Billeder på siden

spared a few years longer, yet he resigned himself with trustful submission to the disposal of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness.

E. T. DIED on the 17th of June, 1833, at her father's house in London, MARY, only daughter of R. K. PHILP, aged 27 years. Her amiable disposition and modest virtues endeared her to all who

knew ber. Her most intimate acquaintance were her greatest • admirers. To the poor she delighted in being an angel of mercy.

In instructing their children she felt great pleasure. Her fond parent calculated on her being his active coadjutor in the work of benevolence, but her strength was not equal to the exertions required; and the scenes of misery which such a course presented were too powerful for her tender feelings. Heaven has seen fit to terminate her mortal course; she died in peace and hope. Her religious principles were strictly Unitarian, and her character humbly exhibited the purity and simplicity of the sublime religion of Jesus. Owing to a pressure on the brain, the last week of her life was spent in almost constant unconsciousness; wben she sweetly breathed her spirit into the hands of God who gave it. She was interred in the burial-ground of the New Gravel-pit Meeting, Hackney, on the 24th instant, Mr. Aspland officiating. Beloved of my heart, adieu, till the morning of the resurrection! “I shall go to her, but she will not return to me." R. K. P.

TO CORRESPONDENTS. The great length of the account of the Anniversary of the British & Foreign Unitarian Association, obliges us to omit various communications; amongst which are several Notices of Books, and an article by the Rev. J. R. Beard, on Faustus Socinus.

Our friends in various parts of England, are respectfully informed, that their communications for this Magazine, if sent to the care of MR. HUNTER, St. Paul's CHURCH YARD, LONDON, previously to the last day of every Month, will reach the Editor in a few days afterwards.

the year.

In looking over the stock of our past Numbers, we find the greatest difference occurs in those at the beginning and close of

The Magazine commenced in September, and each Volume has closed in August. As it is usual, however, for most periodicals to begin and end with January and December, we shall carry on the present Volume to December, and commence the eighth Volume with January 1834.

The stock of early Numbers being heavy, the first and second Volumes are offered at Two Shillings and Sixpence each. Single Volumes to complete sets, at Four Shillings; and the set of Six Volumes at one Guinea. Single Numbers to complete past Volumes at Fourpence-halfpenny.

Of the Volume now publishing, a sufficient quantity is printed to supply Subscribers only, their number having now been ascertained.


No. 85.


Vol. VII.

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

Newport, Isle of Wight, Aug. 3, 1833. SIR,—In reply to your learned and highly esteemed Correspondent, the Rev. James Yates, who charges me with having fallen into a “mistake,” in stating in a Tract, entitled “Unitarians not Socinians,"* that Socinus was accessary to the imprisonment of Francis David, I only request insertion for a few lines, as my object in that publication was simply to illustrate the distinction between Socinians and Unitarians, by showing that Socinus persecuted an eminent individual, who held sentiments now denominated Unitarian, and not to reflect with useless severity on the memory of the dead. My purpose there is sufficiently answered by the admission of the fact of the persecution of David by Socinus, and as this cannot be denied by any one who has read the confession of Socinus, that he consented to the suspension of his opponent from the ministerial office, I leave the defence of the statement of his being “accessary to the imprisonment," to some person who has better means of reference to the original works on the subject. I may however observe, that a person may be accessary to a measure in different ways and in various degrees, and in stating that Socinus was accessary to the imprisonment (though I allow it is too strong an expression), I only intended to convey the impression that he was accessary in an inferior degree, and more as the result of a series of events in which he had been concerned, than as any direct act of his own will. I can truly say, that I shall rejoice very much, if the present discussion should throw light on this rather obscure subject, and shall consider that Mr. Yates has done good service to a righteous cause, if he can satisfactorily clear Socinus's memory from the stain with which this transaction has appeared to cloud it. The paper in the Monthly Repository, vol. xiii. page 382, to which Mr. Yates refers, is well deserving of his recommendation for perusal, as the best vindication that has appeared of the conduct of Socinus; but it is somewhat

* Unitarians not Socinians, 2d Edition, page 4.-Hunter, London.

