Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

( 257 )

MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. Belsham's Reply to the Animadversions of the Rev. Reginald Heber, in his Bampton Lectures.

SIR,

Ν

Essex House, May 1, 1816.

IN ancient days it was a subject of grave discussion among the fathers of the church, how it should happen that the Holy Spirit, who is the third person in the Trinity, of the same substance and equal in power and glory both with the Father and the Son, should be so little noticed in the New Testament, and that no act of worship, not even a single doxology, should be addressed to him. This controversy, however, unlike to many others, was, fortunately, soon set at rest, by the very natural suggestion, that the Holy Spirit being the author of the book, he could not, consistently with propriety and decorum, say much concerning himself, and especially in his own praise. Happily, however, for us, who live in these latter days, this deficiency in the sacred records is abundantly made up by the pious and learned lucubrations of the reverend Reginald Heber, M. A. and Rector of Hodney, who, in a series of discourses lately delivered before the University of Oxford, at the Bampton Lecture, has communicated all which it is necessary for orthodox Christians to know and believe concerning the Holy Spirit, and which, from discretion or other considerations, the Holy Spirit has not thought fit to reveal concerning himself.

In truth, Sir, it is so clearly the doctrine of the New Testament, that the Spirit of God is God himself, as the spirit of a man is a man himself, and this is so obvious to all who are but moderately acquainted with scripture phraseology, that to institute an inquiry, in the present advanced state of theological science, whether the Spirit of God is a third part of God, or a third person in the godhead, appears to be much the same as to inquire, whether the spirit of man is the third part of a man, or a third person

in the manhood.

This learned gentleman (for Mr. Reginald Heber is a very learned man, of which he has made an abundant display in his copious Notes, which would have stamped upon his work

an inestimable value, had they been accompanied with a reasonable share of judgment and candour,) amongst other novelties, has started a question, whether the body of Christ was raised

from the dead by his own divine nature, or by the operation of the Holy Spirit: and after discussing the subject with becoming gravity and diffidence, he decides in favour of the latter sup position. Now, Sir, this decision is so diametrically opposite to that of Paul, who positively declares in the Epistle to the Romans, that "Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father," that I cannot help suspecting that this learned gentleman may be a concealed Ebionite: a sect which did not hold that apostle's writings in the estimation to which they are entitled. And this suspicion would be greatly confirmed if it should appear that the learned lecturer, who is also said to be a great traveller, had extended his progress eastward as far as Palestine, where it is well known that this heretical sect flourished even in the age of the apostles. At any rate, I am sure you will allow that I have as good reason, upon the grounds which I have stated, to charge Mr. Heber, upon suspicion, of being an Ebionite, as he has to charge me with being an unbeliever, because I agree with the Theophilanthropists that the love of God and our neighbour is the sum and substance of religion, while, at the same time, I expressly condemn that novel and ephemeral sect, for having abandoned the Christian revela

* "I am well aware," says the learned lecturer, p. 272, "of the reasonable doubt which may exist, whether the spirit whereby Christ, according to St. Peter, was raised from the dead, be the third. person in the Trinity, or our Lord's own immortal nature. But it may be thought, perhaps without impropriety, that the awful Being whom, on this occasion, St. Matthew calls, not an angel simply, but the Angel of the Lord, who with might throes of labouring nature, to bring back and glorious majesty descended, amid the the Saviour from bis tomb was, in truth, the same everlasting Spirit who had announced to the Virgin-Mother the chas racter and name of her Son," &c. Does the learned lecturer dignify such trifling with the name of argument?

[ocr errors]

258

Mr. Belsham's Reply to the Animadversions of the Rev. Reginald Heber.

tion which is the only foundation of our immortal hopes.*

own, reluctant recantation. For I can assure them, that no personal disrespect was intended to that learned and liberal prelate by placing him in the highest rank of enlightened Christian divines.

"Had Dr. Shipley's faith been inconsistent with that of the church to which he belonged, those who knew his utter disregard of worldly interest and his characteristic frankness of character, know that he would not have retained his preferment a single hour."

