Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

SIR,

Jan. 6, 1825.

conduct, but with pleasurable ideas.

DR. PYE SMITH, in his reply to A devotional spirit, when joined to a

Mr. Bakewell, thus expresses himself: "Yet I solemnly remonstrate with Mr. B. for representing my statements as if they had referred to personal holiness, and the unchangeable obligations of universal virtue, when they are in the plainest manner restricted to the single point of the JUSTIFICATION of a sinner in the sight of God. If he is so unacquainted with the doctrines of religion as not to be aware of this broad distinction, if none of the books of his excellent ancestors have descended to him, which might have given him the information, and if he choose not to take the trouble of a little research, he must excuse my reminding him that the paragraphs from which he has garbled his extracts, sufficiently declared it." [Mon. Repos. XIX. 738.]

This broad distinction in the doctrines of Dr. Smith's religion is not so palpable to me as the learned gentleman's expressions indicate it ought to be; and I would request the favour of him to reply to the following four questions. These I have so worded as to give him the least possible trouble; indeed a simple affirmative or negative may suffice. The correspondence of Dr. Smith having been public, I hope this request from one who is personally unknown to him is not a breach of established decorum :—

1. Is the justification of a sinner in the sight of God determined by the unchangeable obligations of universal virtue?

2. Will those persons who most habitually attend to the obligations of universal virtue, and who acquire most personal holiness, be the justified before God?

3. Will any such persons be excluded from the justification before God?

4. Will those persons who have less habitually attended to the obligations of universal virtue, and who have less personal holiness, be preferred and equally justified before God?

THOMAS GIBSON.

[blocks in formation]

sound mind and cultivated understanding, is the source of such pure enjoyment, that it may well be regarded as one of the first and best of blessings. Yet all religious fathers and mothers will allow that, in this department of education, the difficulties and the chances of failure are peculiarly great. What with enthusiasm on the one hand, and indifference on the other; and what between the opposite dangers of false refinement and revolting familiarity, and too much or too little regard to the respective offices of reason and of the feelings in matters of faith, a serious parent may well be anxious respecting the event of a religious education. Meantime, it is a blessing to be assured that an influence of this kind, if exerted with but a tolerable degree of rational earnestness, can hardly fail of having some good effect upon the character. If it does not make a religious, it may a moral, being; and reverence for the consistent example of a Christian parent may produce some portion of that effect on the heart and life which we could wish owed its origin to a yet higher motive. Few sincere Christians, however, will like the idea of resting here. The grace and beauty of early character, which genuine personal religion alone can give, is too valuable a thing to be readily conceded; nor can the most unsullied renown make up for the want of that inheritance within, which will support the spirit of a man when the voice of applause is no more to him than the least murmur of the passing wind. How earnestly then is it to be wished that parents had oftener the pleasure of seeing their children's minds not only strengthened by just views and principles, but beautified by the presence of devotion! Surely, if there be parents who think lightly of the latter, provided the former be secured, it should be enough to ask whether they are content with a kind of obedience from their own children which is purely the offspring of a sense of duty, and has in it nothing grateful, nothing affectionate, nothing cheerful? Do they not love to see the ardent mind and active hand evidently put in

do, then with what consistency can

they be indifferent about the coldness or warmth of their children's affections towards the great object of our hopes and fears?

Though few can feel more sensible than myself that the subject of religious education is something infinitely more important than a knowledge of the differences between one sect and another, it is impossible to think on that subject at all, without comparing in our minds the general sentiments and conduct of those whose ideas differ in very important points.

