jod 



Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Bald. 



[Sept. 1, 



provchimfelfafincerc Proteftant, a much 

 pfc^icr honour thrtn any worldly profer- 

 FK.nts." In tliJs " Brief Relation" he 

 };*»«■ roHily fKiffed over in filcnre the' names 

 ei the peiToiis fiorn w-hoin lie hrid receiv- 

 ed ilt-treatincnt m this hiifinefs, as tlicy 

 were then dead ; and as one, in particu- 

 lar, h.irl left a fon, then in exalted rank, 

 " whi) hiui written with much learnin;:, 

 migiity fhciigth of ar!::i.'.ment, and a great 

 vivacity of fpu-it, 8-.;ainft Poperv and bi- 

 jjotry." lifcfcrring, however, to the ina- 

 Icvolci.'i'coi" fpint wiiirh iiad bven rtiewn 

 to him, lie fa)'?, " 1 bleis God I then had, 

 azui (ill! have, ihi:- fathsfit'tion, that nei- 

 ther their nuinher, nor their power, did 

 t» '.rify n'.'j into a wicked or cowardly rom- 



{>liance. They, after all their efforts, 

 ttV nie whtre they fonnd n»e, and there, 

 tlifoiK;li 'the threat patience and !rr)odnefs 

 (W CJod, I am at this tiaie." (SUrjilc, 

 AhifM, WJO.) 



'li.e !ie\t occafiou on v.h.!ch Mr. Bold 

 appeared hofore the puhlic difplaycd, as 

 t(.e ffjriTjer, a lilKT.iiity of mind, but, 

 huppily, was not followed by any of the 

 lf!-»i,a'-a!nn<; and diiireirnigconfefinencc-i. 

 A : ; ; (iul fiini the L'reater credit, hr- 

 Cm .,0 it I *i(l 1 h;it he was not abaftied 

 m- in>' d by his former furterinps, 



Imf • " • I a lortitude of mind to 

 iffife:* .•■■., is the open advocate for 

 tVi •'■!f.i ) it iiirjuiry, when a sicnerHl otJiuni 

 ^i'^ Att»;!.ed to it. It arol'e from the |'nh- 

 lM-i»tio-, of the celobiated Mr. Locke's 

 t.'e;f-i', . entitled, " 'J'h.e b'eafonalilcnefs 

 o^ rhnftianity a"; iklivored iu the Scrip- 

 r*rt* ;" which he was not thy to pro- 

 nouiicc " one of (he beft books that had 

 li'-cn pnhliflicd for at jcaft fixtcen liiiii- 

 dicd vi'iM'.-i.'' It had not been jiuhlillied 

 ahove half a year, vjieii it wa;: attacked 

 by Mr. Kdward.-i, a divine of contidora- 

 bJe name. Mr. Bold fteppod forward in 

 vindication of Mr. Locke's jieiformance, 

 er.tirely unconnected with, and unkno-vvn 

 to it? author. His firft publication "as 

 " A Ihort Oifcourle of the true Kno«- 

 k-tiric of Clirift .Tefus." H}97. Tins was 

 ft>0!i followed (2.) by a piece entitled, 

 " Soti'.e Tallages in the Kcafonablcncfs 

 of Chriftianiiy, ^-c. and its A indication, 

 ■\sifh fonie AnnnHd^■eliion^ on '^•ly. I'.d- 

 va;il>'s Uttlccii.in-," ivc. 1607; and in 

 the fame j'car, by " A fuort Reply to IMr. 

 I'.dwards's ' Uiicf Itcilcttions on aih.ort 

 Difcom-fc of the true Know^cdiie of 

 Chrift Jcfii.- :■' to which !S prefixed a Prc- 

 f icv, wherein .Sometliini; is laid concCTn- 

 ii!g Ileifai and Antiquity m the chief 

 (.'on'.roverUes with the St c nians." He 

 ciiifcd his defence of ?.!■. ly c'<c's valu- 

 able work (-1.) b> " Ob Vrv.ttif r.s on ihe 



Animadverfions (lately printed at Oxford) 

 on a late Book, entitled ' The Itcafon- 

 ablcnefs of Chrillianity," kc. 1698. 'i'ho 

 learned l-e Clerc palfcs an encomiimi on 

 Mr. Bold, its having well imd ably de- 

 ft ndcti Mr. Locke*. It Ihews to advan- 

 tage the genuinenrfs and parity of .Mr. 

 Bold's candour, and love of free inquiry, 

 that wlwn he took up his pen in vindica- 

 tion of Mr. lx)cke, cfpecially when he 

 pubiiflied the lirft :iud kcond of the ]Ji c- 

 cedinii; pieces, he not only did not know 

 the name of the author of " Tlie Ilea- 

 foiiabientfs of Chrillianity," hut he held, 

 it appears from his •' Dilcourfc oti the 

 Knowledge of Chrifi," the ortho(h)x feu- 

 timcnts of the day conccrniiitj; the deity 

 of Chrift, the doctrine of the Trinity, 

 and other pomts. He wrote, therefore, 

 not from the ptntiality of friendlhip, or 

 from a bias to particular fentimcnts ; hut 

 fro'ri a principle of jullice to a writer 

 V hofe work had incurred abufe and odi- 

 uin, to cl'.eck bigotrv, and to promote a 

 (pirit of equity and moderation m theo- 

 logical difcuiVions. 



" The lleafonahlenefs of Chriftianity" 

 was not the only work of Mr. Locke that 

 was fui))iorted and defended by the pen 

 of .Mr. Bold. In 1099 he" pubiiflied 

 " Some Conlideratious on the principal 

 Objections and .Vi^iuraeuts which ha\e 

 been publilhed againft Mr. Locke's ' VJf- 

 lay on the Humait Underlianding." Not 

 dilheartene<l bv the unpopular nature of 

 the tide on ^^hicl^ he hail written, he aj.- 

 peared again, after a few years, in fa- 

 vour of Mr. Locke's olVenhvc pofitions, 

 in " A Dilcourfc coucerning the Refur- 

 reciion of the lan>e Body : with two Let- 

 teis concerning the necelVary Immateri- 

 ality of created thinking Subftance."— - 

 Tins is an anonymous piece. IfO"). Mr. 

 Locke, bil'ore the publication of. tlii.s 

 tracf, had been informed of the author's 

 inletuion ; and we learn from t«o letters 

 to his friend, i\lr. .\nlhony Collins, ear- 

 luMily wilhed, that he nnght he jjrevailed 

 with to drop his defign, from an appre- 

 heniion which this great man had of the 

 cenfuie and clauiour it would create. In 

 one letter, dated rebrir.ny '21, 1703-4, 

 he writes thus : " I dclire you to Hop ' 

 your iVicnd a little, and forbear putting 

 to the preis the two Difcourfes. They . 

 arc very touchy I'libjeiis at this time : 

 and that food wnn who is the author may, 

 tor iiujrlit I know, be crippled by thofe 

 who will be fure to be otVeuded at him, 

 r;;;ht Or wiong. Remember wjiat you- 

 fay, a little lower in your letter, iu the; 



Bibliothcijue Ch.oilk, V. vl. P. ua9. 



mm, J 

 you - M 

 'thcrfl 



