Transcribed from the 1846 William Pickering edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org
CHRISTIAN SECTS IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS
TO A LADY
[Picture: Decorative graphic]
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye
have love one to another.”—JOHN xiii. 35.
[Picture: Decorative graphic]
LONDON
WILLIAM PICKERING
1846
* * * * *
“Heaven and Hell are not more distant, than the benevolent spirit of
the Gospel, and the malignant spirit of party. The most impious wars
ever made were called—‘Holy Wars.’”
LYTTLETON.
“Let those ill-invented terms whereby we have been distinguished from
each other be swallowed up in that name which will lead us hand in
hand to heaven—the name of CHRISTIAN.”
BISHOP RYDER.
[Picture: Decorative header]
The following letters grew out of a conversation between one of the
editors of the “Small Books,” and a lady of his acquaintance; and as
there are probably many who have felt the want of the information they
contain, it has been thought that by publishing them in a collected form
they may be useful. The views of the writer are sufficiently explained
in the letters themselves. All lament the small sum of Christian charity
to be found among religionists in general, but few when they begin to
write have kept clear of a severity of comment which but prolongs
differences. The writer, himself a member of the Church of England, is
anxious to show that it is possible to be attached to one persuasion
without imputing either folly or ill intention to others; and it is with
a view of promoting the loving fellowship of all whom God disdains not to
create and support, that this slight sketch is given to the world.
[Picture: Decorative graphic]
LETTER I.
You some time ago requested me to give you the result of my inquiries
into the tenets of the different religious sects which I had been
acquainted with; and respecting which we had at different times
conversed. In the time which has since elapsed I have been endeavouring,
both to ascertain them more completely, and to compare them with what I
conceive to be the true spirit of Christianity; but the subject has so
grown as I proceeded, that even now I can only give you a very short, and
I fear, in some cases, an imperfect notion of them. Yet the subject is
one of deep interest; and as I feel convinced that if we looked a little
closer into the differences between the established church and those who
separate from it, both parties would find them smaller and less important
than they imagine, and that Christian charity would be increased by the
examination, I do not shrink from the task however inadequately I may
execute it.
I propose therefore to show you by extracts from the works of the
principal writers among the different religious sects, how they all agree
in most of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; at the same time
that I point out the evil consequences which I conceive would ensue were
some of their tenets _fully carried out_ into practice: and also to state
wherein their peculiar opinions appear to me to be opposed to “the truth
as it is in Christ Jesus,” so far as to prevent me from adopting them;
though I can fully believe that those who hold these opinions in the
abstract, may, notwithstanding, be excellent practical Christians.
Firmly attached as I am to the Church of England, whose form of worship
(allowing for the imperfections which naturally cling to all human
institutions), I consider preferable to any other; I can still see much
to admire in other persuasions and other ceremonies, mixed up, though it
be, with some imperfections and error; and my love to the established
church does not blind me to some matters which might be better otherwise,
and which I shall point out as I proceed.
“Of all the Christian graces,” says a quaint writer, “zeal is the most
apt to turn sour;” and the observation is no less true than it is sad,
for men too seldom remember that they must add to their faith knowledge,
and that both are of no avail without the crowning gift of charity, {3}
or in other words, brotherly love for all mankind. The real Christian,
it seems to me, should imitate the liberality of St. Paul, who, after
having been bred up in the habits of the “strictest sect” of the Jews,
scrupled not to quit all his former prejudices, in order to preach Christ
to the Gentiles, without disgusting them by ceremonies which were no
fundamental part of the religion he taught, and was content to become “as
a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them that were without law, to
become as without law (being not without law to God), that he might by
all means save some.” {4}
We are too apt to hold each other accountable for all the consequences
which can be logically deduced from an opinion, however extreme they may
be: and then having persuaded ourselves that those abstract tenets which,
by straining them to an extreme point, _may_ have an evil effect, _must_
have an evil effect on all who profess them,—we avoid those who differ
from us on religious subjects, because we have assumed that they are
actually immoral by virtue of their opinions; and thus we miss the
opportunity of convincing ourselves of our mistake by a more intimate
knowledge of their lives. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” says our
Lord; but we seldom approach them closely enough to see the fruits.
If we would be content to sink minor differences, and be satisfied that
“in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is
accepted with him,” we should soon meet on better terms; for we do not
hold at a distance from those on earth whom we expect to meet in heaven;
and thanks be to God, there is no religious persuasion that cannot boast
of many such as Cornelius.
St. Paul recommends to the churches that they be “kindly affectioned one
towards another, in honour preferring one another:” {5a} “by this shall
men know that ye are my disciples,” says our Great Exemplar, “if ye have
love one to another;” but alas! if we contemplate what is called the
Christian world, where shall we find Christ’s _true_ disciples? Grievous
indeed it is, as has been well observed, that that religion, which
“should most correct and sweeten men’s spirits, sours and sharpens them
the most.” But surely “_we_ have not so learned Christ.” Let us for a
moment contemplate His conduct towards those who differed from him in
religious opinions; his compassion towards them; his meek reproofs not
only to the Sadducees and the Samaritans, but even to the more hardened;
{5b} and then let us turn to our own hearts and confess with shame that
we have fallen miserably short of that charity without which “whosoever
liveth is counted dead before God.”
