Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

tianity is either a religion bearing the indelible stamp of eternal truth, or it is a tissue of falsehood and deceit. Whatever may be thought or concluded by biblical critics as to the genuineness of particular texts or parts of the Scriptures, the question whether the New Testament is or is not the revealed will of God, must be argued on general grounds, and cannot be affected by particular difficulties. The Christian religion has been, and is now, liable to corruption. This the firmest and most enlightened defenders of our faith are ever the readiest to allow. So the best gifts of heaven are capable of abuse from the weakness and wickedness of mankind, and God's "unspeakable gift" has been injured and misrepresented through the evil passions and ignorance of men. But if we do not doubt the existence of the sun because a passing cloud obscures his beams, neither let us doubt that the "sun of righteousness" will shine forth on the nations, through the clouds of error, infidelity and superstition, till the time shall at length arrive when "the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the

nions which a numerous portion of them do not in truth entertain; and I have heard it affirmed that the only point in which they are strictly unanimous is the personal unity of the Deity. This complaint, I cannot help thinking, is by no means justified in the extent to which it is carried; and, indeed, it sometimes has the appearance of shrinking from an accusation, though I do not mean to assert that such is the fact. In the first place, the doctrine on which they are said to agree is too indefinite as a mark of distinction, embracing in its application not only those who were usually considered as the disciples of Socinus, but also that denomination of Dissenters who profess the Arian tenets respecting the person of Christ. Since the term Socinian has been discarded, the class of Christians who believe solely in the human character of our Saviour, have, I believe, adopted no distinctive appellation; and though that of Humanitarian is occasionally employed, it does not appear to have been fixed upon as one by which they are desirous of being uniformly designated. Hence it has arisen that many assertions made generally respecting Unitarians, may, strictly speaking, be applicable only to the Arian part of that denomination. If this representation be correct, it shews the necessity of selecting some characteristic appellation by which both Arians and Trinitarians may address those whose principal tenet is the they with means of preventing simple humanity of our Lord. It much erroneous accusation on the one side, and much useless recrimination on the other.

earth as the waters cover the sea."

M.A. R.

On the Propriety of adopting some more distinctive Appellation among those who are usually styled Uni

tarians.

SIR,

December 10, 1824.

I'Unitarians,
T is a frequent complaint with

by their opponents with holding opi

select just what we happen to like in the gospel, and lay aside all the rest; to admit, for instance, the moral and precep tive part, and reject all those sublime doctrines which are peculiar to the gospel, and which form the wall of partition between Christianity and what is called Natural Religion. This is assuming a liberty and creating a distinction which no believer in the divine authority of our Lord can on any ground justify. Christ

delivered all his doctrines in the name of God. He required that all, without exception, should be received. He has given no man a license to adopt just as much or as little of them as he thinks

fit.

He has authorized no one human being to add thereto or diminish therefrom."-Porteus's Sermons, II. 314.

But still it may be said-and, if I mistake not, has been said-that many opinions are alleged to form part of the creed of the Humanitarians, for which the preachers and writers among that body are alone responsible. In reply to this, I would beg leave to ask,if we are not to look to the ministers of any religious sect, and to their public advocates, for a knowledge of their tenets and sentiments, to whom are we to have recourse for this information? If I am desirous of becoming acquainted with the principal doctrines now held by Particular Baptists, (for example,) I should conceive that I could not materially err

Mr. Lindsey, Dr. Priestley, Dr. Jebb and Mr. Belsham, contain nothing more than their own individual sentiments, still I should say, that they afford the only means of obtaining a knowledge of what their followers admit into their creed; and to works of this character ought the replies of the opposite party to be chiefly directed. I do not deny that some particular points of doctrine may be strictly peculiar to each of the writers I have alluded to; all I affirm is, that men of their eminence and acquirements may reasonably be regarded as the exponents of their party.

