The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-14 00:00:00

reprobated the notion that preaching was the most impor-
tant part of Divine worship, and spoke of prayer and
praise as the highest and the noblest. He contended for
the superiority of forms o prayer and praise, on the
ground that extemporaneous effusions must necessarily, by
those who had a just sense of the spirituality of true wor-
ship, be carefully watched, in order that they might be
satisfied that they could sincerely, and with the heart, par-
ticipate ; and that this necessary caution and reserve were
not calculated to produce that warmth of devotional
feeling and fervour of worship which might be en-
joyed, when the prayers were beforehand known to
he perfectly orthodox and exquisitely beautiful—
and might, therefore, be heartily responded to. More-
over he said, many candid Dissenters had admitted

that as they, in singing the same hymns—that is the same
forms of praise over and over (to the same tune also)—
were not necessarily formal, so neither did the constant
repetition of the same forms of prayer in the Established
Church necessarily produce formality. And another ad-
vantage, too, he said, arose, from the forms and articles of
the Church—that the orthodoxy of the Church was thus,
as it were, hedged round and secured against the effect
even of occasional error, in the ministers. But he deeply
regretted, and strongly reprobated, the indifference and
coldness with which too often (though, he added, not so
generally as formerly) congregations went through the
forms of worship in the Establishment, and the listless,
unimpressed, and unimpressive manner in which
clergymen sometimes read the excellent formu-
laries of the Church —( Cheers.) He went on to
say that the early Non-conformists (quoting Dr. Owen
especially) held to Ow doctrines and forms of the Church
in their main features, and had thus preserved their ortho-
doxy, but that the departure from these salutary guards of
the faith among later Dissenters had opened the door for
Socinian infidelities, and philosophical scepticisms.--
(Cheers.) The Rev. Gentleman then proceeded to the
great question of the union between Church and State.
He said it was impossible, but that between the Church
and State there should be some kind of con-
nection ; for, said he, the clergy of the coun-
try would, as the ordinances of religion were all in
their hands, exert such a sway over the consciences
and feelings of men, that they would be naturally re-
garded by the multitude with such awe, and would in-
evitably acquire such influence, that no body of men
would be able to withstand the temptations then held out
to them. And that superstition would give, and avarice
receive, and ambition abuse, the wealth and power thus
acquired, till all empire lay prostrate at the foot of the
priest; and the power thus established, would at length
seek a central and prevailing force in some modification of
a Papal Supremacy.—(Cheers.) Nor, said, he, was this
mere imagination—it was history.—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) And he referred to Hallam, and Blackstone
to show the immense influence and wealth acquired by the
Clergy in this kingdom, in the early periods of our annals
—to such a degree indeed, that it was predicted that had
not Parliament interposed with the statute of mortmain,
every foot of land in the country would soon have been ab-
sorbed by the priesthood.—( Hear.) Now, let it be ob-
served, he thought that this could never happen again—
for human nature was still the same—and as infidelity could
never be popular, because supplying no balm to the cots-
science—nor vital Christianity, because making no truce
with sin—some middle system, oscillating with human
passions—running parallel with human desires—
allowing the grossest excesses of guilt to be
atoned foe by the penance of some pecuniary amercement,
would infallibly gain such overpowering influence over the
people. Neither let it be said, he remarked, that the Dis-
senters of the present day had exerted no such influence,
for, first, he replied that they could nor, seeing that on
their principles they need no ordinance which they could
withhold or bestow, as necessary to salvation; and, se-
condly, because the Church was in their way, and persons
discontented with their management could obtain, in every
parish in the kingdom, Christian ministration. The
Reverend Gentleman then urged, that as on these grounds
some restrictions must be laid on the clergy—for the
safety of liberty required it—the best way to adjust this
restrictive influence on the part of the State, was to dis-
tribute the national endowments, keeping the wholo
or nearly the whole, as the Established Churchpa,„age_in the hands of the State, but leaving entirely
to the clergy, the ordination of the ministers, who, when
once ordained, were eligible to the pastoral office in any
locality. And he threw it out, whether the connection
between patronage and ordination in the Church of Scot-
land might not, combined with the popular voice in the
appointment of the minister, have produced the present
unfortunate state of things there. The Rev. Gentleman
went on to argue, that it was by no means unworthy of the
Church to have a fixed settled code of doctrine for her
guidance. And to the taunt so ignorantly put forward
by some parties, that this Code of Articles bad been set-
tled by Act of Parliament, he replied that they had been
settled by the Bible.—(Cheers.) As to the similar taunt,
that they could not be changed hut by Act of Parliament,
he would answer, that it was the Chu ch's glory they
could not be changed, seeing they were based upon the
Bible.—(Cheers.)
[As these Lectures are once more bringing under the
public notice this long agitated controversy, we purpose
giving a few sketches of the principal champions, which,
to those who have not seen the originals, may be in-
teresting, and, to those who have, perhaps not less so.]
SKETCHES OF OUR CELEBRATED CON-
TROVERSIALISTS.

Don't let the rei.der be alarmed at a word which at all
sounds controversial. We are not about to enter into the
field of polemical discussion, or theological contention, so
often laboured with painful and profitless zeal, but which
we bold in as suspicious and doubtful regard as any the
most simple-minded, well-meaning, good-natured haters of
wrathful and perplexing debatings. We wish to speak,
cot of controversies, but, mark, of controversialists; and
to describe, not so much, docrines, as their defenders—
ta depict the advocates, not to discuss their principles.
We desire, in fact, to convey as true an idea as possible of
their style and manner, their oratory and eloquence. We
essay, that is, a critique, on living characters—not mute
performances—on the masters, as well as their works.
And it is not an uninteresting field for criticism—the cha-
racters of distinguished combatants in a great struggle
of opponent intellects—the pourtrayal, not merely of
their physical attributes, but their characteristic idio-
syncrasies, the exhibition of their mental distinctions
the analysis of their various qualifications and
powers—the dsplay, so to speak, of the weapons
of their intellectual armoury. There is always a
kind of interest about a rivalry of talent—the bringing to
bear, in hostile championship, of varied and first-rate abili-
ties on some fierce combat of opposed pretensions. Many
may take an interest in the champions—who feel little in
their principles—much upon that common ground of curi-
osity with which we enter into the qualities of warriors, by
whose victories or defeats we are alike unaffected,
But the struggle we are now adverting to is one in
which a nation is interested, and which has a people for
its spectators ; it is the struggle of opposite principles, in
the result of which the constitution of the empire is deeply,
vitally, concerned. Must not the champions, then, be
objects of interest ?

The uncompromising controversy now carrying on, be-
tween the rival advocates of Church Establishments and
of the Voluntary Principle, has broken out—at least into
open contest—within the last few years. Who com-
menced it is not quite clear. We believe, however, that
the gauntlet was thrown down—that the tocsin was
sounded—by the Rev. Thomas Binney, in an Address on
the opening of the New Weigh-house Independent Chapel,
London. But the precise manner in which the accredited
champions of the two great antagonist principles, were
first brought into avowed and decided contention, is not of
much importance ;—yet we always feel an interest in the
" beginning of strife." Indeed, otherwise, Mr. Binney
seems scarcely entitled to be included in our gallery of
controversialists—as, although we base good reason to
think he precipitated the engagement, he soon withdrew
from the field, or, at all events, has not since taken any
open part in the contest; still, the beginner of such a
controversy naturally calls for notice.
There are few men who, from their character and tern-
peramant, would be more forcibly, nay inevitably impelled
to the first outburst of assault in a contest Of principles