So clear is the command to exercise universal benevolence, that whatever
obscurity there may be in other parts of Scripture, however men, even
wise ones, may differ as to the real signification of certain passages in
the Bible, _here_ at least there can be no cavilling. It is intelligible
to the most ignorant as well as the most learned, so that “the wayfaring
man, though a fool, shall not err therein.”
Archbishop Tillotson relates of Mr. Gouge, an eminent nonconformist, that
he allowed men to differ from him in opinions that were “_very dear_ to
him;” and provided men did but “fear God and work righteousness,” he
loved them heartily, how distant soever from him in judgment about things
less necessary: “in all which,” observes the Archbishop, “he is very
worthy to be a pattern to men of all persuasions.” “I abhor two
principles in religion,” says William Penn in a letter to the same
archbishop, “and pity them that own them. The first is obedience upon
authority without conviction; and the other, destroying them that differ
from me for God’s sake: such a religion is without judgment, though not
without truth. Union is best, if right; if not, charity.”
I have given the opinion of these two eminent men of different
persuasions, partly to show that the evil I complain of is one of long
standing; partly to justify my own opinion as to the remedy; namely, the
paying _more_ attention to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity;
_less_, to those minor differences which, from the very obscurity of the
texts on which they are founded, come more frequently under discussion,
and thus, from a mental operation somewhat analogous to that of the laws
of perspective, seem large and important because they are close under our
eyes, though they are in fact minute in comparison with those which we
have not been examining so closely. Thus men inadvertently reverse the
order of things, and zeal for the maintenance of peculiar tenets too
often supersedes the far more important virtue of Christian benevolence,
to the scandal of all good Christians and the mockery of unbelievers.
The Quakers, in their address to James II. on his accession, told him
that they understood he was no more of the established religion than
themselves. “We therefore hope,” said they, “that thou wilt allow us
that liberty which thou takest thyself:” and it would be well if we took
a hint from this, and reflected that we differ as much from other sects
as they do from us, {8} and that the greatest heresy is, as a Christian
Father declared it to be long ago—“a wicked life.”
It is, however, needful to distinguish between the Christian spirit of
forbearance towards those who differ from us in religious opinions, which
Christ and his apostles so strongly inculcate, and the indolent
latitudinarianism which induces many to declare that “a man cannot help
his belief,” that “sincerity is everything,” that “all religious sects
are alike,” &c.: positions which, as you well observed on one occasion,
ought rather to be reversed; for when men are _not_ sincere, all sects
certainly _are_ alike: for then it is but a lip service which will never
influence the life, and it matters not what opinion is professed; it will
be equally powerless.
Sincere belief must be the consequence of proof, without which we cannot
believe truly; with it, we must. If then we content ourselves with the
mere _ipse dixit_ of others without seeking proof, our belief is the
result of indolence, and for that indolence we shall be accountable when
we are called on to give an account of the talent committed to our
charge, if error has been consequent upon it. He, on the contrary, whose
education or whose means have not put proof within his reach, although he
may wish earnestly for it, _may_ be wrong in understanding, but he will
never be wrong in heart: his tenets may be wrong, but his life will be
right. It behoves us therefore to be cautious how we pass sentence on
one another in religious matters, since, as has been well observed, we
are ourselves amenable to a tribunal where uncharitable conduct towards
others, will bring down a just and heavy sentence on ourselves. We are
not to erect ourselves into judges of other men’s consciences, {10} but
leave them to the judgment and disposal of ONE who alone can see into the
heart of men, and alone can ascertain the real nature and ultimate
consequence of all questions which admit of “doubtful disputation.”
There will be some danger of losing our way among the almost numberless
divisions and subdivisions of sects, which present themselves as soon as
we begin to consider the subject at all narrowly. I therefore propose to
simplify my task, and make our course a little plainer, by adopting the
two great divisions into which the reformed churches may have been said
to have arranged themselves at the era of the Reformation, as a
foundation for the classification of Christian sects at present. Calvin
and Melancthon may be considered as the prototypes and heads of these two
divisions, which however they may sometimes vary and sometimes
intermingle, are continually reproduced, because they are grounded upon
two great natural divisions of human kind, the stern and the gentle. My
own leaning is to the latter, because it appears to me most in accordance
with the spirit of that gospel whose great Promulgator made universal
benevolence the test of his disciples; but at the same time I must
acknowledge, and shall indeed prove before I have done, that the sterner
theoretical view may coexist in the mind with a large share of true
Christian charity and benevolence. Be the abstract belief of the
Christian what it may, if he be really at heart a disciple, the example
of his mild Master will always influence his life and feelings, and he
will tread in the steps of his Lord, even if his judgment should
sometimes have mistaken the true meaning of some of his words.