But passing over these baby-controversies, which are only fit for those who have need of milk, and who are not able to bear strong meat, I proceed to the main business of my epistle, which The learned lecturer, not content is to explain and apologize for an er- with advocating Bishop Shipley's or roneous representation which I have thodoxy, in confutation of my sup been understood to have made of the posed erroneous statement, prompted late Bishop Shipley's sentiments con- by his overflowing zeal, travels a little cerning the person of Christ in my out of his record and volunteers an Letters to the Bishop of London. I assertion which, if I am not mistaken, did indeed conceive, by what I had many of the prelate's friends will not heard from my friends Mr. Lindsey deem to be either necessary or prudent:. and Dr. Priestley, that their friend the I will cite his own words, p. 121:Bishop of St. Asaph, had been an Unitarian like themselves. I misunderstood them. I am now informed, from very high authority, that Bishop Shipley was an Arian, similar in his principles to his learned friends, Dr. Price and Sir William Jones. I regret to place the venerable prelate a degree lower in the scale of theological excellence than that to which I once believed him to be entitled. He is, indeed, still in very good company. But, like David's worthies of the second order, he does not reach the high pre-eminence of Lindsey, Lardner, Priestley and Law. I hope, however, that I have now done theological justice to the memory of Bishop Shipley: and that those whose feelings were hurt at his being classed with Unitarians, will accept of my public, and, I

"I wish," says this charitable writer, p. 290, "that he (Mr. B.) had not, in a note to p. 168 of his Review of

Mr. Wilberforce, given us too good reason to apprehend that his private notions of Christianity are of a kind very faintly distinguished from Deism." The passage

alluded to in the Review of Mr. W. is as

follows: "Their professed principles coxprehend the essence of the Christian religion: But not admitting the resurrection of Christ the Theophilanthropists deprive themselves of the only solid ground on which to build the hope of a future exist ence." With this passage before his eyes and quoting the former part of it, Mr. Heber presumes to represent me as an nabeliever in the Christian revelation! and affects to wonder at my expostulation with the Bishop of London for charging the Unitarians with being Deists in their hearts! Can that be the cause of truth zhd honour which requires such gross and pipable misrepresentations in its de

fence?

This paragraph will excite a smile in many of the readers of Mr. Heber's elaborate performance, and by many will be regarded as the eccentric flight of a juvenile imagination, more conversant with books than with the world. This gentleman talks of a bishop's resignation of his mitre as if it were an every-day exploit. I recollect, indeed, that Chrysostom states, that no man is worthy of the office of a bishop, who is not prepared to resign it whenever duty calls. But Chrysostom wrote fourteen centuries ago, and both he and his doctrine are become completely obsolete. A bishop resign his office for conscience sake!! Mr. Heber, Sir, I am told, is a young

man.

He is but entering the lists, as a candidate for ecclesiastical prefer-. When he becomes a bishop himself he will know better.

ment.

Mr. Heber charges me, p. 289, as taxing Bishop Horsley with insincerity, because I have said in my Review of Mr. Wilberforce, "I strongly sus pect that the prelate of Rochester would smile at the honest simplicity of the member for Yorkshire, in supposing that a sincere faith in creeds and homilies is at all necessary to the permanent prosperity of a national church." I deny that the learned gentleman's inference can be fairly drawn from the premises. For has not Popery stood for ages though popes and cardinals have been notoriously unbelievers? But to say the truth, though I desire to exercise that charity, in its

Mr. Belsham's Reply to the Animadversions of the Rev. Reginald Hiber. 259

fullest extent, which hopeth all things and believeth all things, I do confess that my charity is strained to its utmost limit when it is required to believe, that one learned and highly celebrated prelate is sincere when he maintains, that the Father begot the Son by contemplating his own perfections: and that another can be quite in earnest when he contends, that three non-entities make a perfect Being. When one is reduced to the hard alternative of believing that a divine of the highest order in the church is either or, which of the sides of this distressing dilemma would Mr. Heber advise a friend to choose?

One word more, Sir, and I have done. There are "Christian advocates" at Cambridge, "Bampton Lec"turers" at Oxford, and "Senior Fellows" at Dublin, not to mention a herd of Reviewers in their train, who all with one accord write and preach and publish against me and my works, and who take infinite pains to convince the public that neither the one or the other are worthy of notice. "From none of my numerous opponents do I meet with quarter, and scarcely with common civility, except from my worthy friend, professor Kidd, of Aberdeen; who does not represent me as altogether void of common sense, though I am unable to comprehend his super-sublime demonstration of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, Sir, as an overweening vanity will extract nutriment even from what was intended as its bane, and as I once knew a bad poet console himself for the lampoons which were made upon his wretched verses, by observing that even Homer had his Zoilus," so though I desire to keep myself as humble as my adversaries themselves endeavour to make me, yet unluckily this for'midable combination against me operates, I know not how, as a temptation to think more highly of myself than I ought to think. For when I see that no less than four of our Universities, are discharging their tremendous artilfery through their respective organs, against an insulated, unsheltered, unpatronized, untitled individual like myself, under sidus Oldies, I am vain enough to conclude that my humble efforts for the restoration of primitive doctrine are not quite, so inefficient as my zealous opponents would have it believed. And to say the truth, if

these learned gentlemen thought of
me as they profess to do, and as I
think of them, they would surely act
by me as I do by them, and would
give themselves no sort of concern
either about me or my works.
I am, Sir, &c.