uninstructed. Even that ancient piece of divinity, the Church Catechism, has been rendered attractive by Mrs. Sherwood's series of stories, elucidative and explanatory of its different positions: and we might easily enumerate hundreds of tales, abounding in similar doctrine and sentiment, which diversify the sabbath hours of young people among our Calvinistic brethren. Doubtless these tales contain much that a Unitarian will disapprove; yet that person must bear about, not only a prejudiced, but a most unteachable Every one who is anxious for the mind, who does not perceive that it is increase of the spirit of religion in his a great matter thus to give religion an own heart and the hearts of others, advantage in early years, by the inmust be desirous of borrowing light strumentality of pleasant associations. wherever it is to be found, and of It cannot be subject of surprise, that banishing all those baneful feelings some Unitarian parents, alive to the which would prevent the acknowledg- danger of making the Sabbath a weament of having learned an important les- riness, and trusting to the readiness son from individuals in other respects with which a child's mind passes from opposed perhaps to the principles of what is obscure and tedious to what is which he acknowledges the truth and va- interesting, do avail themselves occalue. Thus I shall not make any apology sionally of the existence of some of for freely owning, that whatever may these publications. They think, and be the inherent recommendations of rightly, that it is a prime point to our faith, I do not think our method make a favourable impression at first; of communicating religious instruction to give religion a fair and reasonable to the young is generally so calculated chance in the affections, instead of atto interest the feelings, or give a fa- tempting, (what we attempt in no other vourable association with the subject study or pursuit,) to place the mind of of religion, as that pursued by Cal- a child on a level with that of a man, vinists. Unitarians are too apt to by communicating only abstract and conclude, that because the system of philosophically correct ideas. And of Calvin is dark, intricate and revolting, what value, after all, are these ideas, young people must necessarily be dis- if they be merely the furniture of the gusted by it. They think too much head, and the heart has "neither part of the shadows; they forget the lights. nor lot in this matter"? Where is They dwell on the austerity of the the evidence, amidst a copious supply opposite system, and, representing to of accurate information such as a catethemselves the mild and merciful cha-chism, like that of Geneva, for instance, racter of their own, seem to expect that, if young people are not frightcned away from it, they will adopt it as a matter of course. Though it is slander to allow, even in a passing sentence, that the theme of mercy is ́an unwelcome theme to the lips of Calvinists, I will not enter upon this point, but confine myself to the question of religious instruction.-The attractions to children under orthodox teaching are very many; to those under Unitarians but too few. However uninviting may have been the appear ance of ancient Puritanism, modern Calvinism has completely recognized the policy of making religion as captivating as possibi to the young and

[ocr errors]

is calculated to convey, that that process is going on which can alone constitute a truly religious character?

Our American friends seem to hail with great pleasure the publication of a translation of the Geneva Catechism.— It is to be hoped that, however advisable it may be thought to impress upon the minds of little children a few plain and easy first truths, we shall not again resort to the oppressive and uninteresting system of catechetical instruction with whole chapters expository of our moral our young people. To learn by rote and religious duties, may easily disgust the mind, but can hardly advance it one step in any thing valuable. Such substitutes for mental exertion, such ready

I

's the thought exercised? We do not ask how correctly—a child must think as a child; but has it evidently thought at all on the subject? Is its conscience touched by little neglects of duty? Has it learned to make its own trials, its own blessings, the subject of prayer and praise? Has it learned to feel any thing like gratitude to God, the giver of good, and Jesus, the friend of man? And why should these thoughts and feelings be despised or neglected, because they are juvenile? A child's little fault is as serious a matter in its own eyes, and certainly it ought in a parent's, as crime in the eyes of a man. Its joys and sorrows are of magnitude enough to fill up the measure of its mind and heart; and why should not we labour to distribute religious support in equal measure? "Let me not be laughed at," says Mrs. Hamilton, in that beautiful part of her Letters on Education which treats of religion, "let me not be laughed at for the confession, and I shall freely acknowledge that I at this moment look back with infinite pleasure to the delightful period, when with the simplicity of infant innocence I poured out my little soul in grateful thanks to the Almighty for the happiness enjoyed at a dancing-school ball! Nor am I certain that all the catechisms and all the hymns with which my poor memory was loaded, produced half such benefit to my mind as that which flowed from this powerful association of felicity with the Divine source."

Let it not be thought that little importance is attached to correct notions of divine truth, by the writer of this article. Truth, in a pleasant, engaging dress-truth, applied to the heart and life-is all that is contended for. The error of talking too much to children on these subjects has often been condemned; yet surely the error is in the manner of talking, full as much as in the time bestowed upon it. If a young person is to be disgusted with the theme, a short, dry,

made applications of scripture precepts,
may do very well for the members of a
church which, though mild in its disci-
pline, is far from friendly to liberty of
thought, but it ill accords with the spirit
of that land which is now claiming, in so
noble a manner, a place for religion in the
understanding and in the heart.