These two views of the Divine dispensations towards man were first
arrayed in actual hostility at the Synod of Dort in 1618, where the
doctrines of James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of
Leyden, who had followed the opinions of Luther and Melancthon, were
condemned, and those of the Calvinistic church of Geneva affirmed. From
that time the various sects of the reformed church have generally been
known as Arminian or Calvinistic, according as they embraced the peculiar
tenets of either party on the subject of man’s salvation: I shall
therefore thus distinguish the two classes into which I propose to
arrange them, though they may not follow out either in the whole of their
opinions.
I. ARMINIAN.
1. Quakers.
2. Socinians and Unitarians.
3. Wesleyan Methodists.
4. General Baptists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Plymouth Brethren.
II. CALVINISTIC.
1. Presbyterians, Independents.
2. Particular Baptists, Sub and Supralapsarians, Sandemanians.
3. Calvinistic Methodists. Evangelical or Low Church.
[Picture: Decorative graphic]
LETTER II.
QUAKERS.
The sect which I have placed first upon my list, arose about the middle
of the seventeenth century, when a number of individuals withdrew from
the communion of every _visible_ church “to seek,” {14} as they expressed
it, “the Lord, in retirement:” and George Fox, their leader, or as they
termed him, their “honourable elder,” went about preaching their opinions
in fairs and markets, in courts of justice, and steeple houses, i.e.
churches. He denounced the state worship as “superstitious,” and warned
all to obey the Holy Spirit, speaking by him. He was in consequence
brought before two justices of the peace in Derbyshire in 1650, one of
whom, Mr. Bennet, called Fox, and his hearers “Quakers,” in derision of
their frequent admonitions to “_tremble_ at the Word of God;” and this
appellation soon became general, though they themselves took then, and
still preserve, the title of “the Society of Friends.”
The rigid peculiarities of phrase, &c. which Fox added to his religious
sentiments; the regular discipline which he enforced; and the zeal with
which he maintained and propagated his tenets gave consistency to this
sect, although he was not, as has been supposed, the originator of their
doctrines. He conceived himself forbidden by divine command to pull off
his hat to any one, or to address any one excepting in the singular
number, or to “call any man master;” and for these peculiarities as well
as for the refusal to give or accept titles of honour, or to take an
oath, the “Friends” suffered the most cruel persecutions; for we are told
that “they tortured with cruel whippings the bodies of both men and women
of good estate and reputation;” {15a} and were further punished by
impounding of their horses; by distress of goods; by fines,
imprisonments, whipping, and setting in the stocks: {15b} yet,
notwithstanding these severities, the sect increased and spread far and
wide, and great numbers of people were drawn together, many out of
animosity, to hear them.
The Declaration of Indulgence in 1663 stopped for a short time the
persecution of the Quakers, but by the Conventicle Act of 1664, numbers
of them were condemned to transportation: in 1666, however, their
condition improved, when the celebrated William Penn, the son of Admiral
Penn, joined them.
The discipline of this society is kept up by monthly meetings, composed
of an aggregate of several particular congregations, whose business it is
to provide for the maintenance of their poor, and the education of their
children; also to judge of the sincerity and fitness of persons desirous
of being admitted as members; to direct proper attention to religion and
moral duty; and to deal with disorderly members. At each monthly meeting
persons are appointed to see that the rules of their discipline are put
in practice. It is usual when any member has misconducted himself, to
appoint a small committee to visit the offender, to endeavour to convince
him of his error and induce him to forsake it. If they succeed, he is
declared to have “made satisfaction for his offence,” otherwise he is
dismissed from the society. In disputes between individuals, it is
enjoined that the members of this sect should not sue each other at law,
but settle their differences by the rules of the society.
Marriage is regarded by the Quakers as a religious, not a mere civil
compact. Those who wish to enter into that state appear together, and
state their intentions at one of the monthly meetings, and if not
attended by parents or guardians must produce their consent in writing
duly witnessed; and if no objections are raised at a subsequent meeting,
they are allowed to solemnize their marriage, which is done at a public
meeting for worship; towards the close of which the parties stand up and
solemnly take each other for man and wife. A certificate of the
proceedings is then read publicly and signed by the parties, and
afterwards by the relations as witnesses. The monthly meeting keeps a
register of the marriages as well as of the births and burials of the
society.
Children are named without any attending ceremony; neither is it held
_needful_ that there should be any at burial, though the body followed by
the relatives and friends is sometimes carried into a meeting house, and
at the grave a pause is generally made to allow of a discourse from any
friend attending if he be so inclined.
The women have monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings of their own sex,
but without the power of making rules. “As we believe,” they say, “that
women may be rightly called to the work of the ministry, we also think
that to them belongs a share in the support of Christian discipline; and
that some parts of it wherein their own sex is concerned devolve on them
with peculiar propriety.”