In the next place, I may be permitted to ask,-why, if this plea be considered as defensible in the case of Unitarians, it is not applicable to the writings of the learned in the Esta

by consulting the publications of Mr. Ivimey; or if I wish to ascertain the leading dogmas of the Gallican church during the reign of Louis XIV., I am surely justified in placing confidence in the theological works of the eloquent Bossuet. To this the Unitarian party will probably answer, that they have no subscriptions and no authoritative creeds to restrict the exercise of their faith; and that not only do they feel themselves perfectly at liberty to differ from their pastors, but that this difference in numerous cases actually exists. Still I contend that, in refuting what I conceive to be the erroneous sentiments of any sect, I have a right to assume that their chosen preachers and principal writers usually speak the sentiments of their followers. But, allowing the difference insisted upon to exist in its full-blished Church? Numerous doctrines est latitude, of what value, let me ask, can be the private opinions of the majority of the members of any religious, and I might add, of any political body? Comparatively but few can have investigated controversial topics with sufficient accuracy to be able to form a competent judgment on their respective merits, or at least such a judgment as will not be shaken by the arguments of some powerful opponent. Admitting that a variance subsists between the ininister and his congregation in some material points of their theological creed, whose opinion must we consider as entitled to superior deference-that of the man who has perhaps devoted his whole life to the examination of these speculative doctrines, and who must, generally speaking, be presumed to possess a greater share of learning thau his hearers; or the opinion of those whose education and commercial or professional employments precinde them from pursuing, with any effect, the requisite inquiries? This must obviously be the case with the mass of every society. Let their intelligence be what it will, the want of leisure, and, still more, the want of learning, must render them wholly unfit for so arduous an undertaking. It is only to the leading literary men of any religious society, and particularly to their writers of eminence, that we can resort with confidence for an exposition of their peculiar doctrines. If it be affirmed that the writings of

have been pronounced by Unitarians to be essential parts of the national creed, though, in point of fact, many members of our ecclesiastical Establishment, even among the clergy, openly profess to disbelieve them." I am quite aware that the Articles and Creeds of the Church will be adduced as sufficient indications of what its members either do, or, it may be said, ought in conscience to believe: but let it be recollected how various are the sentiments of orthodox divines respecting the nature of the subscription which is required from the clerical body. Some have viewed our Articles in no other light than as articles of peace, and among these we may name Archbishop Bramhall and Bishop Fowler. Others, like Archdeacon Paley, have thought it sufficient that the subscriber should fulfil the intention of the legislature by whom the subscription was enacted, without any obligation to believe every speculative doctrine which they may contain. A third class of writers require that these Articles and formularies of the Church should be assented to in their literal sense; while a fourth class may be instanced in those who coincide in sentiment with Archdeacon Powell, the learned Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, who was not merely a theologian of great erudition, but a rational and sound philosopher. In the second of his admirable Discourses published by Dr. Balguy, his language on this subject

is at once clear and decisive: "Whenever an Article," he observes, "is expressed in such general terms as will fairly contain several particular opinions, there, certainly, it is sufficient for him who subscribes to be convinced that some one of these opinions is true." In another page he remarks, "And therefore when an Article has been understood by good and learned interpreters in a sense neither the most obvious nor the most usual, he who assents to it is at liberty to follow their guidance, or to join himself to the multitude." This able writer then goes on to shew that "not only the propositions to which we assent, but the assent itself, may be differently understood." Towards the conclusion of the Discourse, he makes this observation: "Upon the whole it appears, that in the approbation we give of the established doctrines, there is much reasonable liberty; that we may understand them in any of those senses which the general words comprehend, or to which the received interpretation of these doctrines, or the judgment of able interpreters, have extended them; that we are not confined strictly even to this compass, but may allow our selves, if it seems necessary, to differ as much from former interpreters as they have done from each other; and, lastly, that there is room for various degrees of assent, according to the various ages and abilities of the subscribers." To the objection that such a degree of liberty must be liable to abuse, Dr. Powell justly replies, "And so are many moral rules, which are nevertheless both reasonable and use ful so are all the rules of civil liberty, which are yet of the greatest importance to the happiness of mankind." I must not omit to notice that this Discourse was delivered before the whole University, on the most public occasion in the academical year, when it not unfrequently happens that men high in office, and even cabinet ministers, form part of the learned audience.