T. BELSHAM.
P. S. The learned lecturer, who is
ever ready to charge the Unitarians
with that inaccuracy of which he him-
self exhibits many conspicuous exam-
ples, accuses me note p. 121. of repre-
senting Archdeacon Blackburne, as an
Unitarian. This charge I distinctly
deny. I have a better opportunity of
knowing what that venerable dignita-
ry's sentiments really were than Mr.
Heber can possibly have: for I am in
possession of his confidential corres-
pondence: they were not Calvinistic.
But whatever his theological senti-
ments were, Archdeacon Blackburne,
was a man of a truly honourable
mind. Entitled by talent and learn-
ing, and warranted by connexion, to
look up to the highest preferment
which the chuch has to bestow, he
refused to accept of any benefice
which made it necessary for him to
renew his subscription to the thirty-
nine articles. For which he was
blamed by some who thought as free-
ly as himself, but who possessed more
of the wisdom of this world: who
loved truth well, but preferment bet-
ter. But this venerable man did not
think it necessary to relinquish his
moderate preferment in the church
notwithstanding the change in his
theological opinions, because he re-
garded it as a station of more extensive
usefulness than any which he could
occupy among the Dissenters. And
he was offended with those of his
family who thought and acted upon a
different principle.

It seems that now in the nineteenth century it is great offence to hazard a doubt concerning the entire assent of any learned divine to every proposition contained in the articles which he subscribes: which assent, according to Archdeacon Paley it would be most unreasonable to expect or to demand. In the better times of Clarke, and Hoadley, and Sykes, and Jortin, a libe

"This zealous partizan," says Mr. Heber, p. 121, speaking of Archdeacon Blackburne, was not only a Trinitarian but a Calvinist."

260

Letter to a Friend on the Atonement.

ral interpretation of these numerous and complex propositions was not deemed a disgrace: and it was even thought to be countenanced by the "articles themselves, which require that nothing should be insisted upon as an article of faith which cannot be proved by the holy scriptures. And many in those days were not ashamed to avow the principle, " that an unity of spirit in the bond of peace," was of far greater value than an unity of faith in the bond of ignorance, or an unity of profession in the bond of hypocrisy." In our days the case is altered and we are now bound to believe that every clergyman who subscribes the articles, assents to every proposition contained in them: and that to hint the contrary is both "false and injurious."

Letter to a Friend on the Atonement.

[Communicated from Ireland.] DEAR SIR, March, 1816.

INTEND answer

at some

I length the note which you were se

obliging as to send me with Sande'man's Letters and Walker's Address, for I presume you wish that I should give you my opinion of these writers.

You say you do not subscribe to all the sentiments of Sandeman. He certainly goes a strange length in describing the corruption of man, particularly where he maintains, that" as to the matter of acceptance with God, there is no difference between one man and another," for instance "between the most revered judge, and the most odious criminal," &c. Yet in his reply to Hervey, and others whom he calls popular preachers, he argues with candour, and he shews that they are not true to their own principles. In general, I think he proves that a moderate Calvinist is an inconsistent characAer. Mr. Walker also appears to me to have an evident advantage over those with whom he reasons; for they concede to him what is a sufficient ground work for his entire theory, and he knows well how to profit by their concession. Put the remark which I make upon him and his opponents is, that they both build upon a wrong principle, which has no foundation in the gospel.

This principle, common to both parties, is the doctrine of the atonement, which leads necessarily to the opinion,

that the favour of God depends on acircumstance entirely independent on the will of man. But the Arminians, opposed to Walker, contend notwithstanding, that man has a free-will, and that he is here in a state of trial; for which opinions they quote the whole body of scripture, and they are quite shocked at the opposite suppositions. Walker, in his various writings, shews that they maintain these opinions in opposition to the principle of atonement. He asks them in substance, with much reason,-As you not merely admit but strenuously maintain that the sins of men are forgiven, and that they are accounted just before God, only for the sake of the atonement made by Christ, how can you in the next breath attribute these effects to a different cause? If works be a necessary condition of God's favour, where is the necessity for the atonement? Must the infinite atonement made to God by a part of himself be abortive, unless it be aided by the puny efforts of miserable man? Can such a costly atonement be necessary or suitable, to render our good works acceptable, or to enable a man to atone for himself? Can it be in the power of any man to reverse the councils and decrees of God with respect to himself, the most important of which must relate to the atonement? In answer to these questions, Arminians appeal to scripture and reason for the freedom of man's will, leaving the principle of atonement to shift for itself.

