Many professedly Christian people, and many who are in no way such, have long been of opinion that there is something that is wrong about our present religious organizations; that they tend to separate rather than unite; that what society requires is not dogmatic theology, but freer Christian union. Rightly or wrongly—and that is a question not to be discussed now—this idea has led to the formation of the society whose title heads this article. In June last year the first practical attempt was made towards the formation of such a society. In the winter previous the basis of union was agreed on, and in the month referred to the anniversary was held in Freemasons’ Hall. Believing that in the vain pursuit of orthodoxy men have parted into rival churches, and lost the bond of common work and love; that doctrinal uniformity is become increasingly difficult, while at the same time there is a growing and a strengthening of moral and spiritual affinities; that the Divine will is love to God and love to man, and that equally broad should be the terms of pious communion among men, the new Union requires a spiritual fellowship co-extensive with these terms, and aims by relieving the Christian life from reliance on theological articles or external rites to save it from conflict with the knowledge and conscience of mankind, and bring it back to the essential conditions of harmony between God and man. The Society proposes to issue publications to illustrate the spirit of unsectarian Christianity, and to furnish the means of undogmatic instruction; to give aid to persons suffering for conscience sake from the spirit of exclusiveness; to watch legislation so far as it bears on religious freedom; to help existing sects to widen their basis, and to encourage the formation of congregations where the terms of communion shall be broad and undogmatic. Further, it aims at the establishment in London of a central church for the maintenance of Christian worship and life, apart from doctrinal interests and names, the services of which will be conducted by ministers of various ecclesiastical positions. Amongst the committee of this Union may be noted the names of George Dawson, Esq., the Rev. J. Martineau, and the Rev. W. Miall. The Rev. P. W. Clayden is one of the secretaries.

To the promoters of this new religious organization the attendance the first night must have been eminently gratifying. The large hall was well filled, and outside there were as many cabs and private broughams waiting about as at the Opera when a star of the first magnitude is engaged. On the occasion there was a special form of prayer devised, which was read by the Rev. Mr. Martineau, and two hymns were sung, one of Wesley’s—

“The saints on earth and those above
But one communion make.”

And another from the Breviary—

“Supreme Disposer of the heart,
Thou, since the world began,
With heavenly grace hast sanctified
And cheered the heart of man.”

Besides there was a chant, in which all joined, and a small band to sing the Amen. Two sermons were preached; one by the Rev. Athanase Coquerel, the far-famed leader of the section of the Reformed Church of France which does not sympathize with orthodoxy. In the personal appearance of this celebrated preacher there was little that was heretical or foreign. With his round face and stout frame you might have taken him for one of the sleekest of Anglican divines. Nevertheless his sermon was French in its construction and style of delivery and emphasis. His text was—“One thing is needful.” His argument went to show that that one thing needful was the love of God, and that forms of faith and ritualism were so many hills in our way, which blinded the view and impeded our appreciation of this grand fundamental truth. The discourse, which lasted half an hour, over, the Rev. W. Miall engaged in extemporaneous prayer, in which there was a special reference to the death of the Rev. Mr. Tayler, of Hampstead, one of the committee of the Union, and a Professor of Manchester New College, London; and then came the Rev. C. Kegan Paul, Rector of Upminster, in Dorsetshire, with another sermon. It is scarce necessary to observe that Mr. Paul—a fine, tall, muscular man in the prime of life, with a black beard and with a voice almost as sonorous (a Frenchman’s lungs always seem better than an Englishman’s) as Pastor Coquerel himself—is a man much distinguished by collegiate success and Eton fame, and that his sermon evinced high intellectual culture. His text was, “He is not here, but is risen,” and his aim was to show how men seek the dead Christ rather than the living one. The Reformation was an attempt to get rid of ritualism and formalism, and now again it is felt that religion can no longer be confined in an article. It is not only the Bible we must consult, God has written His Word in life and humanity. They were not Theists; Christ was a name symbolical of humanity, and they were, as a matter of fact, Christian men. Nor would they get rid of Christian phraseology as long as the feeling of the heart clothes itself in language hallowed by the use of ages. A change is passing over society, and we have now to study religion in connexion with nature, science, progress, life. Still, nothing that has nourished the soul of man can die. All that has been is a part of what is to come, and sustained by this truth we are not to faint or fail. And then came the benediction, and ministers and people went home. In this Church of the future, as it aims to be, it is clear there will be nothing derogatory to the ministerial office. The committee were seated in various parts of the hall, while the ministers in black gowns occupied the platform. Apparently never in Freemasons’ Hall had there met there men more spiritual and anxious for Divine guidance, and devout. As to the issue of it all we can safely and reverently wait.