I might likewise adduce, were it necessary, the authority of Dr. Hey, the late Norrisian professor at Cambridge, who is a decided advocate for considerable latitude in the assent which is required to our Articles. But even among those who contend

for the literal interpretation of them, we must not forget that opposite parties have strenuously maintained that their own explanation is the only one entitled to this character.

If it should be alleged that the heads of the Church are alone competent to determine any_diversity of sentiment on this point, I should reply in the forcible language of Dr. Paley, with whom I fully concur, that "the bishop who receives the subscription is not the imposer, any more than the crier of a court, who administers the oath to the jury and witnesses, is the person who imposes it; nor, consequently, is the private opinion or interpretation of the bishop of any signification to the subscriber, one way or other."

In

The consequence is, that on numerous theological questions—such as the nature of inspiration, original sin, the fall of man, and the atonement, to say nothing of the Trinitarian doctrine-there is almost as great a variety of opinion among members of the Church as among those who dissent from its communion, unaccompanied, however, by the evils which unavoidably arise from a multitude of independent and discordant sects. charging the Unitarians, therefore, with holding the opinions which are advocated by the preachers of their deliberate choice, and by their principal writers, we are only pursuing the same conduct which is sanctioned by the Dissenters themselves in their own practice respecting the Church. If numerous individuals among the former differ from their ministers and the ablest vindicators of their cause, the same may be said of the adherents to our ecclesiastical Establishment, who, in cases of this nature, do nothing more than exercise the liberty to which they are unquestionably entitled in the interpretation of their Articles of Religion-a liberty which was probably in the contemplation of the original framers of these Articles, and which was, at all events, requisite for the progressive improvement of succeeding ages.

I cannot conclude these remarks without again expressing a wish that those among the Unitarians who profess their belief in the simple humanity of Christ, would adopt some more specific appellation, which, while it

received the concurrent approbation of their own party, would obviate much of the evil of which they at present so loudly, though, in my opinion, so unreasonably, complain. CLERICUS CANTABRIGIENSIS.

SIR,

Knutsford,

November 27, 1824.

AFRIEND put into my hands a few days ago, a newspaper, containing a letter on Unitarian Chapels, by a writer who subscribes himself" Another Orthodox Dissenter." Much of the letter in question is in a style of invective, which, whatever may have been its effect on the minds of prejudiced and ill-informed individuals who have perused it, was fitted to make little impression on the intelligent and dispassionate reader. Under the influence of considerable misapprehension, as it would seem, with regard to Unitarians generally, the writer reflects on them in a highly invidious manner, as being, in a large number of instances, in the occupation of Chapels built and endowed by ancestors whose doctrinal sentiments were Trinitarian. I apprehend that no enlightened or liberal person will lend his sanction for a moment to a suggestion, however raised, that the lineal descendants or regular successors of the Presbyterian Dissenters, who as such are still recognized under that denomination by the Dissenting body in general, should be disturbed in their possession of the places of worship which have descended to them through several generations; or be reproached with it because, in their serious exercise of the right of private judgment, they have been gradually led to embrace views of Christian doctrine which they think more in agreement with the language of scripture, correctly interpreted, and more accordant with reason, than those which were entertained above a century ago by the founders of their Chapels. In the present age, such modes of opposition to what may be deemed error, are happily regarded as inappropriate by the enlightened part of the community. It seems now universally admitted, by men of enlarged and fiberal views, to be highly expedient for the interests

* The Manchester Gazette of Nov. 6th. VOL. XX.

E

of truth, that opinion should be allowed to make its own natural progress, free from obstruction; and it is certain that all such persons would utterly deprecate the idea that, in the present age, any class of Christians should be put to the slightest inconvenience or hardship, or be visited with the least obloquy, because, in the exercise of their unquestionable right to think for themselves, it is their fortune to think in certain respects differently from ancestors to whose piety they and their fathers have been indebted for some of their religious accommodations and advantages.

