« PoprzedniaDalej »
selves. His colleagues are William Turner, A. M. professor of the Greek and Latin languages, and of ancient and modern history; and John Kenrick, A. M. professor of mathematics and natural philosophy. Many unitarian youth have resorted to the Scottish universities; and many, after completing their academical course in the dissenting colleges, have become public preachers of unitarianism.
Rev. Mr. Little's Discourse on the Mystery of Christ.
A SERMON has just been published in Washington, by the Rev. Robert Little, on the subject of Mystery, as this term is used in the Gospel. The author's view is perspicuous and scriptural, and accompanied with several pertinent remarks designed to illustrate and confirm his statements.
This discourse, it seems, was prompted by the attacks and illiberal abuse, with which some good people have thought it their duty to try the christian fortitude and forbearance of our brethren in Washington. It has an intentional bearing on an elaborate work, which a clergyman of that city, professing the Catholic faith, and “Superior of the Catholic Seminary," has commenced against unitarians. We say commenced, for although the author threatens a formidable octavo, he does not come down upon us at once, but sends it out in piecemeal, we suppose in imitation of the good old times of the Inquisition, when tortures were protracted, that they might be the more keenly felt. As the shafts, which this new combatant has prepared himself to hurl against the growing cause of unitarianism, are aimed exclusively at our little work, it may be thought, per haps, that a regard for our safety should make us look to our armour, and put ourselves in an attitude of de. fence. But unfortunately, it may be, we cannot rouse ourselves to any apprehension of danger; and of victory we are not ambitious.
The author's whole object, as far as we can discover, is to show that unitarianism is dangerous and false, because it appeals to the reason, or the understanding of men, in connexion with the Scriptures. And how does he establish this point? Why, truly, by professing to use the very same faculty, which he condemns as so mischievous in unitarians; or in his own lucid phrase, “by a concatenation of principles and logical inferences necessarily connected," and by endeavouring "to show, at one glance, the stress of the argument, and the logical conclusiveness of the whole argumentation.” Now we should be glad to know, what a man has to do with logic, or argument, or argumentation, or principles, or inferences, who denies the use of his reason. We contess it seems to us little better than folly to argue with a man, who boasts of rejecting the office of reason, and at the same time commits the absurdity of writing a book in six numbers, professedly to prove by a series of reasonings, that reason is a useless thing. And we confess further, that should we often see this same reason running to such results, as in the work to which we are now alluding, we should be the first to acknowledge its impotency.
We have no desire to interfere with the religious concerns of the Catholics. No unitarian in this country, within our knowledge, has ever lisped a word against them. We are willing they should have their religion of mystery and tradition, if they will let us have ours of the Bible and common
they are sincere we shall respect, and while they are good we shall esteem them; and not the less for their believing in transubstantiation, or its kindred mystery the trinity.
But if they are not contented to allow us the privilege, which we cheerfully allow them, we beg, for their own sake, that they will be consistent, and not attempt to reason with us. Let them enumerate the decisions of the Council of Trent, and if they please repeat the whole Creed of Pius the Fourth; let them quote from Duns Scotus, or the angelical doctor Aquinas, from Honoratus Tournely, Peter Collet, or any other of the learned Sorbonne doctors; let them threaten us with the famous bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement, whose thunders made such havoc with the Jansenism of poor Paschasius Quesnel; let them confound us with the discoveries of their learned commentators, in detecting in every passage of scripture, not only a literal, but an allegorical, tropological, and anagogical meaning; let them array against us the whole host of the Fathers from Ignatius to Theophylact, and strengthen their ranks with the still greater host of schoolmen, dogmatists, and mystics, which at a later period adorned the Romish church. Let them do this, and they will be consistent with their principles; but let them take care how they handle an instrument, with which they profess to be so little skilled as reason.
The seventh Letter to the Rev. Dr. Miller, On the Nature and Object of Christian Charity, is necessarily deferred to our next. We are compelled, also, to omit the Articles of the Charleston Unitarian Book Society.
We lately made a very curious extract from Professor Lindsly's Discourse, called a Plea for the Theological Seminary at Princeton. [Vol. ii. p. 36.] This extract related to Unitarians, and was accompanied by two or three remarks of our own. The Professor has since published a second edition of his Plea, and added a note to the passage in question. This would seem to have been intended as a sort of apology, explanation, or defence, though it would be difficult, perhaps, to tell precisely which. But whatever it may be called, we feel it a duty of justice to Professor Lindsly to make it as public, as we did that portion of his discourse, which has called it forth. The following are his words.
“In his remarks on the unitarians, the author may be thought to have expressed himself incautiously, perhaps uncharitably. They style themselves christians; and many of them, no doubt, are sincere in their professions. Trinitarians generally, however, do not think them fairly entitled to the appellation of christian; and that the direct tendency of their principles is to subvert the true christian faith. So vast, indeed, is the difference between the trinitarian and the unitarian, as to render it obvious, that both parties cannot prefer just claims to the same name. It is admitted, that the controversy about the name depends, after all, on the real nature and character of the Saviour; and that the controversy cannot be decided by ecclesiastical courts or councils; nor by any human confessions, or articles, or creeds, or systems, or authorities whatever-but solely by the Holy Scriptures.”
This note shows a spirit of moderation, which we are glad to see, and which we could hardly have expected from the same person, who wrote the extract to which it alludes. We believe the writer may cherish an entire conviction, that no enlightened and candid mind will discover any thing of caution, or of charity, in his distorted representation of unitarianism, and much less of consistency in what he says of the sentiments of this faith, and of the characters, qualifications, and motives of the men, who embrace these sentiments.
In regard to the import of the christian name, which the Professors at Princeton find it so difficult å task to apply to unitarians, so much has already been said in our work on the subject, that we have little more to add. Our interest is chiefly confined to the thing itself; but if we had no good reason for retaining the name, we should be glad to be treated with that courtesy, which we hope always to extend to others. If a true faith, as it regards the nature and offices of Christ, were to be the criterion, there are certainly no persons in the world, whom we should consider less deserving of the name of christians than calvinists. It is not possible for them to think us in greater errors, than we think them. But these are not the principles upon which we act. Cal. vinists have named themselves christians, and connected the name with their religious faith. If there were