Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

gards the authority of God, can never subserve the happiness of man."

We have just seen another production of this eminent scholar and orator, which, though in some parts eloquent and edifying, is, in general, far from doing him equal credit by its spirit and purpose. We allude to his sermon, preached at New York, the 2d ult., on the occasion of resigning his charge of his congregation. Were not the sermon printed and published, we should not, perhaps, feel ourselves entitled to notice it thus; it might pass unmolested as one of the effusions of a paroxysm of zeal, escaped in the heat of pulpit exercise, and wil. lingly left only in the memory of a devoted congregation. The references to the Unitarians, which are made in this vehement discourse, furnish some of the most revolting samples which we have seen, of theological rancour in the preseut day. They are expressed in the strongest language of execration, and betray the utmost intensity of a hate like that described in the following phrase of Cicero -odium immane et crudele barbarorum in hostem. If we could suppose the language of the preacher the true criterion of his disposition towards the religious denomination whom he assails-that his anathemas are those of the heart as well as of the tongue, we should deem this an opportunity to express comfort and joy, that the age of auto da fes is passed away, and that the clergy have it no longer in their power to wreak their resentment of what they deem heresy, by torturing the body and destroying the life, as well as blasting the reputation of the obnoxious. We belong, ourselves, to a church whose tenets are very different from those of the class of Christiaus whom Dr. Mason reviles and curses; and in signifying our horror of his furious denunciations, we must not, therefore, be supposed to be acting in our own defence. It is our good fortune, however, to be acquainted with several of that class, persons of the most estimable character, for whom we ought to feel as much nearly as we would for ourselves, when we see hurled against them a sentence of proscription and perdition, such as the following:

"Above all things it is devoutly to be hoped, that you will never invite to the 'care of your souls,' a man who cares nothing about them. I mean, more particularly, for I would not be misunderstood, a man who belongs to that rank of traitors who miscall themselves " rational Christians.' Against these men I have ever warned you, as the enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, and all that is valuable in his religion and peculiar in

his salvation. I know well that this congregation is considered by them as the very focus of what they term bigotry; and I do rejoice that thus far I and you have been counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. Long may it continue so ! Long may it be thought a hopeless case to attempt to bring you over to the fellowship of devils. Though I would not slander the devil: he promotes his work, as the destroyer, not by tempting men to his belief, but by persuading them to embrace what he does not believe—what is too coarse and abominable for hell itself; and what the philosophical Christians shall find to be so, when they get to their own place. The pretences of these men to kindness and candour and love, are all hollow. They mean to make proselytes of you, and two-fold more the children of hell than themselves. O keep at a distance from them! Furthest from them, and their charity, is best. Come not near their ice, never to be melted but in that fire which shall not be quenched. This pulpit, this church, were destined to the glory of the Lord Jesus. Let them never be polluted by a foot, nor profaned by a tongue, which are not moved by his honour."

This is the strain of fierce and odious passion. We can no more admire the Reverend President uttering it from the pulpit, than we could have admired Sir Edward Coke, when he called Sir Walter Raleigh, "viper, monster, spider of hell, vile and execrable traitor, odious fellow, and damnable Atheist." It appears to us as repugnant to the true ends of Christianity, as it is to the genius of our political and social systems. Among the "rational Christians," whom the President had in view, we know one that, in universal rectitude of conduct, in practical virtue, in benevolence of heart, in the earnestness, variety and success of his efforts for the relief of the unfortunate, and the promotion of every liberal and laudable purpose, has at least no superior in the United States. The country at large knows another in the present Chaplain of the House of Representatives at Washington, as a man of great learning and talents, admired and esteemed for his domestic merits, as well as for his public qualities.

We cite these instances from among the many that may be adduced, to illustrate the extravagance and injustice of the language which we have quoted. We do not meddle with polemical divinity; we have no idea of interfering in religious controversies on points of faithbut we feel that when one denomination of Christiaus, or any association of persons styling themselves such, lead, in

Dr. Watts on the Word and Spirit of God.

general, lives as useful and moral as the best of the community, they ought to be deemed sincere in their interpretation of the Bible, and that no member of any other denomination has a right to hold them up to the world as the worst of reprobates. Such intolerance and uncharitableness cannot fail to be condemned by public opinion, and richly deserve to be signalized for rebuke and repudiation. The example of a spirit like that which is breathed in this Sermon, is bad. It may be more common than we suppose; it may have been further provoked than we imagine; but when it is vented in this manner, it can only exasperate blind animosities and serve to bring the religious character into disrepute.