But what, you will ask, are the religious tenets of this sect? The
question will perhaps best be answered by an extract from their “Rules of
Discipline,” a work published under the sanction of the society. “The
original and immediate ground of the religious fellowship of the early
Friends,” says the writer of this manual, “was _union of sentiment in
regard to Christ’s inward teaching_.” They were firm believers in all
that is revealed in Holy Scripture respecting our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ; nor would they have allowed that any one held the truth who
denied his coming in the flesh, or the benefit to fallen man by his
propitiatory sacrifice. “We believe that, in order to enable mankind to
put in practice the precepts of the gospel, every man coming into the
world is endued with a measure of the light, grace, or good Spirit of
Christ, by which, as it is alluded to, he is enabled to distinguish good
from evil, and to correct the disorderly passions and corrupt
propensities of his fallen nature, which _mere reason_ is altogether
insufficient to overcome. For all that belongs to man is fallible, and
within the reach of temptation: but the divine grace, which comes by Him,
i.e. Christ, who hath overcome the world, is, to those who humbly and
sincerely seek it, an all-sufficient and present help in time of need . . .
whereby the soul is translated out of the kingdom of darkness, and from
under the power of Satan into the marvellous light and kingdom of the Son
of God. Now as we thus believe that the grace of God, which comes by
Jesus Christ, is alone sufficient for salvation, we can neither admit
that it is conferred upon a few only, while others are left without it;
nor thus asserting its universality, can we limit its operation to a
partial cleansing of the soul from sin even in this life.”
Baptism and the Lord’s supper are regarded by this sect as mere types or
shadows, representing in a figurative manner certain great particulars of
Christian Truths, but not intended to be of permanent obligation. They
consider the former to have been superseded by the baptism of the Spirit:
of the latter they say, “the emblem may be either used or disused as
Christians may consider most conducive to the real advantage of the
church: the only _needful_ supper of the Lord is altogether of a
spiritual nature.” They conceive that a reliance on the eucharist as a
‘viaticum or saving ordinance,’ is a dangerous tenet, as well as the
connecting the rite of baptism with regeneration. They think that
“ordinances so liable to abuse, and the cause of so many divisions and
persecutions, cannot truly appertain to the law of God.”
Quakers consider all holidays as “shadows” which ceased with the shadowy
dispensations of the law, and that neither the first day of the week, nor
any other, possesses any superior sanctity; {20} but as a society they
have never objected to “a day of rest,” for the purpose of religious
improvement. They consider the Christian Dispensation to have superseded
the use of oaths, and contend that our Lord’s precepts {21}extend even to
the swearing of witnesses in courts of law. War they hold to be
altogether inconsistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and
urge that the primitive Christians during two centuries maintained its
unlawfulness. They object on the same principle to capital punishments,
and the slave trade.
The members of the society are bound by their principles to abstain
entirely “from profane and extravagant entertainments,” from excess in
eating and drinking; from public diversions; from the reading of useless,
frivolous, and pernicious books; from gaming of every description; and
from vain and injurious sports (such as hunting or shooting for
diversion); from unnecessary display in funerals, furniture, and style of
living: from unprofitable, seductive, and dangerous amusements, among
which are ranked dancing and music; and generally from all “such
occupations of time and mind as plainly tend to levity, vanity, and
forgetfulness of our God and Saviour,” and they object to all
complimentary intercourse.
In the sketch I have now given of the tenets of this sect, you cannot
have failed to observe how closely their notions with regard to the
fundamental doctrines of Christianity tally with those of the great body
of the church; the differences being all on points of minor import, if we
except the ceremonies of baptism and the Lord’s supper; which, being the
appointment of Christ himself, we are not at liberty to reject. And yet,
be it observed, the Quaker does not presumptuously reject them, but
merely acts upon, as we suppose, an erroneous view of their nature.
On points of minor difference it may be observed, that He who was the
PRINCE OF PEACE, and came to establish it, never specifically forbad war,
(for there may be cases where it is merely self defence,) but left it to
the spirit of the gospel to remove the _causes_ of war. {22} We all know
the appellation bestowed on the Centurion, Cornelius: and when soldiers
came to John the Baptist saying, “What shall we do?” he merely sought to
retrench the disorders and injustice which those who follow the
profession of arms might be tempted to commit; but did not condemn their
necessary employments. We may therefore fairly conclude that the
sweeping condemnation of _all_ war by the Quakers, is not warranted by
Scripture, although it is in many and indeed most instances, entered upon
far too carelessly.
