not entirely assimilate, their respective creeds. Is any one denomination in possession of the monopoly of the whole truth? Does any one sect hold all the truth in the exact symmetry of its proportions, and the whole amplitude of its extent? We hope our brethren will not suspect us of attachment to any heresy if we venture to answer-no. How, are we to account for the differences which prevail among good, thinking, conscientious, liberal minded, impartial Christians? If the writer might hazard a theory on a question of so much delicacy and perplexity, he would say, that one part of truth after another was obscured, after the Apostles left the world, until the whole was concealed from the view, and banished and forgotten from the mind. When the work of reformation commenced, no one reformer was honoured or might have expected to be honoured, in the discovery and restoration of the entire system; but each one, in the warmth of a bold and vigorous mind, magnified the importance of the discovery he had made, and it assumed to his own eye, and was presented to the eye of his disciples, in undue prominence. Few, if any, have yet been able sufficiently to emancipate themselves from the authority of great and venerated names, and to correct the prejudices and prepossessions of early education, or more recent religious impressions, so as to look with an

equal eye on every feature of truth, and steadily to contemplate the relative proportions of the whole. But we are entering on a subject too wide for the design of this paper, and must risk the imputation of being crude and obscure in the want of leisure and room for expansion. The idea of this additional paper on the cholera was suggested while the writer attended one of the meetings to which reference has been made; he was soon raised, as was the audience generally, above the subject out of which the delightful service grew, and was led, while the Spirit of devotion was vouchsafed, to expatiate on the brightening prospects of the unity and prosperity of the church. The same tendency has been felt, in part yielded to, and will be excused by the reader, while our subject has been pursued. Happy are we that we have seen, and can present the subject in connexion with facts so interesting, and hopes so bright. May the portentous cloud, at which we have trembled, break in showers of blessings, and leave every department of the church, and every district of the country, like a field which the Lord has visited, and watered, and refreshed. May grace and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, be with all, that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours. Sunderland.

T. S.

Lost in a labyrinth of sin,
Long have we wander'd to and fro,
The wilderness hath shut us in,

And only faith the way can show; And only pray'r can lend the clue, And guide our weary footseps through.

Jesus, thou sov'reign Lord of all,
The same through one eternal day,
Attend thy feeble followers' call,

And Oh, instruct us how to pray :
Pour out the supplicating grace,
And stir us up to seek thy face.

American Hymn Book.

An Address delivered at the laying of the Foundation Stone of Airedale College, June 20, 1831. By Richard Winter Hamilton, of Leeds. Sherwood. Unitarians entitled to the name of Christians. A Sermon preached in Mill Hill Chapel, Leeds, Oct. 30, 1831. To which is added, a Letter to the Rev. R. W. Hamilton, animadverting on some Passages in his Address to the Constituents of Airedale College. By Joseph Hutton, LL.D. Hunter. The Religionists, designating themselves Unitarians, not entitled to the Christian Name: being a Reply to a Sermon by Joseph Hutton, LL.Ď; and a Defence of the Author from Charges in the Letter appended to that Sermon. By R. W. Hamilton. Simpkin and Marshall.

pe

THE Socinian controversy has of late taken a somewhat different aspect from that which for a long time it assumed. Time was when it was contended that when the opponent parties thoroughly understood each other's meaning, they would agree to differ as fellow Christians, in the same manner as many of the denominations among the orthodox retain their several culiarities of sentiment, while they acknowledge that the points in which they do not see eye to eye, are of less moment than those in which they are of one mind. But all such predictions have long since proved vain; and between the sentiments termed, for the sake of distinction, orthodox, and those of the followers of Socinus, there remains a great gulf, which instead of being filled up and rendered passable, by the numerous controversial writings which it has absorbed, has only become wider and deeper, almost from year to year. This gulf is in fact a bottomless abyss; there is no basis in it for any superstructure by which the contend

ing parties may be enabled to cross it, and so to come over to each other. The whole complexion of the two religions is so different, that it might as well be expected that an eye trained to a perception of the beauty of classic forms and ancient architecture, would be won over to the admiration of the porcelain pagodas of the Chinese, or of the features of the Hottentot Venus, as that those who have contemplated truth as its charms are developed in the pages of inspiration, should tolerate the mutilated and misshapen form which it presents in the writings of the modern followers of Socinus.