There are two sides to every picture—two aspects, at the least, in which human schemes and organizations may be viewed. On the first night, as regards the Free Christian Union, we had the one view which must have cheered its promoters; on the next, when the business meeting was held, when we were told of what the Society had done and what it was going to do, an element of a very different character appeared. In this great capital, at this season of the year, when London is crowded with notabilities, the managers had to go to Cambridge for a young man to preside, who had—we say it respectfully—really a physical disqualification for the office. Then there was a very young gentleman, quite unknown to fame, called on to second a resolution, and forced on to the platform from the body of the hall to say that and nothing more. As a matter of fact, the Society had enrolled, we believe, a couple of congregations, and voted a grant of 5l. to the Free Christian Church at Lynn. Nevertheless, with a platform on which few men save those connected with the Unitarian denomination appeared, and with but little response even from that body, the Society aims to influence the public mind, especially by the press, by the publication of essays on the connexion between scientific theology and pure religion, the Bible as literature, dogma, prophecy, miracles, the possibility of a national formula of public devotion, the ethics of conformity, the place of religion in education, the limits of State action in ecclesiastical organizations. In some quarters it was evident that the feeling was that the Society had better aim at some practical work, such as the reconstruction of the National Church on the bases laid down in its own preamble; and one speaker, forgetful of the fact that the Church of Rome denied the right of private judgment in matters of religion in toto, asked whether any effort had been made to secure its sympathy and co-operation. It says little for the meeting that such a puerile question was politely received. As to speaking, indeed, the meeting was a failure, or would have been had it not been for the presence of Athanase Coquerel, who spoke in English at great length with the utmost freedom and warmth, and who had much to say of his own struggles on behalf of Free Christianity in France, of universal interest.

It appears in its early days the Protestant Church of France was entirely exclusive, and its confession of faith was drawn up by Calvin and Beza. One of its forty articles decreed that the sword had been put by God into the hands of reigning princes, magistrates, &c., not only to enforce obedience to the second table of the Ten Commandments, but also to the first. Another article implied that little children, even unborn babes, are condemned to eternal perdition in hell; and if they die without baptism can in no way whatever be saved. By-and-by a little more elasticity was imported into this creed, and the Liberal party continued to live, even when, as in 1685, Louis XIV. shut up all the Protestant academies in France. An English writer had truly remarked that no Church had suffered so long and so much from persecution as the Reformed Church in France, and he was right—the last pastor who was hung in Paris suffered that penalty only as recently as the year 1762. A young pastor preaching at Nismes had for one of his hearers Lafayette, and he and Lafayette got from Louis XVI., in 1787, an edict that gave the French Protestants civil rights, and since then the Church has revived, but at the same time it has steadily and consistently refused to re-enact the old rigid creeds. At present there were two parties in the Church, one orthodox the other Liberal. In the Church at Paris, consisting of bankers, with whom Guizot always acted, the Consistory is orthodox. That Consistory was formed in 1802 by Napoleon, who selected for that purpose the twelve persons most wealthy. In 1848 this Consistory was re-elected by universal suffrage, and this was the cause of great changes. The ultra-Conservative feeling of the day retained the old set in office, and they, feeling themselves invested with additional power, began that persecution of M. Coquerel’s father which continued till the last hour of his life. Of that persecution he, the speaker, had his share, and at last to support him the Union Protestante LibÉrale was formed. In a little while after he had spoken, to a certain extent favourably, of Renan’s work, he was excluded from the Church, and M. Martin Paschaud as well. As to himself he had obtained leave with two young ministers to commence preaching in a hired room. At the same time, as they had not been legally ejected from the Church, they can baptize, marry, perform funeral services—in short, do everything but preach. In conclusion, the speaker said how rejoiced he was to find in England an attempt made to establish such a Society. It was the want of the time, and long he trusted might they continue to uphold the banner of peace and love.

It is clear, outside the meeting at Freemasons’ Hall the idea is entertained that this was simply a Unitarian movement. Evidently such is the feeling of leading Unitarians themselves. One of them, the Rev. Mr. Ierson, who preaches in a beautiful and costly chapel in Islington, to a congregation that does not half fill the place, evidently so regards it. After the annual meeting, from the text, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” he preached a sermon on behalf of the new organization. He was delighted with what had been done. In the devotional service he had witnessed more life than he had ever seen in a Unitarian service before, and he was thankful for it. At the same time Mr. Ierson expressed his regret that the movement did not aim to accomplish something more, and also regretted that it did not succeed in enrolling beneath its banner men of sufficiently diverse sentiments. This was not difficult to account for, continued the reverend gentleman. The Independent Churches, meaning by that term Baptists and Congregationalists, have great fear of each other. The ministers are afraid of the people, who look well after them. In many places, if a man shakes hands with a Unitarian he is straightway denounced as a Unitarian himself. Nor was this altogether wrong. The real fact was that it would be found, directly any one approximated in civility to the Unitarians, he had either given up the doctrine of eternal damnation or some of the other dogmas of his body, and was not completely, and in the old-fashioned sense of the term, orthodox. Meanwhile the duty of the Unitarians was very obvious. They had to be more than ever charitable and deferential to all Christians, whatever their denomination. It was something to get men to respect each other, to believe each other to be honest, however they differed in faith and dogma. In his own opinion the Free Christian Union would have had a better chance had it been originated by another body of religionists. Even as regarded themselves he feared many of them were not sufficiently educated up to the mark; but at any rate it was something for the Unitarians to be associated with such a catholic and Christian union.

One word more may be said. At the business meeting one of the speakers was the Rev. Leigh Mann. Distinctly he avowed a belief the reverse of Unitarianism, and distinctly he glorified the association as one in which men of the most opposite dogmas could meet. In such an utterance we have an indication, how significant or eccentric time alone can tell. At any rate, while confessing that hitherto there has been little of Christian union founded on dogma, we may anxiously ask, is there a better chance if the common bond be work?