heartless reading of one quarter of an hour a day, will do the business far more effectually than an hour or two of judicious religious instruction.— The excellent writer I have before quoted has given it as her decided opinion, that not only the narratives of the Bible may be read with great pleasure and advantage by children, under a clever and able instructor, at a very early period; but that an acquaintance with the greater part of the Bible, before the mind has learned to associate any impure or unpleasant ideas with its objectionable passages, will contribute essentially to the pleasure of its perusal in after years.Whether our present translation of the Scriptures might not be superseded by one far better, is quite another question. I believe there are few critics who will not allow that some things at least are capable of amendment; but the point is this-while our Bibles remain what they are, is it politic, or is it not, to keep children from reading them at home, and at an early age? In deciding this, it should be remembered that children are liable to hear the Scriptures read by servants and at different places of worship, and will, surely, be far more struck by an objectionable phrase when they hear it for the first time in a well-known story, and perceive that it has been purposely omitted by a parent and teacher, than if it came in the common course of reading. Is it not also greatly to be feared, that the surprise and disgust which a young person might experience on finding the grounds on which parts of the Bible had been kept from him, would much impair the pleasurable and reverential associations with that book? Is it not to be dreaded that such a discovery, coming at a time when impressions are most strong, would have a powerful tendency to spoil the relish for the Scriptures, which better management might have preserved ?— Deplorably, most deplorably, must the work of education have been carried on, and most deficient in every requisite for her office must be the religious instructor, if the reading of the Bible can ever be perverted in her hands to any bad purpose. have been said on this point, but that it is feared Unitarian teachers are becoming so over-scrupulous with re

Less would

gard to the use of the Scriptures, that young people among them will gradually be less and less acquainted with their contents;-an evil deeply to be deprecated.

But the grand thing, after all, in religious instruction is, early and deep. ly, not with severity, but with much earnestness, to impress upon the mind the idea that religion is a personal concern; not so much a matte. to be learned as practised. Here, if some teachers err from familiarity, others dwell too much in generals to bring the thing home to the hearts of children. Surely if PRAYER, for instance, be a blessing to the advanced Christian, it ought, in some degree, to wear that appearance to a child. Month after month, and year after year, to exact nightly and daily the repetition of the same short, general form,-regardless of all the circumstances which in that time may affect a child's heart, and dispose it, if rightly managed, to real prayer, can this be right? Can it be calculated to give a just conception of the character of that Being

Whose ears are open to the softest cry, Whose grace descends to meet the lifted

eye?

It behoves us to speak seriously on this subject, for it is indeed one of vast importance. Better, far better,

were it to lay aside the exercise than harden the heart by accustoming it to what, it is but too plain, is a mere lip-labour. Before it is thought proper or decorous to permit a child to word its own petitions to the throne of grace, surely a parent might vary them frequently, according to circumstances; for in no other way can a proper idea be acquired of the nature of prayer. Let not the idea of early piety be too eagerly reprobated, be cause, most unfortunately, much that is highly objectionable has been written and said on the subject. Is it too much to say, that if ever hypocrisy appears in children, it must be from very bad management indeed? But let neither the dread of this, nor any mistakes, however absurd and even ludicrous, which may be made by children in the beginning of a religious career, discourage a parent. Yet we would not object to the use of all forms of prayer, but only to that abuse of them which leads parents to

feel satisfied when they have taught their children one general form, with its daily, invariable repetition,- too frequently, also, it is feared, without a moment allowed for preparation. Here, as cannot be too often repeated, we do not consult our own experience. Can we at once turn our own minds from a worldly object to the proper frame for prayer? If not, why should we require it from a child? It is not to make prayer a grievous task; it is because it can be rendered interesting and efficacious in no other way, that some little preparation is necessary. We succeed or fail exactly in proportion as we can attain a lively conviction of the reality of things invisible, and their connexion with our present state. If this be necessary for us, surely it is equally so for a child.

Coinciding in many of the excellent observations on religious education in a late Number of the Monthly Repository, the writer of this yet thinks the subject of Unitarian religious instruction deserving of more discussion than has hitherto been bestowed upon it, and would be sincerely rejoiced if has here been imperfectly begun. more able pens would continue what

SIR,

E.

Dec. 8, 1824. 'N Mr. Belsham's remarks on Dr.

