your permission, resume the subject. I then contended, in effect, that the mediation of Jesus Christ, especially his sufferings and death, were set forth in Scripture as the way or method in which it had seemed good to the Divine Wisdom to grant to mankind remission of sins, that is, deliverance from the consequences of transgression, and restoration to the privileges of the Divine favour. I disclaimed entirely the hypothesis of vicarious punishment for the satisfaction of Divine justice, and maintained that the reasons and advantages on account of which this method of redemption has been adopted, at least as far as our knowledge extends, are derived from its tendency to promote repentance and lasting righteousness. But I was anxious that this should not be understood in too limited a sense, as if nothing further were considered than that repentance which immediately precedes and procures forgiveness. For I thought that the sentiments with which the knowledge of Jesus tends to inspire the pardoned, had at least as much concern in this matter as the call which it gives to the unconverted; and that the views of the Divine character and government which the history of redemption unfolds, might be as proper an accompaniment to the forgiveness of sins as any change in the dispositions of man. In short, I wished to prove that the value of the mediation of Jesus, as a propitiation for sins, depended not only on its tendency to awaken the sinner to repentance, but also on that which it has to confirm the saint in righteousness, and to illustrate certain features of the Divine government and character. In admitting a penitent sinner to a covenant of pardon and privilege, the state of the penitent's mind may not be the only thing which it is proper for the Judge of the world to consider, (though that alone may determine him to pardon,) but also the way or method of proceeding that is most suitable to the case, and least liable to attendant evils. And we may easily conceive, that the great points to be secured in the selection of such a method will be two: to secure the Divine authority, one; to secure the lasting repentance and amendment of the transgressor, the other. That these were the great objects really aimed at in the Christian plan of redemption, is proved by these words of the apostle, which I quoted before: "Whom God fore-ordained as a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." And again, “He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." Thus I have briefly retraced the chief points of my former argument, and I think with some additional plainness and simplicity. That the views here represented are not without considerable practical value, is rendered probable from the fondness with which they are entertained, and the influence which is ascribed to them, even though in a distorted form, by great numbers of very pious and intelligent Christians. For, where great and good effects are produced by any opinions which people entertain, we may suspect that there is, as it were, a nucleus of truth in them, though disguised by a thick crust of error. But I think a consideration of the opinions themselves will shew that they have much tendency to promote both Christian holiness and comfort. The history of redemption displays most strikingly the dreadful consequences which sin tends to produce, and the deep corruption with which it can infect the human heart; it shews the difficulty of deliverance from its consequences; we behold both the goodness and severity of God; we see the bright reward of perfect obedience in the exaltation of Jesus, while we ourselves are humbled, as sinners, by being obliged to receive salvation through the mediation of our righteous brother. Now, when we consider, that such lessons as these were what appeared to God especially necessary to be taught us, in connexion with the pardon of our sins, and our admission to be children of grace, we are the more convinced of the propriety and importance of most seriously attending to them, and imprinting them deeply on our hearts: and thus our holiness is promoted. And when we see such a plan as this adopted expressly for the purpose of dispensing mercy to sinners, when we see all objections which we might conceive to our free SIR, A T. F. B. Lewes, May 10, 1822. Sa confirmed Unitarian, and those views of the Divine administration I have been led to embrace, I cannot but regret, in common with my Unitarian brethren, that our religious sentiments are not more generally received, understood, and I might say enjoyed; and that our comparative deficiency in number, added to the strenuous exertions and ardent zeal of our more orthodox brethren, leave us but little hope of their yet making any very rapid progress in the Christian world. This regret is particularly felt by the believer in the unrivalled supremacy of Jehovah, when he beholds the gospel, in which he has revealed his glorious and endearing attributes, with the benevolent design and end of all his providential dealings towards his earthly offspring, through time and in eternity, making its rapid way (through the extensive co-operation of Bible Institutions) over the more remote and unenlightened regions of the globe, defaced by what he considers inany false interpretations, totally at variance with the general tenor of the Scriptures, and decidedly opposed to the truth as it is in Jesus. Yet, surely, he must be but little acquainted with the human heart, with the nature of its motives and springs of action; its susceptibility of hope and fear, joy and sorrow; with the elevating and ennobling effects of immortal prospects, compared with the debasing influence of mental apathy or degrading superstition; in short, with the appaling difference between living without God in the world, and rejoicing in the light of his countenance; who does not see ample reason to rejoice in this extensive distribution of the word of life, although not thoroughly purified according to his perceptions, from some erroneous comments and translations, the offspring of a less enlightened age. He knows that these comparatively trifling spots in the glorious sun of righte ousness, but partially, very partially obscure its heavenly effulgence; and that an ample sufficiency of moral and religious light still remains to guide the wandering probationer on his way, and conduct him in the paths of pleasantness and peace. What! Are no other views of Divine Providence, save those he has himself embraced, capable of leading the erring soul to hea the long extent of eighteen centuries, notwithstanding the unhappy mutilation of some of its sublimest