor's) cbaracter. Which is to be more admired, the modesty of this demand, or the boldness of the anonymous maker of it? J. D. who conceals (wisely, we think) his own name, requires us to give up the names of the Reviewer and Editor; and supposing that the Reviewer, who he says, is the Editor, who, he says, is &c. &c. must be silenced and panic-struck by his imperious letter, as f self-convicted of immorality or profaneness, he expects an immediate and a satisfactory apology: and finally, to complete his character, this unknown

"

"

dictator leaves us no alternative but submitting to the charge of cowardice or publishing his rescript; an easy way, truly, of trying the courage of an Editor of a periodical publication: treat him with rudeness, and if he does not make public and perpetuate your insolence, set him down for a coward. With all his assumed knowledge of the Editor of the Monthly Repository, J. D. is wholly a stranger to his real temper and character; for whilst he listens with deference to remonstrances and complaints properly preferred and enforced by respectable names, he calmly despises haughty injunctions and angry menaces, whether they come from any fictitious John Doe or Richard Roe, or from any more substantial personage. But although we have not been well used by J. D. we promise to insert in our work his remarks upon the subject of his letter if he will condescend to write with decorum; and, so well convinced are we of his talents (of which the notice we have taken of him is ample proof) that we shall not regret this rough introduction, should it lead to a further acquaintance.

The reader will find, below, Mr. Bennett's reply to Mr. Marten, and Mr. Marten's to Mr. Sturch. Here, if these gentlemen think with us, the controversy will drop. Nothing new remains to be said upon it, and there is a danger of its degenerating into a war of words, or, what is worse, a personal dispute.

MR. BENNETT, ON THE INDECENCY OF HIS SERMON, IN REPLY TO MR. B. MARTEN.

SIR,

To the Editor of the Monthly Repository.

Ix the number of your Repository, for October 1807, (Correspondence, p. 564.) I find a paper addressed to you on the " Indecency of Mr. Bennett's Sermon." In composing and delivering that Sermon, I certainly did not consider what would please, but what was truth. I could be contented with what you have said in your prefatory remark to the above paper, but I know that several persons expect a reply from me. And therefore I beg the insertion of the following lines. Mr. Marten and I belong to the same body of Christians, and I confess he has treated me with respect and liberality. I shall endeavour in the freedom of my remarks, to return him the same usage. I am astonished to find that Mr. M. should suppose that your Reviewer, in his review of my sermon, has cast odium upon the General Baptist Assembly. But as this is a matter which more concerns your Reviewer than me, I shall leave it to him to reply, or to pass it over in silence, as he may think proper.

Mr. M. believes that I am incorrect in supposing that the generality of my hearers heard me patiently. For the honour of the congregation, I hope I am not. I should think it a very great disgrace to the respectable Assembly who heard me, if it could be proved, that they did not hear an important subject, in relation to the evidences of christianity, with patience. The congregation, as far as a spectator could judge, was perfectly orderly and attentive. I was told after the service, that one person, during the delivery of the discourse, lost his command over the muscles of his face; and that another said, I ought to be flogged:" and I had these in view when I used the words " Most of you." These were all the marks of impatience with which I was acquainted, and sorry I am now to find Mr. M. in such bad company. Mr. M. seems to suppose, I had no reason to say, "I do not see why any one should be alarmed at the idea of Joseph being the father of Jesus.". But why not say it? Why because, according to Mr. M.'s letter, it implies that the General Baptists were alarmed at the subject, which he says was not the case. Well, but who said it was the case? How came he to learn from that sentence that i charged the alarm upon my hearers? If he will take the pains to read the sixth page of my Introduction, he will see, that, in all fairness of interpretation, the

sentence in dispute is in connexion with the world and not with my bearers. These are my words: "At the individual request of many of you, and of several others who heard the discourse, and with my earnest desire that it may do good, I have sent it into the world. I do not see why any one should be alarmed at the idea of Joseph being the father of Jesus." The phrase " any one," in this connexion must be understood as referring to, at least, every christian professor, and in this sense I certainly used it. Will Mr. Marten undertake to say, that the subject of my sermon causes no alarm to the professors of christianity? Will he undertake to say that no alarni was taken at Worship-Street Meeting-House? O! how I wish he could not only say both these things, but prove such a saying to be true! Then, I think, I should not have had to bear that goodly portion of disgrace and slander, which has been industriously poured upon me, for the pains I took to rescue christianity from one of the principal objections of Jews and Infidels. However, I would not be understood as though I were repenting what I have done, and writing with the tears of sorrow. I thank God, who I hope approves of my integrity, that what I said in my offending sermon, I really find to be true: "The testimony of a good conscience is a sufficient fortification."

Mr. Marten informs me, that the impropriety of the subject for such an occasion was what gave such general dissatisfaction The brethren," he says, "were not assembled at that time to settle points of speculative and controversial theology." Are there any subjects of theology but what are speculative and controversial? I know of none. Are there any directions in the minute-book of the General Baptists, guiding the man who is to preach before the Assembly to what sort of subjects he is to discuss? I know of none. Did I not accept of the proposal to preach on the occasion without restriction? I certainly did. If I had known that I was in the least degree restricted, they would never have heard me. I believe that, in the Assembly's appointment of persons to preach before them, restrictions are never thought of. What Mr. M. therefore may mean, by telling us that the discourse was improper for such an occasion, I cannot tell; and therefore I shall leave it to others to find out. To open a subject, which I am persuaded is not much known among christian professors, before the preachers and beads of the General Baptist connexion in my opinion, was the only proper method. And were it do again, I certainly should, if possible, choose a similar opportunity. As to settling points of speculative and controversial theology, I knew, as well as Mr. M. that the General Baptist Assembly did not profess to be either a council, or a synod; and the thought of having the theological point, of Jesus being the Son of Joseph, settled by it, never entered my mind till I saw it expressed in his letter.

I now proceed to the principal part of the charge, viz. impropriety of language. Mr. Marten gives me to understand that it was not the subject itself, nor the liberty of inquiry exhibited in its discussion; that it gave no very great alarm, for several persons were of my opinion; he acknowledges that the discussion of the subject leads to the repetition of the expressions of which such loud complaint has been made, and of which Mr.Marten gives us a second edition; and yet he, and a few others, think that my language upon this theological point is so abominably indecent, that, I violated female mode ty in its use! I hope that I am as great a friend to, and protector of female modesty, as Mr. M. And if I were convinced that the charge were just, I should be solicitous for an opportunity publicly to deprecate the dis pleasure of the female part of my audience. And I have so goed an opinion of the female disposition that I am per uaded I should not pray in vain. But let not my friend Marten be too hasty. I know that all the ladies are not on bis side. I have heard ladies treat the charge with the contempt it deserves. Ladies not unknown to Mr. Marten, have declared to me, that, they think the charge frivolous. When this charge of indecency was brought against me at the Assembly, in which about six or eight persons joined, a vote of censure was proposed; but the Assembly would not carry it, no not in any shape. If they acquitted me, believing at the same time that I was guilty of the charge, they themselves are censurable; but if they thought that my innocency demanded my acquittal, then is my friend Mar ten censurable for violating the rules of justice in charging me again with the same crime. When the Assembly had finished their business and had broken up,