On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    remain , in defiance of general opinion ; or they are changed , to the demolition of the Bishop ' s argument . In no sect of Dissenters has there been so much variety of opinion as in the Church . Taken in itself , this fact would be high praise : but it ceases to be so , when we are reminded that

    the very object of the Establishment is to ' avoid diversity of opinions . ' The failure is a signal one . It would be difficult to name a species or degree of heresy which has not found advocates , even in the higher ranks of the episcopal clergy . Nothing like this has occurred in any dissenting sect . Even those which allow the greatest latitude of individual opinion , preserve more ' uniformity in the public teaching of religion , ' than the Church which we are taxed to support as the pillar of uniformity .

    When a new opinion springs up in a dissenting sect , if it be embraced by the majority , the creed of the sect itself is changed ; if onl y by a minority , they secede , or are excommunicated , and form a separate body . Now , in what does this differ from that which , on the introduction of a new opinion , takes place in the Established Church ? Was not that Church Catholic ? Did she

    not adopt the tenets of the Reformation ? Are not all the dissenting sects which exist in the country , secessions from her communion ? Has not every one of them , except the Presbyterian , adhered substantially to the faith on account of which it seceded ? If the Presbyterian has undergone one great change , did not the Church itself undergo one great change ? Where , then , is the difference ? Why , in this ; that the Dissenter , when he ceases to think like his associates , is not bribed

    with the public money to a hypocritical conformity . His mind is not subjected to an accumulation of corrupt influences . There is no pecuniary premium on insincerity . When lie secedes , he is not mulcted for the support of the worship which he no longer approves . He retail is relative position in society . If he was but a Dissenter before , he is a Dissenter still . This difference is

    in favour of truth , and against the Church . With all its princely revenues , with all its political privileges , with all its power , and that not unused , of persecution , what has the Church preserved ? Not the relig ious attachment of the people . It has done less than any one sect towards retaining the representatives of the population once within its pale . Prom being the nation , it has dwindled down to a minority .

    The change which the English Presbyterians have undergone , which is the only apparent exception to these remarks , is not so in reality . Anterior to that change , they had ceased to make a creed their bond of union . They allowed freedom of opinion , and it has been exercised by their successors . The Bishop has mistated this passage of theological history most egreg iously Although not named , the English Presby terians are the only class which can be meant in the following quotation : —•

    Untitled Article

    260 On the Bishop of London ' s

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1834, page 260, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2632/page/28/