truths, been of such contracted efficacy, as only to guide to future bliss, in proportion to the just conceptions by its followers, of what we term its speculative truths? Oh, no! Perish the unwelcome thought! Millions of souls of every denomination have already felt its power, and so shall millions more. Providence, in its own good time, that time which unerring wisdom knows to be the fittest and the best, will, if necessary to the fulfilment of its merciful decrees, ordain that truth, unclouded truth, shall be acknowledged and received by all. It is not for us to scan the ways of Him whose thoughts are not as our thoughts, and whose ways are not as ours, in having so long permitted such a diversity of opinion among the followers of his Son: but this we know, that through all the darksome mists of bigotry and ignorance, and during their most arbitrary sway, the declared will of the Almighty has blazoned forth in characters of undiminished light, to be seen and known by all who chose not to close their eyes against its commanding influence, the will of Him who has declared, that to love God is to keep his commandments, and that in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, shall be accepted of him. I have been led into these reflections by the perusal of a letter (pp. 222-224) containing objections to Bible-Society Meetings; and which your correspondent commences with a suggestion, that I sincerely trust has no foundation in truth, namely, that Unitarians as a body do not patronize Societies. I confidently hope, Sir, that Unitarians in general are neither so bigoted to their own creed, nor have so contracted a view of the great importance of moral worth and Christian virtue, compared with mere speculative religion, as to withdraw their assisting hand from so glorious a work as the general distribution of the word of life among those of their fellow-mortals, or rather immortals, who have hitherto been grovelling in Pagan ignorance and gloom; a work which it requires no very extraordinary measure of faith to believe, is appointed by, and under the directing hand of God himself. And let not an accusation of fanaticism be levelled against the man who from his heart believes this; for he who places any trust in the prophetic promises of his God, must believe it, or he has read those promises in vain. That the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea, is the delightful assurance given us by Him who never yet altered his decree; and may none of us be found in opposition to the Lord and his Anointed, but may we rejoice in every opportunity of furthering his gracious and benevolent designs! Surely, Sir, the very existence of these Societies (if we take into consideration the almost unbounded extent of their co-operation) may be considered as an additional evidence of the Divine origin of the sacred volume; being in fact that kind of evidence which is the most impressive, although most rare, viz. ocular demonstration. Perhaps one more only of the same description and of equal weight is now before us, and that is, the dispersion of the Jewish nation. This has always been to my mind a sufficient antidote against the sophistry of the sceptic, and, with other sources of conviction, has led me grate fully to receive Heaven's last, best boon to man, and most cordially to rejoice in the success of that glorious cause which, if we believe the Great Shepherd of our souls, will, in the restoration of thousands of wanderers to his fold, cause joy in the presence of the angels of God. SIR, J. JOHNSTON. Bristol, Aug. 8, 1822. HAVE no doubt that the gentle. men concerned in drawing up the proposed Bill to amend the MarriageAct set forth in your last number, (pp. 438-442,) having duly considered the subject, have only inserted such clauses and provisions as they deem necessary; and under this conviction I am by no means disposed to animadvert upon any part of it as a critic, but only to suggest my doubts as an inquirer, and which I do the more readily as the Committee have expressed their “readiness to receive any suggestions on the subject." After an attentive perusal of this proposed Bill, I cannot persuade my. self but that the consummation of the Marriage contract is burdened by it with unnecessary trouble to the parties concerned. In the first place, though the place in which the ceremony is to be performed is very properly required to be a place already registered for public worship, yet it is likewise required that it shall be again registered as a place for the solemnization of Marriage. Where is the necessity of this? What evil can it prevent, or what good secure? If there were any restriction as to the number of places of worship to be so registered for the celebration of Marriage within a certain number of miles, then, indeed, the necessity of the measure would appear; but as it remains wholly unlimited, and every registered place of worship, without exception, has the full liberty of being registered as a place for the solemnization of Marriage, does it not amount to exactly the same thing in point of utility, whether this fresh registration be required or not, and therefore, abstractedly, shewing such new registration to be nothing but mere extra, unproductive and unnecessary trouble? Secondly. Where is the necessity of waiting the expiration of one year after the registering of such place of worship as a place for the solemnization of Marriage? Really, Sir, in the total absence of any good, there appears, I think, this certain evil in this provision, that though Dissenting places of worship may be newly registered for the solemnization of Marriage as soon as possible after the Act has passed into a law, yet the Act cannot be available to any one till at least 12 months have expired after its enact ment, and as much more as such Dissenting places of worship shall be delayed to be newly registered. I confess I cannot see any good in this procrastination. Thirdly. In the case of obtaining a licence, the registered place of worship where the ceremony is intended to be performed, is required to be set out in the petition for such licence. Will it not be incumbent upon the ordinary, or at least discretionary in him, to require evidence that such place has been duly registered, not only as a place of worship, but also for the solemnization of Marriage, and that 12 months have then elapsed since such last-mentioned registration, ere he grant the licence for the performance of the ceremony in such place of worship? Fourthly. The married pair are empowered to produce to the parish priest the certificate of registration of the place of worship at