SIR,

Torquay, 1822.

T appears to me that the more we

rian doctrine, and the origin of its several particulars, the more we shall be convinced that it amounts to this: that the word and spirit of God, as spoken of in the Scriptures, are not distinct persons, or conscious minds, from the Father, but merely certain powers inherent in his divine, self-existent nature. Wherever this is fairly admitted, there is no real doctrine of a Trinity left, and though some clouds may still lower round the mind, yet in effect the person is become a Unitarian. From a sense of the importance of this point, I am induced to send you some extracts from Watts, a name truly illustrious; which for learning, piety and candour, has scarcely been outshone since the Reformation. The passages which I quote are from the work entitled, "The Arian invited to the Orthodox Faith: Part II. ;" and it may afford satisfaction to some of your readers, who have not Watts's Works in their hands, to see how clearly he main tains the great Unitarian principle above-mentioned.

In the Preface the author observes, "Such as know little of these disputes, and have never ventured to read any thing but the writers of their own side, generally imagine that all things in their own particular scheme are as clear as the light; and they are too ready to impute all the doubts or difficulties that are raised on these subjects to the want of a due regard for truth."-" Perhaps it may be charged upon me, that I have not in

407

these Dissertations exactly confined myself, in every punctilio, to the saine sentiments which I had published some years ago, with relation to the doctrine of the Trinity; and particularly, that though I continue to Son and Spirit, yet that I have exmaintain the supreme Deity of the pressed the doctrine of their personality in stronger and more unlimited terms heretofore than I have done in these papers. Here let me first give one general answer. When I apply myself with diligence to make further inquiries into the great doctrines of the Gospel, I would never make my own former opinions the standard of truth, and the rule by which to determine my future judgment. My work is always to lay the Bible before me,

guide, and to square and adjust all my sentiments to that certain and unerring rule. It is to this supreme judge of controversies that I pay an unreserved submission, and would derive all further light from this fountain. I thank God, that I have learned to retract my former sentiments, and change them when, upon stricter search and review, they appear less agreeable to the divine standard of faith."-“I think it proper to acknowledge, that I was at that time inclined to suppose these personal representations in Scripture, especially so far as relates to the blessed Spirit, were really to be understood in a more proper and literal sense than I now find necessary; and on that account I did then express the doctrine of three persons or three distinct intelligent agents, in terms a little stronger and more unlimited than my judgment now approves. For since that time I have more carefully considered the Jewish idioms of speech, wherein powers, virtues and properties are frequently personalized, or represented in a personal manner."

So much from the Preface: we afterwards read as follows:

"The great and blessed God, considered in his own nature, is far superior to all our thoughts, and exalted high above our most raised apprehensions. And because we are not capable of taking in heavenly ideas in their own sublimest nature, God has been pleased to teach us the heavenly things that relate to himself, in earthly lan

guage; and by way of analogy to creatures he has let us know something what God is.

66

Among all the creatures that come within the reach of our common and obvious cognizance, human nature is the most perfect; and, therefore, it has pleased the great and glorious God, by resemblances drawn from ourselves, to accommodate the descriptions of himself to our capacities. When he speaks of his own nature in the language of men, he often uses the names of human parts, and members, and faculties, to represent his own properties and actions thereby, that he may bring them within the notice of the lowest capacity and the meanest understanding among the children of men. Therefore he speaks of his face, to signify the discovery of himself; his eyes to describe his knowledge; his heart to describe his thoughts; his hand and arm to signify his power and activity; and his mouth to denote his resolutions or revelations.

“But since in the composition of human nature there are two distinct parts, a soul and a body, and the soul is much the nobler and more exalted principle, it has also pleased God to rise above corporeal images, and to describe himself, his attributes, properties, power and operations by way of analogy to a human soul. We know by our own consciousness, or by an inward inspection into ourselves, that our soul or spirit is a being which has understanding, and will, thoughts, inclinations, knowledge, desires and various powers to move the body. Therefore our Saviour has told us, God is a spirit, and the brightest and sublimest representations of God in Scripture, are such as bear an analogy and resemblance to the soul of man, or a spiritual, thinking nature.

