Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

'I ask, is not the condition of a Socinian in the Bible Society essen. tially different from this? He stands among the Members of the Dissenting Union as one favoured and selected, to the exclusion of other Denominations: he stands among Members of the Bible Society merely because none are excluded. He comes in with the crowd, because the doors are open to all: he is a guest at the table, only because none are forbidden to sit down.'

We freely admit that the difference is essential, so as to make the attempt to confound the two cases, palpably absurd or dishonest. We will go further, and, in the language of Mr. Robert Hall, concede, that the union between the orthodox and the Socinian Dissenters is a most unnatural and preposterous union, ' and tends, above any thing else, to give an imposing air of im'portance to the Socinian party, which, but for this coalition, 'would sink into insignificance. It is odious in the eyes of pious 'churchmen, and tends to throw a disguise over the real state of 'the Dissenters, in relation to their religious tenets.'* We should rejoice to have the union discreetly and peacefully dissolved. Still, we must repeat what we have before remarked in reference to this subject; that a union locally confined to the metropolis, to a certain degree accidental and undesigned in its origin, deeply regretted by the majority of those who feel themselves involved in it, and in no way implicating the Independent and Baptist ministers throughout the country, and the bulk of the respective denominations,-cannot, 'without the most palpable unfairness, be made the ground of a charge against the orthodox Dissenters as a body, even if the local union for the specific object be in itself as unlawful as we concede it to be undesirable. And when the attempt to criminate the evangelical Dissenters on this ground, proceeds from the members and advocates of an Establishment, the majority of whose preachers are as far from being evangelical in their doctrines, as the Socinians are from orthodoxy, yet, who are recognized by their evangelical brethren as ministers of Christ, -a more striking illustration could not be afforded of that blind partiality which our Lord rebukes, when He says: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and seest 'not the beam that is in thine own eye?'

It is not correctly stated, that the principle of union in the Red Cross Street Association is one of selection, not of comprehension. Mr. King seems to forget that, at the time of its formation, the Wesleyan Methodists were not in existence; and as a union with the Quakers was out of the question, the Three Denominations then comprehended the whole body of the Dissenters. Not only had the Socinians no existence, at that time, as a deno

[blocks in formation]

mination of Protestant Dissenters, any more than the numerous Socinians within the Church of England at the present time can be so discriminated,-but all the ministers of the Three Denominations, Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist, were required by law to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, except the thirtyfourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, and certain words of the twentieth article. This law continued to be in force till near the close of the last century; and previously to its repeal, every Presbyterian minister was as orthodox as the subscribing of the thirty-fre articles and a half could make him. The Trinitarian Society could scarcely have desired a better security.

The Presbyterian-Socinian ministers in the Red Cross Street association form, as is well known, a small minority; bus the majority can merely secede. The Library itself, the endowments connected with it, the whole property, are in the hands of the Socinians exclusively, who have succeeded to their Presbyterian ancestors in the trust; and by the terms of the trust, it was VE understand, be vested in individuals of the Presbyterian den mination. Although it was never contemplated by the pious founder, that the property would fall into the hands of Soffians. still, it cannot be claimed by orthodox Dissenters of the scher denominations. It ought not, however, to excite surprise, that some reluctance and hesitation should nevertheless have been che covered on their part, to abandon all participation in the benefits of the Institution, and to dissolve a connexion with which have hitherto been identified some important civil advantages. It is well known, that ever since the reign of Wam and Mary, the Dissenting ministers of the Three Denominations in London here enjoyed the privilege, in common with the London Cergy and the two English universities, of addressing the King upon his throne; a prerogative which has been sorely grudged them by their enemies, and which some ignorant or a persons have endeavoured to represent as a trivial and empty prilegt, inc which, we trust, the Dissenters will never be led to undervan voluntarily to resign. It is not for them, however, to Ectate t the Throne the terms upon which they shall continue to enjoy tu honour. They have it not in their power either to excude L cinians, being Presbyterians, from the privilege common a die three associated denominations, or to approach the Tire it parate bodies. If they have been headed on some occasions by a Socinian minister, the time has been, that a University deputation has been headed by a Socinian chancellor. We adat, that the thing is extremely unseemly and repugnant to our feelings Bat the best way of obviating the offence, is not very apparent Cond His Majesty be induced to recognize the evangeli dentES tions of Dissenters specifically, and to permit the men of such denominations, stationed in and near the metropre d

'I ask, is not the condition of a Socinian in the Bible Society essentially different from this? He stands among the Members of the Dissenting Union as one favoured and selected, to the exclusion of other Denominations: he stands among Members of the Bible Society merely because none are excluded. He comes in with the crowd, because the doors are open to all: he is a guest at the table, only because none are forbidden to sit down.'

We freely admit that the difference is essential, so as to make the attempt to confound the two cases, palpably absurd or dishonest. We will go further, and, in the language of Mr. Robert Hall, concede, that the union between the orthodox and the Socinian Dissenters is a most unnatural and preposterous union, ' and tends, above any thing else, to give an imposing air of im'portance to the Socinian party, which, but for this coalition, 'would sink into insignificance. It is odious in the eyes of pious churchmen, and tends to throw a disguise over the real state of 'the Dissenters, in relation to their religious tenets."* We should rejoice to have the union discreetly and peacefully dissolved. Still, we must repeat what we have before remarked in reference to this subject; that a union locally confined to the metropolis, to a certain degree accidental and undesigned in its origin, deeply regretted by the majority of those who feel themselves involved in it, and in no way implicating the Independent and Baptist ministers throughout the country, and the bulk of the respective denominations,-cannot, 'without the most palpable unfairness, be made the ground of a charge against the orthodox Dissenters as a body, even if the local union for the specific object be in itself as unlawful as we concede it to be undesirable. And when the attempt to criminate the evangelical Dissenters on this ground, proceeds from the members and advocates of an Establishment, the majority of whose preachers are as far from being evangelical in their doctrines, as the Socinians are from orthodoxy, yet, who are recognized by their evangelical brethren as ministers of Christ, -a more striking illustration could not be afforded of that blind partiality which our Lord rebukes, when He says: 'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and seest not the beam that is in thine own eye?'