One of the main distinctions of the Quakers is the rejection of certain
amusements and pursuits, which others on the contrary consider as
innocent, believing that the religion of Christ rather encourages than
forbids a cheerful spirit, and allows by the example of the Saviour, a
participation in social pleasures: and that “an upright, religious man,
by partaking in such pleasures, may be the means of restraining others
within due bounds, and by his very presence may prevent their
degenerating into extravagance, profligacy, and sin;” {24a} and such do
not feel in their hearts that _these_ {24b} are the “pomps and vanities
of the world,” which by their baptismal vow they renounce. But surely it
is possible that different persons may regard the same pursuits and
amusements in a very different light, and yet both may be conscientious
in their views, and both, whether in abstaining or enjoying, be equally
doing that which is lawful and right in the sight of God. That very
amusement or pursuit which is a snare to one, and therefore to be avoided
by him, may be a source of innocent, and perhaps profitable recreation to
another. It is the intention, the _animus_ with which an act is done,
and not the act itself which constitutes the sin. “Let not him that
eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge
him that eateth: to his own master he standeth or falleth.”
“Christianity,” says an excellent prelate of our church, “forbids no
necessary occupation, no reasonable indulgences, no innocent relaxation.
It allows us to ‘use’ the world, provided we do not ‘abuse’ it. It does
not spread before us a delicious banquet, and then come with a ‘Touch
not, taste not, handle not:’ all it requires is that our liberty
degenerate not into licentiousness; our amusements into dissipation; our
industry into incessant toil; our carefulness into extreme anxiety and
endless solicitude. When it requires us to be ‘temperate in all things,’
it plainly tells us that we _may_ use all things temperately. {26} When
it directs us to ‘make our moderation known unto all men,’ this evidently
implies that within the bounds of moderation we may enjoy all the
reasonable conveniences and comforts of this present life.”
I have noticed this, in my opinion, erroneous practice of the Quakers at
the more length, because it is not confined to them. Asceticism, of
which this is one branch, has been the bane of the church and of
Christianity generally; and few sects are entirely free from the notion
that holiness requires a withdrawal from amusements, and a certain degree
of seclusion from the world. Yet, if the world is to be improved, the
leaven must be placed _in_ it; and a good man probably never does his
Father’s work more effectually than when he spreads the sanctifying
influence of his example through all the relations of life; showing that
there is no position in society where Christianity does not add a grace
and a relish unknown without it: spreading refinement of manners and
delicacy of thought, and insensibly rendering social intercourse more
polished, and more delightful, by banishing from it all that can offend.
The Quakers adduce Matt. v. 33–37, James v. 12, &c. in support of their
objection to all oaths, even judicial ones, and consider that the
Christian dispensation abrogated their use. But in answer to this we may
observe that even the Almighty is represented as confirming his promises
by a solemn oath. “Because,” says the apostle, “He could swear by no
higher, He sware by Himself;” and St. Paul on particular occasions
expresses himself thus, “As God is true:” “Before God I lie not:” “God is
my record,” &c. all which expressions undoubtedly contain the essence and
formality of an oath; and the Apostle upon some occasions mentions this
solemn swearing with approbation, “an oath for confirmation is the end of
all strife:” the swearing, therefore, which our Saviour absolutely
forbids, is common or unnecessary swearing, and we are recommended to
affirm or deny in common conversation without imprecations. “Let your
conversation be yea, yea,—nay, nay.”
The repugnance entertained by the Quakers against paying tithes appears
to me to arise from an error in their mode of viewing the question. The
assertion made by them “that all the provision made for ministers of the
gospel in the first ages was made by the love of their flocks,” is true,
though that love very soon produced endowments, even before Christianity
was established as the law of the empire. But allowing this, it does not
follow, as they go on to assert, that “since we are under the same
dispensation of love as the Apostles were, the principles which governed
the church then are to govern it now.” Tithes were originally given to
the church as a corporation, by the owners of the soil; and since that
time estates have been transferred from hand to hand subject to that
charge, till no man has any plea for refusing it. The question is not
one of religion but of property. If my estate devolve to me chargeable
with an annuity payable either to a corporation or an individual, I have
no right to set up his religious opinions in bar of his claim: for I have
paid less for the purchase in consequence of the existence of that claim,
which in common honesty therefore I am bound to satisfy, be the annuitant
who he may. {29}
Having now noticed the points wherein I consider the peculiar tenets of
the Quakers to be erroneous, I shall conclude with the more agreeable
part of my task, and prove by extracts from one of their writers how much
of true Christian feeling exists among them. The following is from a
little book given me by a Quaker, from the pen of J. Gurney, entitled “An
Essay on Love to God.”
“Still more completely than the provisions of nature fall in with our
bodily state, and supply our temporal wants; still more properly than the
air agrees with the functions of the lungs, and the light with those of
the eye, does the gospel of our Redeemer suit the spiritual condition of
man. We are a fallen race, alienated from God by our sins, justly liable
to his wrath: in the gospel we have pardon, peace and restoration.
