Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

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.

[blocks in formation]

Professor Lindsly's Apology.

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 a 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. Calvinists have named themselves christians, and connected the name with their religious faith. If there were

no other ground than this, we should cheerfully allow it to them. But when we know, that they receive the Gospel of Christ, and consider him as commissioned from heaven, to publish a revelation to the world; when we know, that they interpret his language as their understanding and judgment direct, and profess to make his precepts the rule of their lives, and his promises the strength of their hopes, we have other good reasons for calling them christians.

Now we ask nothing more than this of trinitarians. We glory in Christ, as the founder of a religion, through which we hope to attain salvation and eternal life. We receive him most implicitly, as our Master and our Saviour, study his word with humility, prayer, and devotedness, and then receive it in such a sense, as our understanding and our conscience will warrant; and we also endeavour to conform our lives to the precepts and spirit of the Gospel. We know not what more we can do, or what more others have done, to merit the name of christians. We may be mistaken, and so may they, but our motives and endeavours are the same, and whence these exclusive asserters of the christian name derive the right of bringing us to a judgment, from which they modestly imagine themselves exempt, we have not been able to learn.

Trinitarians acknowledge our sincerity, and of course must allow, that we desire to learn the truth. Professor Lindsly has, also, informed us, that unitarians are abundantly qualified for this task. "Many of the teachers of this heresy," says he, "are thoroughly skilled in scholastic theology, logic, and metaphysics; in history, antiquity, philosophy, and modern sciences; and well versed in the ancient languages." One would suppose that these qualifications, combined with right motives,

zeal, and an ardent love of truth, would be as likely to lead to accurate results, as any others that can be imagined. But no; although they conduct every body else right, most unfortunately for unitarians, they conduct them wrong; others they allure to light, truth, and heaven, but unitarians they drive into the dismal abyss of error, and hurry them onward in the road to ruin.

The reluctance, which some persons express in allowing any one to have the name of christians but themselves and their favourites, is no new fancy springing out of modern orthodoxy. It is as ancient as the Council of Nice. Even the great Constantine decreed, that the discomfited Arians should no longer be honoured with the title of christians, but should be called, nur

ox, by way of eminence, Porphyrians. Three years afterwards, however, the emperor revoked his decree, recalled the exiled Arians, and professed to consider them the only true christians in his empire.

Theodosius the younger could not suffer so good an example to escape without imitation. He made a decree, that all his subjects should be of the faith of Damasus, bishop of Rome, and believe in the "consubstantiality and eternal divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or be regarded as heretics and madmen, and be delivered over to the secular arm." Such as would not comply, were deprived by a royal mandate of the name of christians, and the unfortunate disciples of Nestorius were distinguished by the title of Simonians.*

* Villers' Essay on the Reformation, p. 434. This matter is discussed with much gravity by the learned Dr. Knowles, Prebendary of Ely, in his Primitive Christianity, p. 116, where he reasons very profoundly in defence of these decrees of Constantine and Theodosius. With him the point turns on the articles necessary for salvation, and he says, "The doctrine of the trinity in unity, and unity in

« PoprzedniaDalej »