Channing's recent Discourse, inserted Vol. XIX. pp. 678-681, I find towards the conclusion the following assertion. Speaking of Anti-supernaturalism, "I never," says the worthy and learned divine, "knew more than two persons who professed it." I am happy in thinking that during Mr. Belsham's very extensive experience, he has found so little cause for Dr. Southey's observation; but as my own experience has led me to draw a different conclusion, and as I firmly believe the interests of religion can never suffer any real injury by the candid avowal of our sentiments, I must assert my conviction of the existence of Anti-supernaturalism in some of our Unitarian meetings.That Unitarians are "generally," much less "universally," Anti-supernaturalists, is indeed totally false; as, in fact, to speak strictly, Unitarians cannot entertain such sentiments at all; yet, as the odium of infidelity is considerable, we find that unbelief

lurks in almost every sect. It is not confined to our own denomination. The power of custom, the influence of society and friends, and perhaps, in some cases, devotional feeling not founded on Christian principles, all unite to retain mankind, nominally, within the pale of some religious community, except unbelief has taken a very decided character. I would be far from asserting, with Mr. Belsham, that Anti-supernaturalists, when they assume the name of Christians, are guilty of "base hypocrisy" or " down right falsehood." In many instances, this is far from being the case; for, however inconsistent and absurd their theory may be, we know too well that a large portion of the world likewise profess, conscientiously, a system of theology we also consider absurd and inconsistent, to permit us to condemn, in a moral point of view, the mere profession of any opinions whatever. But if we believe our fellow-creatures are in error-an error likely to prove injurious to the progress of religious truth-let us meet the evil in the spirit of meekness and the power of truth.

Anti-supernaturalists profess not to give up the authority of the New Testament as a rule of life, at the same time that they deny the divine inspiration of the Scriptures and the truth of prophecy and miracle. Those who profess Anti-supernaturalism must entertain one of the two following opinions-either they must consider Jesus and his disciples as enthusiasts, as men who imagined themselves divinely inspired, and found means to persuade the world of the reality of their imaginations; or they must believe Christ and his apostles to have been intentional deceivers. No one can suppose for an instant that Christianity is altogether a fable; and if Jesus and his apostles really existed, then we must give our assent to one of the above statements, or become believers in a Divine Revelation.

formed a noble design for the im provement of the human race, and his historians have misrepresented his words and actions-then the charge of enthusiasm falls upon the evangelists and apostles. We assert that a number of men (not one, not two or three, but all) were led away by their enthusiasm to imagine they beheld deeds that Christ never pretended to perform, and to hear words that were never uttered. Supposing this possi ble, can we place confidence in the writings of such men, or believe them worthy to regulate our lives?

If we consider Jesus as an impostor, (and I feel it almost an irreverence to him who was all truth, to imagine this even for the sake of argument,) how can we call ourselves by the name of an impostor, or listen to his instructions and adopt his precepts ? The most enlightened and sublime morality that ever flowed from the lips of man, is cancelled by a course of falsehood and deceit entirely inconsistent with that morality, with every word that Jesus spoke, with every deed that he performed. Shall we, then, conclude that our Saviour's followers designedly imposed upon the world? On this supposition, Jesus chose for his disciples men who were all devoid of integrity, and who formed collectively a conspiracy against truth, and obtained a success in the promulgation of their falsehoods, unexampled in the records of history. They evinced the most heroic virtue, and devoted their lives to a cause, which, if it were an imaginary one, renders them, in fact, the authors of their own sufferings and death. If we can believe that such men ever existed, yet can we take their writings as our guide – men whose love of falsehood was so great, beyond all precedent, that it overcame the common laws of our nature, and was pursued amidst persecutions, chains and death?

If I am told that the Anti-supernaturalist reads the Bible as he reads Seneca or any other work on morals, no one can object to his doing so; but on these grounds only he surely cannot call himself a Christian, any more than reading the Koran would make him a Mahometan. No; Chris

If we consider Jesus as an enthusiast, I know not how we can continue to look upon him as an enlightened teacher, as our guide to virtue and happiness. His character for wisdom, or even for sanity, must at once he conceded. If we say that Jesus did not pretend to divine gifts-he was "We must not after this pretend (as benevolenta philanthropist, who is now too much the prevailing mode) to

« AnteriorContinua »