‘Christ made all things new,’ says Grotius, ‘and the latter creation is
_more divine_ than the former.’ If then the first creation of mankind
and all the bounties of nature are the result of Love, that attribute is
far more gloriously displayed in the scheme of redemption and in the
works of grace.—The love of God the Father is ever represented in
Scripture as the origin of all our hopes,—as the eternal, unfathomable
spring of the waters of life and salvation, and this love is plainly
described as extending to the whole world. ‘God so loved the world, &c.
{30a} God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ {30b}—‘God
would have all men to be saved, &c.’ {30c} Do we ask for an overwhelming
evidence of the love of God? Let the Apostle satisfy our inquiry. ‘In
this was manifested the love of God towards us, because God sent his only
begotten Son into the world that we might live by him. Herein is love;
not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins.’ {31a} Do we ask whether God thus loved the
whole or only a part of the world?—Let the same Apostle answer: ‘He
tasted death for _every man_—He gave himself a ransom for _all_, &c.’
Even the Gentiles, who were without the benefit of an outward revelation,
were by no means destitute of an inward knowledge of the law of God, and
some of them showed ‘the work of the law written on their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness.’ {31b} ‘Christ is the true light which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’ {31c} Hence we may
reasonably infer that as God appointed the death of Christ to be a
sacrifice for the sins of the _whole_ world, so _all_ men receive through
Christ a measure of moral and spiritual light, and all have their day of
gracious visitation. If the light in numberless instances be extremely
faint, if the darkness fail to comprehend it, we may rest in the
conviction that God is not only just but equitable, and that those ‘who
know not their Master’s will and do it not shall be beaten with few
stripes.’ {32} The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in
the Holy Scriptures, is intended for the benefit of the whole world: it
is adapted to men of every condition, clime, and character: all are
invited to avail themselves of its benefits: all who _will_ come _may_
come, and ‘take the water of life freely.’”
[Picture: Decorative header]
LETTER III.
SOCINIANS AND UNITARIANS.
When the first great movement which led to the Reform of a large part of
the Christian Churches in Europe, awakened men’s minds from the lethargy
in which they had slept whilst learning was confined to the cloister, the
questions with regard to the nature of the Deity which had distracted the
early church began again to be mooted; and as early as the year 1524,
“the divinity of Christ was openly denied by Lewis Hetyer, one of the
wandering and fanatical Anabaptists, who was put to death at Constance.”
{33a} He was succeeded by Michael Servede or Servetus, a Spanish
physician; who, for his wild notions on the same subject, was apprehended
on his road through Switzerland at the instigation of Calvin, accused of
blasphemy, and condemned to the flames. {33b} But doctrines were never
yet crushed by persecution, unless indeed it were so wholesale as to
exterminate all who held them; and though these opinions were thus fatal
to their professors, the main points were reproduced by others; and
finally assumed form as a sect, under the titles above named. The term
Socinian was taken from two of its most distinguished promoters, Lælius
and Faustus Sozinus, or Socinus. They were of an illustrious family at
Siena in Tuscany, and Lælius, the uncle of Faustus, having taken a
disgust to popery, travelled into France, England, &c. to examine into
their religious creed, in order, if possible, to come at the truth. He
was a man distinguished for his genius and learning, no less than for his
virtuous life; he settled at last at Zurich, embraced the Helvetic
confession of faith, and died at Zurich in 1562, before he had reached
his fortieth year. His sentiments, or rather doubts as to certain
points, were embodied, and more openly propagated by his nephew Faustus;
who, as is supposed, drew up from his papers the religious system
afterwards known under the name of Socinianism. There is however a
considerable degree of obscurity hanging over the rise of this sect, and
no one has given a satisfactory history of it.
The first appearance of Unitarians, as a distinct congregation, was in
Poland, where they obtained a settlement in the city of Cracow in the
year 1569; and in 1575 they published at Cracow the “Catechism or
Confession of the Unitarians;” {35a} but Faustus Socinus having settled
among them in the year 1579, soon obtained so much influence as finally
to remodel the whole religious system of the sect, and a new form drawn
up by Socinus himself, was substituted for the old Catechism.
The following is an abstract of the doctrines taught in this Catechism.
After affirming that the Christian religion is “a road for arriving at
eternal life, divinely made known,” the pupil is told that the will of
God on points essential to salvation was revealed by Jesus Christ. The
Catechism then goes on to affirm the entire unity of the Deity; since if
he is one essence, then must he also be individually one, {35b} and
therefore Christ cannot he truly said to be a _separate_ person or
individual, partaking of the _essentia_ of the Deity, since that
_essentia_ is necessarily one. That the Spirit of God, being an
essential part of the Deity, cannot be a separate individual (for in this
sense the Catechism interprets the word _persona_ {36}), any more than
his wisdom or his goodness is a separate individual, and that therefore
the manifestations of the Spirit of God are manifestations of the Deity
himself.