But neither do Walker and his party abide by the fair consequences from this doctrine of atonement, as may be seen in a few instances. For if God has atoned for mankind to a part of himself by an infinite sacrifice, why should the benefit of this infinite sacri fice be restricted to a few persons, who have no more free-will to please him, than those have from whom the benefit is withheld? Calvinists dispose of this question arbitrarily, not regarding their own description of the atonement as infinite, nor the justice and goodness of God, whose essence is love, and who is no respecter of persons. The case of the potter, to which we are often referred, can relate only to the various conditions of men in this world. There are other questions, in answer to which Walker will hesitate to do full justice to the doctrine of the atonement. If it be pride in man to suppose that any

Letter to a Friend on the Atonement.

of his works can have the slightest effect to propitiate the Deity, and if such a notion shews farther his want of faith in the atonement, would it not be the safest plan to renounce all good works whatsoever, both in profession and practice? Do not these men prove that they have not much faith in the atonement, who spend their lives in making converts to this doctrine, that is, in presuming to help in his work the omnipotent God? How can Walker insist on the all-sufficiency of the atonement, and consequently maintain that there is no condition required for justification, while he insists on faith as the one thing needful, by which he means, an accepting of Christ as a proxy, or an apprehended exchange with him of our vices for his merits? While he maintains literally that it is given to some men exclusively to believe in such an exchange, his preaching must appear a mockery. One of the great objects of the gospel, he says, is to humble the pride of man, by convincing him that the atonement is all-sufficient, and that the intrusion of his own works in any form is impertinent; but what is so much calculated to defeat this object, and to puff men up with spiritual pride, as the notions that they are the favourites and Elect of God, and that all who oppose them are Reprobates?

Both Calvinists and Arminians have always been involved in inconsistencies by their faith in the atonement; still they are alike fearful lest their faith in it might be questioned, for notwithstanding their mutual jealousies, they have always agreed to brand those persons with the name of infidels, who do not believe in it implicitly. Here I may be permitted to say, that those men are much better entitled to this name, who repose implicit faith in mysteries. A sincere Christian who values rightly his Christian liberty, will think it is incumbent on him to prove this doctrine, to analyze it, and view it on all sides, without prejudice, influenced only by a regard for truth. Such a severe examination will probably be censured as irreverent, even by men who scruple not to decide, with great confidence, that the substance of God is complicated, and his councils partial; but before they can convict us of profaneness for questioning their decisions, they must prove them to be sacred and self-evident truths; whereas nothing

[blocks in formation]

261

seems wanting to prove them to be extravagant fictions, most disparaging to the Divine Nature, but a simple and accurate detail of them. I shall at tempt to give such a detail in the fewest words possible.

In consequence of the foreknowledge that the wiles of Satan would prevail over man in paradise, God, for the first time, found himself under a necessity of dividing himself, or of being divided into three, distinct, co-equal, almighty Persons, all of the same substance. These three Persons, being still but one God, held a council on the subsequent state of man; upon which occasion, the first Person expressed infinite wrath at the foresight of man's transgression, the natural effect of which wrath, if uncontrolled in all cases, would be most grievous torments, in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire, for ever, to Adam and Eve and all their posterity. The crime for which Adam's posterity was to suffer in this manner, is called original sin, which means literally, the sin of men before they existed. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, their offspring by this act was guilty of so henious a sin, that all men, women and children who have ever existed, with a trifling exception, and the greater part of men who are still to be born must be punished for it with endless torments, by the first Person, to the praise of his glorious justice. No alteration for the better or worse can be effected in their destiny by their works, good or bad,-to hell they must go without a possibility of redemption. All men, without any exception, would go the same road, if a few of these delinquents did not experience unconditional favour and reward, to the praise of God's glorious grace. Reprobates, as they are called, are here tempted to ask, as all the de scendants of Adam are equally guilty of his crime, why should such a distinction be made between them, as that a few should be made eternally happy, independent of their works, and all the rest eternally miserable? For this distinction, the reason assigned is the sovereign will and pleasure of God, not of the first Person, nor of the majority, but of the second Person alone; for though they are all One in Deity and substance, still they differ widely in their dispositions, and in their ideas of justice and mercy. The second part of the substance of God did

« AnteriorContinua »