singular that the same writer, Dr. Thomas Rees, to whom Mr. Yates attributes it, should in the Historical Introduction to the Racovian Catechism (p. 55), published in the same year, make the following assertion, “ There is no room to doubt but that Socinus acceded to the measure of his imprisonment as the means of restraining him from the dissemination of his opinions, till the Diet should determine what steps it might be proper to take.” This language is at least as strong as mine, and is used by a writer of unquestioned learning and high character. A statement is moreovet made by the same author, page 54, which, if correct, would in a degree criminate Socinus. After stating that at the Diet held at Thorda, to take into consideration the conduct of David, the nobility were scandalized at his persecution, and that several deputations were sent to the Prince to urge him to quash the proceedings; Dr. Rees adds, “but Blandrata, who with Socinus and others had arrived at Thorda a week previously to the assembling of the Diet, in order to arrange matters for the prosecution, successfully employed his influence with the prince, and prevailed upon him to turn a deaf ear to these remonstrances and petitions.” As Socinus denies that he was present at Thorda, I am not myself disposed to lay stress upon this statement, but mention it for the sake of eliciting information on a historical point, as candour itself could not under such circumstances give Socinus a complete acquittal. On the whole, it will perhaps be allowed that it is difficult for a Unitarian, in referring to the persecution and imprisonment of David, to avoid speaking in somewhat unfavourable terms of the conduct of Socinus. However much he may admire the splendid talents, ardent piety, unbending integrity, and unwavering devotion to the cause of truth, which distinguished Socinus, there is a deficiency of kindness and charity, both in bis language and in his conduct towards David, which he would gladly supply. There is something so deeply touching in the story of the sufferings of the venerable confessor, that our sympathies are involuntarily enlisted on his side, and we can scarcely forbear exclaiming, why did not Socinus take more pains to penetrate the guilty designs of Blandrata? How could he permit himself to be in any way a tool in such unworthy bands? and why has he not left behind him some decided protest against the persecution of the illustrious sufferer?

The absence of all interference in behalf of one, under whose roof, at all events, be had passed four months, and toward whom he might have felt as a brother, although it may be partly accounted for by the intolerance of the age, is in itself somewhat of a stain on his memory, and accounts for the doubtful manner in which Unitarians, not only of the present, but it appears of his own time, speak of Socinus, in reference to this particular part of his conduct. Even my much respected friend Mr. Yates, eminent as he is alike for candour and a love of truth, whilst expostulating with Mr. Stannus and myself on the subject, uses language that will bear a similar construction, when at page 377, he seems almost to concede that Socinus might be an accomplice in the transaction.” Thanking, however, that gentleman cordially for his correction of my statement, which in a future edition I will cheerfully modify, I remain, Sir, yours respectfully,


On the Moral Constitution and History of Man.


(Concluded from page 383.)

HILDEBRAND or Gregory the Seventh completed the organization of the hierarchy. He proclaimed openly, and acted upon a doctrine which bad indeed for a long time inspired his predecessors, but which they dared not push to its extreme consequence—namely, “ that the spiritual power was not only independent of the temporal, but superior to it, and that the Pope as its head was the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth; and had a right to dispose of kingdoms, and to hold all kings in subjection to him.”

To us this appears a most extravagant pretension, and yet there is a certain mixture of truth in the doctrine, which might serve to cover the falsehood associated with it. It is indeed true, that the authority of God is superior to that of man, when they interfere in their exercise, and that moral or spiritual power ought to preponderate, and is destined to preponderate over the power of the sword, upon which rests the dominion of kings. But it is false that God interposes his authority between man and man, in the ordinary affairs of this life. Christ hath said, “ who hath made me a judge or a divider of inheritances, &c. over you?" And again,“ render to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's.” It is false, that the moral or spiritual power is entitled to rule by the force of carnal weapons; its only legitimate weapon is persuasion, and the obedience of its subjects must be voluntary. If we attend to these distinctions, we perceive that heaven and earth are not more distant, than these opposite views of the ground on which spiritual power ought to rest; yet the mighty pretences of the Church all rested upon the sophistry by which this difference was confounded.

And to conceal the delusion the better, the Churcb af. fected an abhorrence to the use of the sword. It only delivered over its culprits, forsooth, to the secular power, to be actually punished. The Church, however, seldom wanted instruments to do its work-magistrates to en. force its decisions against individuals, or kings and subjects against one another. Its pretence of using no carnal weapons, was no better than that of a tyrant who might plead that he put no person to death himself

, but merely directed the executioner to do it. And the motives by which it influenced its agents were equally base—the plunder of the victim, the gratification of their own vindictive passions, or the degrading fear of that excommunication which the more noble intelligence of the accused party taught him to despise.

It is but justice to Gregory to admit, that he was partly deluded by the miserable sophistry of the age, and believed himself right in his aggressions. He had likewise an excuse in the anarchy of the times, for using the power with which he found bimself invested, to preserve some kind of order and subordination among the warlike and barbarous princes of the time. He had even in view a certain reformation of the Church, by taking the investiture of bishops out of the hands of kings and barons, who had openly made a sale of vacant benefices, and by enjoining on the clergy that celibacy which the ascetic spirit of the times considered decent in ecclesiastics, and against which the clergy bad offended, not only by marriage, but by the practices of concubinage and divorce.

But whatever were bis motives, the power he assumed was tyrannical and dangerous. In the execution of his measures, he contended with and triumphed over all opposition, and rendered the court of Rome supreme over

« ForrigeFortsæt »