“Christ,” says the Catechism, “is a man, according to Rom. v. 15,
conceived by a virgin, through the power of the Divine Spirit, without
the intervention of man in the ordinary course of generation. He was
first subject to suffering and death—afterwards impassible and immortal,
Rom. vi. 9. It is in the sense of his existence derived immediately from
God, that he, though man, is called the Son of God—as Adam is so termed
from the same cause. Jesus Christ was the immediate instrument of God’s
communications to man; and being, whilst on earth, the voice of God, he
is now the anointed King, or Christ, over the people of God.”
The passages where he is said to have existed from the beginning: to have
created all things, &c. are laboriously explained away, as referring to
the regeneration, or new state of things introduced by Christ’s mission
on earth: and in this part there is much forced interpretation. I shall
annex some of the passages in the language of the original, {37} as a
proof that I have given a fair account of the real Socinian doctrine,
which is very little understood at present. Writers from whom we might
expect greater accuracy, have very generally confounded Socinians and
Arians, although Faustus Socinus was at the pains to write a laboured
refutation of the Arian doctrine, and although a reference to the
doctrines of the two sects would show that they are the antipodes of each
other. Arius taught that Christ was not of _the same_ nature
(ὁμοούσιος), with the Father, but of _a like_ nature (ὁμοιούσιος) and
therefore individually separate—separate in will, and capable of
differing. This is a direct assertion of two Gods. Socinus on the
contrary strenuously asserts the unity of the Deity to the extent of
denying the pre-existence of Christ: which Arius though acknowledging
that there was a time when he began to exist, nevertheless refers to a
period remote beyond human calculation. Thus upon their characteristic
doctrines, the two sects are diametrically opposed to each other.
Having now given you the real opinions of Socinus, from his own works,
for the book is lying beside me as I write, I shall pursue my plan of
examining how far they accord with what was taught by those who certainly
ought to be best informed on the subject, namely, Christ himself, his
Apostles, and their immediate successors; as well as with the deductions
of reason. The unity of the Deity is so frequently and so decidedly
asserted in Scripture, that it is impossible to consider any man as
unorthodox who professes to make this the groundwork of his belief—so far
therefore the Socinian is in accordance both with Scripture and the
general voice of the Christian church, for the early Apologists for
Christianity, who had to address polytheists, are full of declarations
that they worship One only Deity, who by various manifestations has made
himself, at different times, known to mankind. {39a} There is not a
writer of the first and second centuries who does not anxiously assert
the one-ness of the God whom the Christians worship: but then they as
anxiously assert the identity of their Teacher and Lord with that God.
From Christ himself, who says, “Before Abraham was, I am;” {39b} “I and
the Father are one;” {39c} “He who hath seen me hath seen the Father;”
“the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works;” {39d} to St. Paul,
who tells us that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,”
{39e} down to the fathers of the early church, to whom I may refer
_passim_ for the same doctrine; all have distinctly asserted that the
message of peace to man was delivered by God himself, making use of a
human form as the mode of communication with his creatures, and dwelling
in “the man Christ Jesus,” {39f} as in a temple built up for his especial
use; the human nature, to use the expression of the church, “having been
taken into God,” not the Godhead circumscribed in man. I will not swell
the length of my letter with quotations from the fathers which may be
found elsewhere; I think the texts I have quoted with many more of the
same purport, which you will readily call to mind, suffice to prove that
when Socinus asserted the Christ to be _merely_ a man, he erred; for
though Jesus “the Carpenter’s son,” as his contemporaries called him, was
to all intents and purposes a man “of a reasonable soul and human flesh
subsisting;” {40} and though this may be proved from numberless passages
in the Scripture, where the man Jesus speaks of his inferiority to the
Father and bestower of his human frame and spirit,—yet if we do not
entirely distort the meaning of words, _that man_ at times uttered
declarations of divine power which could only have proceeded from the
indwelling Deity, otherwise they must have been the assertions of
imposture, which Socinus by no means teaches to have been the case. I
know not, therefore, how the believer in the Gospel can avoid
acknowledging that Christ was a compound being:—perfectly a man, and
speaking as such on some occasions; but, at the same time, the temple of
the Ever-living God, whose words flowed from his lips like the answer
from the Mercy seat: “Heaven and the heaven of heavens” no doubt “cannot
contain” the Infinite; and no true believer will assert that God can be
circumscribed in a human body—but, if so mean a comparison may be
permitted—as the crater of the volcano is but the mouthpiece of the
mighty agents operating within for the fashioning of the earth,—so the
manifestation of the Deity in the form, and from the lips of a man, is
but that spot of the material creation where the ever blessed Divinity
allows himself, as it were, a vent; and gives forth a visible and
tangible sign of his existence.
“He that has seen me has seen the Father,” says _the Christ_. “I can of
my own self do nothing” {41} says _the man_: and this distinction which
the Christ who necessarily knew something of the composition of his own
nature so frequently asserts, has probably been the groundwork of the
mistaken views of this class of Christians, and we may well look with
charitable indulgence on the errors of men, who dreading lest they should
incur the penalty of giving the incommunicable glory of the Mighty God to
another, have not allowed their due weight to the passages, which assert
that Mighty God to have undertaken the task of bringing his creature man
back to Himself.
