On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
fathers may wait till somebody can shew a better title to it , or till the Crown asserts its claim . So much for the question in a legul view . If the zealots of Orthodoxy still say there is a moral offence in using- these
chapels and funds for the celebration of a worship which their founders disapproved , they do not consider perhaps how far this doctrine will carry them . On this principle the Reformation could hardly have taken place ; for the Roman Catholics must have
been left in possession of all the churches and church property which the zeal of our Popish ancestors had founded . Dr . Pye Smith , to be consistent , must include Craumer and Ridley and the other heads of the
Reformation in England , nay Luther and John Calvin himself , in liis list of thieves . —Further , the earlv Christians , after the accession , of Cons tan tine , converted some of the temples erected in honour of the Heathen gods into Christian Churches . The Pantheon at
Rome remains an instance" of it to this day . Are those pious Christians to be classed with thieves ? Nay more , the great Apostle of the Gentiles preached Christianity and the
abrogation ot the Mosaic dispensation in the Synogogues erected by Jews for Jewish worship only . What will the learned Doctor say to this ? 1 leave it for his consideration .
The Iruth is , that the intentions of the pious and benevolent founders oi institutions either religious or charitable cannot , in the changes of the world , be ulwavs exactly fulfilled . "New scenes arise and different views
engage . ' And I conceive that Trustees who hold property of this kind have a right , when the exact fullilment of the
intentions of the founders is impracticable or inexpedient , to consider what might probably have been tin * views of the founders under the new circumstances which may have arisen , and what upon the whole is best to he done . At all events thev cannot he
charged with dishonest malversation , unless they apply funds destined for a public object to their own private emolument . In conclusion , though we may differ on some important points from our worthy ancestors , it inav be hoped
Untitled Article
that in what is essential we still agree with them . They could not , consistently with the great principle of dissent , the right of private judgment , shackle their posterity by the imposition of a creed ; nor is it probable that they in general attempted it . It
is evident , from the Manchester controversy on this subject , that those who assume the contrary , do it on mere conjecture . The argument of most of them seems to be— " The founders of this chapel were Orthodox , the congregation is now Unitarian , therefore the chapel belongs to us . " But Mr . Hadfieldthe attorney
, , does not jump so fast to a conclusion . When asked the question , ' * if Cross-Street Chapel does not belong to the congregation , to whom does it belong ? " He says , " I can do nothing without the deeds 5 shew me the deeds and I'll tell you to whom it belongs . "
A modest request truly , which , as a lawyer ,- he should have known he had no ri ^ ht to make . But it shews that these people are in real ignorance of the subject on which they presume to give so confident an opinion . We may then equally despise the threats and the railing of envious bigots , if , while we differ somewhat from our
forefathers on matters of doctrine and of discipline , we take care that our practice shall he 110 disgrace to them . A PRESBYTERIAN .
Untitled Article
138 Afr » James an the Charge of "Plagiarism " with Remarks .
Untitled Article
Birmingham Sir , February ) $ , 1 S 25 . A S I am compelled by the charity Jvl which thinketli no evil to believe
that you would not , knowingly , allow the Monthly Repository to be either the inventor or circulator of falsehood , I-confidently expect that you will do me the justice to contradict an assertion which , I am informed , was made in reference to myself by some writer
in the reviewing department of the number for January . In a critique on a pamphlet entitled " The Plagiarist Warned / ' it is affirmed , that 1 have published a sermon , alluding , I suppose , to " The Scoffer Admonished , " which is taken from the works of
Archbishop Tillotson . Now , Sir , this statement of the Reviewer ' s , for to him alone 1 reply , is altogether incorrect , as a comparison of my discourse with that of the Primate will most
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1825, page 158, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2534/page/30/
-