"As the chief faculties of our souls are the mind and will, or rather a power of knowing, and a power of acting, so God seems to have revealed himself to us as endued with two divine faculties, his word or wisdom, and his spirit or efficient power. It is by this word and this spirit, that he is represented in Scripture as managing the great concerns of the creation, providence, redemption and salvation: and these three, viz., God the Father, his Word and his Spirit, are held forth

[ocr errors]

to us in Scripture as one God, even as the soul of man, his mind and his will, are one spiritual being. Since reason and Scripture agree to teach us the nature of God, and inform us who and what God is by this analogy, I think in our inquiries on this sacred subject, we ought to follow this analogy so far as reason and Scripture allow us. Now it is evident that a human soul, in its nature, is one cons scious mind; and it is utterly inconsistent with the nature of it to have two or three distinct conscious principles, or natures, in it, that is, to include two or three different conscious beings; and since we are told that God is one, and God is a spirit, it would be something strange if we must believe that God is two or three spirits."-"If there be some distinctions or differences in the Divine nature, greater than that of relations, modes or attributes, and less than that of substances, I know not what name to give it better than that of divine powers. Let us therefore suppose the great and blessed God to be one infinite spirit, one conscious being, who possesses real, distinct or differ. ent powers, which in sacred language are called the Word and the Spirit. And though this difference or distinction be not so great as to allow of different consciousnesses, or to make distinct spirits, yet these two powers may be represented in Scripture in a figurative manner, under distinct personal characters.”

"May not the human mind and the will be represented in a personal manner, or as distinct personal agents, at least by a figurative way of speaking, though they are but two powers of the same soul? May I not use such language as this: My mind has laboured hard to find out such a difficulty; my will is resolutely bent to pursue such a course'? And many other common expressions there are of the same nature, wherein the mind and will are still more evidently and plainly represented as persons.

"And since human powers are thus represented as persons, why may not the word and the spirit, which are divine powers, be thus represented also? And why may not God be represented as a person transacting his own divine affairs with his Word and his Spirit under personal characters,

Dr. Watts on the Word and Spirit of God.

since a man is often represented as transacting human affairs with his understanding, mind, will, reason, fancy, or conscience, in a personal manner?" "With respect to the term person, since neither scripture itself applies it to the Word or Spirit, nor the elder nor later writers of the church have confined themselves to the use of this term, I can see no necessity of the confinement of ourselves or others to it, when we are speaking of the pure distinctions in the Divine nature. And when we are endeavouring to explain them in a rational manner, and to form and adjust our clearest ideas of them, I think we may use the term, divine properties, or rather divine powers, for this end. Perhaps this word, powers, comes nearest to the genuine ideas of things, so far as we can apply human words to divine ideas, and this word, powers, makes the distinction greater than properties, and I think it is so much the better. But we have several precedents for the use of both these terms among the ancient writers."

"The divine Logos seems to be represented, both in scripture and in the primitive writers, as much distinct from the Father as the same essence admits of, or as distinct as may be, without being another conscious mind. Now this seems to be something more than a mere attribute; and therefore I call the Logos a divine power; imitating herein both the ancient Jews and the primitive fathers, who call him frequently, Zopia and Novs, and Avvaus Oe8, and particularly Clemens Alexandrinus, who makes him Пarpin τις ενεργεια. But since God and his co-essential Word do not seem to have two distinct consciousnesses, or to be two conscious minds; this eternal Logos can hardly be called a person, in the common and literal sense of the term, as a distinct man or angel, but only in figurative and metaphorical language.'

99

"The Spirit seems to be another divine power, which may be called the power of efficience; and although it is sometimes described in scripture as a personal agent, after the manner of Jewish and eastern writers, yet if we put all the scriptures relating to this subject together, and view them in a correspondent light, the Spirit of

[blocks in formation]

409

God does not seem to be described as a distinct Spirit from the Father, or as another conscious mind, but as an eternal, essential power, belonging to the Father, whereby all things are effected.”

"Thus it appears, that, as outward speech and breath are powers of the human body, as reason and vital activity or efficience are powers of the human soul, so the great God in scripture has revealed himself to us as a glorious Being, who has two eternal, essential, divine powers, which, in condescension to our weakness, he is pleased to describe by way of analogy to our souls and bodies; and this he doth by the terms Aoyos and Пvεvμa in Greek, and in English, Word and Spirit."