Having thus given you a fair account of the creed of Socinus, I must next
notice the modern Unitarians, who on some points differ from him. Where
there is no acknowledged creed or catechism, {42} which may be quoted as
authority, it is difficult to give the doctrines of a sect with any
precision; but as far as it is possible to judge from the writings most
in repute among the Unitarians, they disclaim the notion of the
miraculous conception, and believe Christ to have been to all intents and
purposes _a mere man_. At the same time they allow him to have been so
inspired and guided by God, that it is difficult to see where they draw
the line between their own creed and that of the church, which allows the
perfect humanity of Jesus, but asserts that “God and man make one
Christ,” namely, that the message of peace was that of God speaking by
human lips, and that the Anointed prophet who declared it, was, when so
anointed, the temple and place of manifestation of the living God. They
disclaim the doctrine of atonement, and believe that the mission of
Christ had for its object the reform of the world, and the restoration of
man to a sense of his true relation towards God, and even here Scripture
and the early church speak a language which differs not very greatly from
theirs. For the language in which our redemption is spoken of, is that
of a master purchasing a slave, as will be seen on a reference to Rom.
vi. in the original. The ransom by which man was purchased to be the
servant of holiness instead of that of sin, was paid to his former
master, sin; by the purchaser; and the purchaser is God. “I speak after
the manner of men,” says St. Paul, “because of the infirmity of your
flesh.” i.e. I adopt the phraseology of a common transaction because your
minds are not sufficiently accustomed to the contemplation of higher
things to understand them without a metaphor; but the Unitarian forgets,
when asserting that the ransom was not paid _to_ God, that it was paid
_by_ God: and that man, the slave, was bought from sin, the master, at no
less a price than the condescension of the Deity himself to the infirmity
of our flesh, by making himself visibly and tangibly known to his
creatures, through the medium of a human form.
I have now endeavoured to give a dispassionate view of the doctrines of
these sects, hitherto so much misunderstood, and having marked the points
wherein they appear to me to recede from Christian truth, I have the
pleasanter task before me, of showing by extracts from their writings,
how large a portion of the religion which we all profess, they still
retain, and I may say from experience, on most occasions conscientiously
act upon.
“If with the Apostle we glory in the cross of Christ, or in that religion
which could not have been confirmed without his death, let us not only be
careful to govern our lives by the precepts of it in general, but more
particularly be prepared to suffer what the strictest profession of it
may call us to. Let us remember that our Saviour hath said, if any man
will be his disciple he must “take up his cross, and follow him.” That
is, he must be ready to do it rather than abandon the profession of the
Gospel, or whatever the strictest purity of it may require. A true
Christian is no more _of this world_ than his Lord and Master was of it.
With him every thing here below is but of secondary consideration,
&c.—but this we must remember for our consolation, that if, in time of
persecution “He that keepeth his life shall lose it,” “He that loseth his
life” for the profession of the Gospel “shall keep it to life eternal.”
“If we suffer with Christ, we shall also reign with him and be glorified
together.” {47}
“The truths which relate to Jesus himself are among the _most important_
which the Gospel reveals. ‘We preach Christ,’ says the Apostle, ‘warning
every man and teaching every man, that we may present every man perfect
in Christ Jesus.’ From this passage we derive a most important
sentiment, confirmed by the whole New Testament—that the great design of
all the doctrines and precepts of the Gospel, is, to exalt the
character,—to promote eminent purity of heart and life, to make men
‘perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect.’ We must preach not to
make fiery partizans, and to swell the number of a sect; not to overwhelm
the mind with fear, or to heat it with feverish rapture; not to form men
to the decencies of life, to a superficial goodness, which will secure
the admiration of mankind. All these effects fall infinitely short of
the great end of the Christian ministry. We should preach that we may
make men perfect Christians: perfect, not according to the standard of
the world, but according to the law of Christ; perfect in heart and in
life, in solitude and in society, in the great and in the common concerns
of life. Here is the purpose of Christian preaching. In this, as in a
common centre, all the truths of the Gospel meet; to this they all
conspire; and no doctrine has an influence on salvation, any farther than
it is an aid to the perfecting of our nature.” {48}
“Christ is a great Saviour, as he redeems or sets free the mind,
cleansing it from evil, breathing into it the love of virtue, calling
forth its noblest faculties and affections, enduing it with moral power,
restoring it to order, health and liberty.” * * * * “Christ has revealed
to us God as the Father, and as a Father in the noblest sense of that
word. He hath revealed Him as the author and lover of all souls,
desiring to redeem all from sin, and to impress his likeness more and
more resplendently on all; as proffering to all that best gift in the
universe, his ‘holy Spirit;’ as having sent his beloved Son to train us
up and to introduce us to an ‘inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and
unfading in the heavens.’” {49}