It is not correctly stated, that the principle of union in the Red Cross Street Association is one of selection, not of comprehension. Mr. King seems to forget that, at the time of its formation, the Wesleyan Methodists were not in existence; and as a union with the Quakers was out of the question, the Three Denominations then comprehended the whole body of the Dissenters. Not only had the Socinians no existence, at that time, as a deno

* Hall's Works, Vol. V. p. 568.

mination of Protestant Dissenters,-any more than the numerous Socinians within the Church of England at the present time can be so discriminated,-but all the ministers of the Three Denominations, Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist, were required by law to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, except the thirtyfourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, and certain words of the twentieth article. This law continued to be in force till near the close of the last century; and previously to its repeal, every Presbyterian minister was as orthodox as the subscribing of the thirty-five articles and a half could make him. The Trinitarian Society could scarcely have desired a better security.

The Presbyterian-Socinian ministers in the Red Cross Street association form, as is well known, a small minority; but the majority can merely secede. The Library itself, the endowments connected with it, the whole property, are in the hands of the Socinians exclusively, who have succeeded to their Presbyterian ancestors in the trust; and by the terms of the trust, it must, we understand, be vested in individuals of the Presbyterian denomination. Although it was never contemplated by the pious founder, that the property would fall into the hands of Socinians, still, it cannot be claimed by orthodox Dissenters of the other denominations. It ought not, however, to excite surprise, that some reluctance and hesitation should nevertheless have been discovered on their part, to abandon all participation in the benefits of the Institution, and to dissolve a connexion with which have hitherto been identified some important civil advantages. It is well known, that ever since the reign of William and Mary, the Dissenting ministers of the Three Denominations in London have enjoyed the privilege, in common with the London Clergy and the two English universities, of addressing the King upon his throne; a prerogative which has been sorely grudged them by their enemies, and which some ignorant or artful persons have endeavoured to represent as a trivial and empty privilege, but which, we trust, the Dissenters will never be led to undervalue or voluntarily to resign. It is not for them, however, to dictate to the Throne the terms upon which they shall continue to enjoy this honour. They have it not in their power either to exclude Socinians, being Presbyterians, from the privilege common to the three associated denominations, or to approach the Throne in separate bodies. If they have been headed on some occasions by a Socinian minister, the time has been, that a University deputation has been headed by a Socinian chancellor. We admit, that the thing is extremely unseemly and repugnant to our feelings. But the best way of obviating the offence, is not very apparent. Could His Majesty be induced to recognize the evangelical denominations of Dissenters specifically, and to permit the ministers of such denominations, stationed in and near the metropolis, and

conjointly associated, to enjoy the liberty heretofore extended to those of the Three Denominations without regard to their particular religious sentiments, we will venture to predict, that the slender connexion between the orthodox Dissenters and the Socinians, which is so afflicting to pious Churchmen, and more especially grievous to the tender conscience of the Editor of "The Record", would not long survive even the Trinitarian Bible Society.

NOTICES.

Art. VII. The Christian Pastor visiting his Flock, and the Flock reciprocating their Shepherd's Care. By John Morison, D.D., Author of " A Commentary on the Book of Psalms ", &c. 32mo pp. 128. London. 1832.

[ocr errors]

Price 1s. 6d.

THIS is, we believe, the fifth of a series of very neat pocket volumes, containing Counsels' and cautions from a Christian Pastor to different classes of his flock, for which the religious public are indebted to Dr. Morison. The substance of this Volume was delivered in the form of a sermon, before an Association of Ministers and Churches, and the Preacher was subsequently requested, by a public vote of the body, to publish it. He has deemed it advisable to throw it into its present form, with a view to increase its circulation; influenced, he trusts, by 'a desire to draw the attention of ministers and churches more intensely to the subject of pastoral visitation, for the neglect of which vital religion greatly languishes in many of our religious communities." We can cordially recommend the perusal to both pastors and their congregations, and may venture to say, that no one will regret having bestowed eighteen pence on this excellent little manual.

Art. VIII. A History of the Italian Republics, being a brief View of the Origin, Progress, and Fall of Italian Freedom. By J. C. L. De Sismondi. În One Volume. (Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia, Vol. xxvii.) fcap. 8vo. pp. 378. Price 6s. London, 1832. DR. LARDNER deserves the best thanks of the public, for having suggested to the accomplished Historian of the Italian Republics, the idea of comprising the interesting story of their origin, progress, and fall, in the compass of a single volume. There was but one individual thoroughly qualified to achieve the task, by long familiarity with the history in all its details, and a distinct apprehension of the relative importance and bearings of the various scenes in the complicated drama. M. Sismondi has given us, not, as he says himself, an abridgement of his great work, (which, in any other hands, the volume would have been,) but an entirely new history, in which, with his eyes fixed solely on the free people of the several Italian states,' he has studied

« EdellinenJatka »