Thus we see that, in the judgment of this great man, the Word and Spirit are not properly to be regarded as persons, but rather as powers belonging to the Divine nature. The way in which he explains and illustrates this point, is highly interesting and instructive, nor could a Unitarian wish to see his own characteristic opinions more justly stated. Yet we should hesitate to say that at this time Watts was a Unitarian; for though we have seen that he had the root of the matter in him, yet he had not as yet put forth the characteristic branches. At this time he held the strange opinion that the human soul of Christ pre-existed, and was employed by God in the creation of the world, and he likewise approved of the religious worship of Christ as the Mediator, with other inconsistencies, which we have good reason to believe he afterwards abandoned. Nothing can be plainer than that the doctrine contained in the foregoing extracts, cuts at the very root of every branch of the Trinitarian scheme and worship, and must, if admitted, bring the whole of that luxuriant growth defenceless to the ground.

EUELPIS.

P. S. Allow me particularly to recommend that work of Watts's from which I have made the above extracts, to the attention of your readers. It is fraught with learning and interesting remarks.

SIR,

HERE subjects of greater

ance, will render it difficult or impos sible to reconcile.

Let us distinctly understand why a

Timperare few the general inter- Society of Christians, is formed for

ests of the Dissenting body, than the Deeds of Trust by which their several places of worship are held. Few subjects are, however, less understood, or less inquired into. In fact, the usual course has been to confide the preparation of the instrument to an attorney, as a piece of routine; and, it being once "signed, sealed and delivered" in due legal form, to consign it to the custody of some faithful Trustee, there to abide in undisturbed seclusion until his death imposes on his heirs the task of searching among his papers; and it has been brought again to light just in time to be renewed, before the last of those who were invested with the power of renewing it had followed his brethren to the grave

As a mere security for the tenure of our chapels, then, it is highly important that this subject should be looked into; but in another view it appears to me of no less importance, and I am anxious to draw the attention of Unitarian Dissenters in this direction at the present moment, because the increase of their numbers is multiplying the number of congregations in various parts of the kingdom; and new buildings are consequently rising up for their accommodation.

Hitherto a great error has been committed, by confounding in the same instrument the tenure in the building and the constitution of the Society assembling therein. Where the building is held in trust for the Society, this is sufficiently objectionable; because a power is conferred on the Trustees, which is in a great measure permanent and irresponsible; and frequently interferes with the free exercise of their judgment by the Society at large, with respect to such concerns as should be altogether subject to their regulation or choice. But where the building is the property of individuals, whether they form a part of the congregation or not, the objections become infinitely more formidable; inasmuch as differences may arise which the jealousy, so easily excited between interests obviously separate, and probably supposed to be at vari

public worship. Is it not that the members, being agreed in their “mode of faith," consider it for their mutual convenience and improvement to assemble together under the guidance of a common pastor? This argues no necessary connexion with a particular edifice. They may assemble on the high-ways, as the first Christians did; they may use one building this year, and another the next. But a constitution-fixed principles for the regulation of their concerns, and acknowledged by all the members-is essentially necessary to the well-being of every Society; and no religious Society should exist, nor indeed can be said to exist as a Society, without it.

It will not, however, be questioned, that a building set apart for the use of such a body must greatly contribute to their comfort and convenience; that, in other words, it may be subservient to the object for which the Society was formed. It is therefore highly desirable, that every such Society should enjoy the benefit, when it can be obtained without sacrificing superior considerations. But if some of the Trust Deeds are examined, it will be found that this secondary object, this matter of convenience, has assumed the place of the first; that the affairs of religion, as a congregational concern, are absolutely supplanted by an anxiety that the property in the building shall not be alienated. Thus, in one place, the choice of the minister is altogether in the hands of the Trustees; in another, the members of the congregation are not permitted to exercise a choice until the proprietors have agreed to recommend, and other restrictions are devised, by which some or all of the congregation are prohibited from enjoying any substantial right of membership beyond those of attending publie worship, and contributing towards its support.

To say nothing at the present moment of the prejudicial effects which must ensue from such a system as this, on the zeal, or, when any cause for excitement occurs, on the temper

« AnteriorContinuar »