Unitarians to whom this description applies, will never be reluctant either to acknowledge their obligations to their Presbyterian ancestors, or to bear their testimony to the serious religious spirit with which a large proportion of them were deeply imbued. To which of the various principles existing in their minds in a certain state of combination, and forming the whole of their religious creed, the genuine piety and eminent Christian virtues which many of them possessed, are in justness to be ascribed as their cause, is a question not to be so hastily disposed of as a warm partisan might be apt to fancy; but is one which it is evident, to be satisfactorily determined, must be reserved for the decision of the exact and discriminating inquirer, the cool and accurate reasoner. An intelligent Unitarian would anticipate, from a proper examination of this point, a result any thing but derogatory to the character of those views of Christian doctrine to which he ascribes so much importance and efficacy, and which he accounts it his own highest happiness to entertain.

With regard to Unitarianism, I beg leave to observe, that it is a system of doctrine which directly bears with its whole weight and force on the production of religious and moral excellence. Of its power to sway the affections and establish an effectual controul over conduct-to bring these into subjection to all the benign and salutary influences of piety and virtue, wherever it exists not in mere ignorant or thoughtless profession, but in the clear and steady perception and settled convictions of the understand

cess,) may be due to the readers of
Unitarian intelligence in your pages.
It is possible, therefore, that, under
this impression, I may send a state-
ment relative to the Chapel at Allos-
tock for insertion in some future
number of the Monthly Repository.
J. ASHTON.

Brief Notes on the Bible.
No. XXV.

"In the beginning, God created the hea-
ven and the earth."-Gen. i. 1.

of the subject about to be very briefly immortalized in detail. It embraces, thus concisely, our whole visible creation, with other wonderful works, invisible to mortals-in fewer words, the solar system. It also seems to import that the entire system was willed into existence simultaneously.

Ver. 14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.

15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

ing-it is not easy to find language strong enough for adequate description. The serious Unitarian feels that there is in this glorious system of grace and truth," every consideration and motive to kindle in the heart the most lively interest, to call forth the most ardent and persevering zeal in the great cause of the religious and moral improvement of mankind. And very efficient exertions of Unitarian piety are not seldom carried on in a manner the most unobtrusive possible, without any of the parade of exhibition to catch the applause of men,HIS is a sublime compendium but under a deep, habitual sense of the inspection of the All-seeing. May I here have leave to observe, that your own recent pages, Sir, record acts of munificence, [Vol. XIX. p. 631,] having for their ultimate object the spiritual welfare of mankind by means of Unitarian agency, most cheering to the lover of his species, most grateful in the sight of God and man; of the source of which we are permitted to know nothing but what we learn from obvious inference, that they proceed from one who seeks his reward, not in the praises of men, but in the benefits he confers on them, and in the approbation of Him "who seeth in secret and will reward openly"? The letter to which I alluded in the beginning of my own, contains a list, in alphabetical order, of Unitarian Chapels in the county of Chester, with a short statement of particulars relative to each of them. In reading the statement concerning the Chapel at Allostock, which is in certain respects inaccurate, I was reminded that a debt of gratitude from those who are in occupation of the Chapel, still remained undischarged to some of our Unitarian friends for the assistance they afforded us in a subscription instituted for putting that place into a state of complete repair. I most gladly and gratefully make public acknowledgment of their liberality on that occasion, through the medium of your Repository. Perhaps an account of some particulars in the history of the Chapel at Allostock, (of which I am minister, in conjunction with the Unitarian Chapel at Knutsford,) and of very humble, but well-intended, exertions made in connexion with that place, (hitherto, from the character of the neighbourhood, with little suc

16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth;

18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.

Very probable, indeed, that God should have produced such immense and multitudinous bodies for the sole purpose of being tributary to the convenience and illustration of this comparatively insignificant planet!

This has been very frequently and flippantly said and reiterated.

But is it a fair construction of the language assumed to have such a tendency?

Moses appears to have known nothing of a solar system; and if any indistinct idea of it had entered his mind, the brevity with which he wrote precluded his adverting to any effects of it, except such as had relation to the globe he inhabited.

He says not that the heavenly bodies were created for no other purpose than to accommodate the earth.

« AnteriorContinua »