This controversy, moreover, has for many years elicited the talents of those whose days and nights have been devoted to a department of sacred literature, in which the professors of religion are still but too little interested, we mean Biblical Criticism, Philology and church history have lavished their stores, and an embargo has been laid upon their vast resources, in order to contribute to the settlement of the great question, whether Christianity is to be regarded as a mere republication of the law of nature, with one or two declaratory announcements, on topics before but feebly apprehended by the puny grasp of human reason, or whether it is to be received as a unique system, which sets at defiance all human conjectures à priori, and announces a grand mediatorial economy, ratified by the most awful sanctions which the human mind is capable of understanding. The two parties have long measured lances one

against the other, and all the preliminaries are now well understood. The battle of criticism has been fought, and it has in every rally, and at every onset, issued in the worsting of those who term themselves, "Rational Christians;" under the sweeping though tacit intimation, that all others are irrational. Each party now tolerably comprehends the tactics of the other; and the war has never yet issued in a treaty of peace, and mutual commerce with each other, and it never will.

Of late the results have begun to manifest themselves. The advocates of the integrity and the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, which are the decus et tutamen of the orthodox faith, the rock and basis of the whole edifice, have discovered a praiseworthy disposition to recede, as far as possible, from such intercommunion as might involve a tacit connivance at any inference that might be drawn respecting the two systems being compatible with mutual recognition of each other's claim to the title of Christianity. Whether this tendency may have gone too far in any instance in which mere civil privileges are concerned, we do not now enquire; but sure we are, that the more it leads to a separation in the works of Christian and ministerial duty, the better. For a minister of the Socinian faith, and one holding the opposite views, to appear in the same pulpit, and on the same occasion; for these to engage in the same acts of worship, we hold to be a virtual denial of the reality and the importance, of that wide and irreconcilable difference of religious belief which subsists between the two parties.

So completely, too, is it now felt by the orthodox (we use the

word merely as distinctive), that the interests they have at heart are diametrically opposite to those of the Socinians, that inquiries have for some time been seriously made, whether it be not a sacred duty, owing to truth and the souls of men, to endeavour, by all lawful means, to wrest from the latter all properties, chapels, and endowments, which were plainly and unequivocally intended by the donors to be devoted to the purposes of the Gospel, as it is preached and believed by the orthodox at the present time, and in perfect harmony with it, as held by their predecessors, the donors themselves.

It is very true, indeed, and this is the unholy subterfuge to which Socinianism has resorted, that the wills of the donors alluded to, do not expressly declare that the properties are to be held for the promotion of the aforesaid object. But what is the amount of such an argument as this? It is as though a father died intestate, but had repeatedly been known to express in the hearing of his family and his friends, that he desired his property to be so disposed, after his death, as to benefit all his children; the eldest of whom might seize upon the inheritance, not because this was just, but only because there was no direct prohibition. Proh fides! We do not, of course, by this analogy, mean to imply that the orthodox faith and Socinianism are members of the same family—we refer to the alienation of the pulpit from its real purposes.

When the greater part of these properties was bequeathed, the tenets of the followers of Socinus were scarcely known in this country as an organized system, essentially opposed to the simplicity of the Gospel. They might, indeed, lie in embryo in the form of a cold,

genteel, and time-serving profession-an Arianised and inefficient theology, which may very well have suited the carnality and slumber, the worldly-mindedness and the formality of the rich, while it was marked by a sterility and a deadness which repelled the zealous and the spiritually-minded; but which had not yet absolutely fallen bodily, as it now has, down the easy declivity of error, into the dark and gloomy Avernus of infidelity. Hence it is the less to be wondered that the donors should not have so described their designs in the bequests as to prevent the possibility of abuse. The snake was yet in the grass; he had not as yet reared his crest in the form of a hydra, to devour the fruits of holiness and truth, and to desolate, with his benumbing poison, the strength and beauty of the sanctuary.

The question for all honest men is, What was the real wish, the obviously implied intention? not how can we avail ourselves of an oversight, if such it was, which the times and circumstances of the case rendered almost unavoidable. Hence one part of Mr. Hamilton's Address has given offence to Dr. Hutton, (who, nevertheless, talks in a very candid tone,) because the writer has charged his party with the misappropriation of funds. The excuse respecting Presbyterianism is paltry; it is like a Jew of the infidel section clamouring to be called a son of Moses and the prophets, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile. What Presbyterianism is there in Socinianism? Who, in England, ever heard of their synods and their general assemblies? It is true, the donors might be Presbyterians in churchgovernment; but who dares deny they were of the orthodox faith? When some of them degenerated,

and verged to error, it was convenient to retain the name. This, with a witness, is looking to the mint, and the anise, and the cumming, and neglecting the weightier matters of the law!