which the solemnization took place, when in fact (such certificate belonging solely to the occupant of such place of worship) they cannot have the legal power of doing so, otherwise than by obtaining an official extract of such register, which would be attended with expense and trouble, the necessity of which I really think does not appear. Fifthly. As in the case of banns they are required to be published in the parish church, and a declaration in writing delivered to the parish priest, that the parties, or one of them, are or is a Dissenter, and desirous of being married under the provisions of this proposed Act, and therefore a certificate of the due publication of such banns is required to be obtained from such parish priest, and produced to the person performing the ceremony, with a penalty upon him for performing it without having such certificate first produced to him; and so in the case of a licence, as the dissent of the parties or one of them from the Established Church is required to be declared in the petition for such licence, and the place named where it is wished to be performed, and also the usual bond with surety to be given ;-where is the necessity for the married pair to make their personal appearance before the parish priest in order again to declare their dissent from the Established Church, and to be examined and cross-examined by him at discretion, (for such the proposed Act ap pears to allow,) as to their being of mature age, having the consent of parents, &c.? Why would not a certificate from the person performing the ceremony, of the due performance thereof, be quite sufficient to enable the parish priest to register the same; or otherwise the two witnesses present at the performance of such ceremony may personally attend the registration thereof, and attest the same in the Parish Register Book as usual? I am aware that it may be replied, that the parties themselves should sign their names to the Register as they now usually do: but this I submit may very well be dispensed with; for if marriage registers be as well attested as those of baptisms and burials, (in neither of which cases does any signature of the book take place,) it will be very sufficient, and the parties may always send a confidential friend to see that it be properly registered, or may have an immediate certificate thereof; and in addition to which, an auxiliary evidence will doubtless be supplied by the entry, which of course will be kept at every Dissenting Meeting-house; not that I would rely upon the latter alone. In reply to your correspondent J. B., p. 410, it appears to me that he labours under an extremely confused notion of the nature and operation of Trust Deeds of Dissenting Meetinghouses; and although he seems satisfied with his "endeavour to place the subject in a clear point of view," I really cannot understand what he aims at or means to express. I gather, however, from the whole, that he entertains the mistaken notions that Trustees have the sole power of appointing or removing the Minister, and a controlling power over the Meeting-house, and of which he supposes them to be the real and ostensible oc cupants. Now, Sir, neither of these cases can exist, supposing the Trust Deed to have been prepared in the form usually observed on those occasions, and I cannot conceive but that every object J. B. proposes to attain, is already arrived at by the usual mode of settling Trust Property of this description for instance, the premises are conveyed to Trustees, so as to vest the legal estate in them upon Trust for such person for the time being, as the major part of the subscribing congregation shall elect to the office of minister. Under this limitation the Trustees have no power whatever, either to appoint, reject or remove the Minister, but they must of necessity stand seized in Trust for him; and such minister will be the real or equitable occupant of the Meeting-house and its endowments; and a mandamus may at any time be obtained by him to oblige the Trustees to admit him upon his election, or afterwards to restore him should he be forcibly expelled.-See 3 Term Reports, 575, 3 Burrough, 1265. The Trustees have in fact, supposing the Trust Deed to have been drawn in the manner before-mentioned, no right at all to interfere either with the minister or congregation, their office being simply that of legal mutes, passively to subserve and support the equitable purposes of the Trust, and which they are bound to do, and have no discretion to exercise therein. G. P. H. Book-Worm. No. XXX. Coronation of Charles II. at Scone, in Scotland. SIR, execution, to conduct with moral propriety a complimentary intercourse between kings and Christians. Too many, even while acknowledging him for their Master in whose mouth was no deceit, and professing only to "render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," have yet improvidently bartered those eternal treasures, "simplicity and godly sincerity," in exchange for that perishable, though gilded bauble, the favour of a king. Tertullus, the venal orator, complimenting a profligate magistrate on his Yet, notwithstanding the almost insuperable moral disadvantages of a princely education, it might have been expected, at least during the progress of numerous ages, that a period should occur, when the praise of moral excellence in a king could be justly united with the customary homage exacted by his worldly distinctions. Such a period, if the early history of Britain be not a fable, was the reign of Alfred. Such too, another rara temporum felicitas, "the Church of Scotland" (unless virtue be no endowment or accomplishment of kings) appears to have very lately discovered under the government of George IV. That Church, speaking by her Christian Presbyters, the established national guides to "the kingdom of God and his righteousness," thus expresses her "veneration, affection and loyalty" towards the reigning monarch, (always the best of kings,) in an Address presented to his Majesty at Holyrood, on the occasion of his having "most graciously condescended to visit" Scotland. "From the first moment that your Majesty undertook the charge of pub beamed upon you with a bright effulgence.-But we cannot express what we feel when, within the precincts of your ancient kingdom of Scotland, we behold your Majesty in person,-a king distinguished by every splendid endowment, and graced by every gant accomplishment," (decus hu mani generis,) "at once the safeguard of our country, and the bulwark of our church!" ele The larger part of two centuries had elapsed since Scotland had been indulged with the presence of royalty. |