But the "head and front" of Mr. Hamilton's offending is, that he denies to Dr. Hutton and his friends the name of "Christians." What, however, is a Christian, but a follower of Christ? Now, Dr. H. endeavours to prove, that any man professing to follow Christ is a Christian, be his creed what it may. This is like saying that any man is a loyal subject, if he only calls himself so, be his opinions and doctrines what they may, as to the authority of his legitimate sovereign. But we must let Mr. Hamilton speak for himself. His pamphlets discover much zeal and talent, though we cannot altogether commend their style; which, if improved, on a more classic model, might confer on them a more lasting duration. Style, it may be urged, is of minor consideration when the interests of truth are concerned. So it is; but what a charm, and what a perpetuity of existence, is thrown over the writings of Hall, the model for all our writers, by the chasteness, the taste, the simplicity, the manliness, the dignity, the purity of their style!

The Address contains an eloquent digest of the history of our academies; their rise, progress, and present state; and will furnish the reader with much interesting information. We quote the first paragraph.

those sweet and cheering emotions which this whole spectacle awakens. We too rejoice in sympathy with the charm and exultation of nature; we as the children

of the Universal Parent admire this beautiful world which he has given us for our abode, and triumph in the works of his hands;' but were all lowering in that now glorious firmament, were all deformed and haggard in the picturesque diversities of surface, colour, and element which now attract the eye-our satisfaction

would only be in very inferior degree

diminished. For our delight at this moment most chiefly springs from causes which accident cannot effect, and is most intimately allied with principles which vicissitude cannot impair, causes and principles which shall remain unchanged and unthreatened when these heavens depart as a fallen pavilion or a shrivelled scroll; when this earth, with all the architecture of its cities and the imprint of its nations, is consumed in the fire to which it is reserved; causes and principles whose consummation a heaven shall witness and a new earth shall contain, a heaven that shall sig nalize not time but eternity, an earth which shall not entomb its successive generations but nourish its one redeemed family in undecaying youth and undying strength for ever."-pp. 3, 4.

new

Mr. H. justly advocates the importance of an educated ministry. He renounces all claim, and wisely, on the part of these important institutions, to the classical and mathematical rank of the endowed Universities; but he thinks that the "clergy are as much behind us, as ministers, as we are behind them as scholars." This is scarcely to be denied of the majority of the clergy, but a distinction should undoubtedly be made for the evangelical part of them. Many might be named who do honour to the ministerial name; and no denomination have carried the art of preaching to greater perfection. Models may be found of Christian eloquence, which cannot be too closely copied, as it respects good taste, zeal, devotional manner, simplicity of expression, and the total absence of whatever might insinuate the im

pression of self-sufficiency, affectation, or vain-glory in the preacher. We rejoice, Dissenters as we are, that this is the fact; and we are on all occasions happy to acknowledge it. Impartiality, therefore, and the honest desire to do justice to those who differ from us, prevents our setting our seal to the above quotation, or to the one which precedes it, namely, that "it

would be to mock our clerical brethren to speak of their divinity or their preaching otherwise than as most undigested and superficial.” An exception should doubtless be made for those who, notwithstanding their connexion with a corrupt, and perhaps falling church, are, from Sabbath to Sabbath, bringing

forth the stores of their talent and acquirements for the spiritual benefit of the crowds that listen to their sermons.

The passages which have elicited some of Dr. Hutton's remarks are the following:

"The author has not referred to the

He

Such

self-styled Unitarian Academies. confines himself to Christianity. could, therefore, have no more claim to a place in this catalogue than a school of Confucius in China, or the college of Dervishes in Ispahan.--p. 25.

"There are those who never belonged here and there, that have been conto us, with the exception of an apostate founded with us. They have despoiled our few treasures and have usurped our simple sanctuaries. We abjure all religious intercommunity with them, how

ever estimable in the relations of life and the ranks of society, who renounce Jesus as their God and the atonement as their hope. We cannot come into their secret: why have they encroached on our property? Was there no vent for their exuberant candour but such forcible regards and violent friendships? Could no restraint withstand the warmth of their feelings? Must the right hand of fellowship be one of felony, and their embrace of rapture be one of rapine? Did they not remember that those overpowering attachments were nothing new from the times of Zebah and Zalmunna,

who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession ?' ”—p. 33.