LETTER X.

ON ROMANISM AND CEREMONIAL RELIGION.

I promised that as the completion of my task, I would notice those differences which have occurred in the bosom of the church itself, even though they can scarcely be called _sects_; I therefore propose to conclude my correspondence with a short survey of the above-named, which I think should rather be viewed as the working out of great principles, than as parties distinguished by particular creeds or opinions on abstract subjects. I may run counter to some prejudices, perhaps, in so doing; but the truth is well worth running a tilt for:—you may sit by as umpire, and decide when I have done, whether I have carried my spear in a knightly fashion.

Though I shall not think it necessary, like Racine’s advocate in Les Plaideurs, to go back to the Assyrians and the Babylonians to illustrate my proposition, yet I must begin from a very distant period, in order to make my views thoroughly comprehensible. I must therefore beg you to notice that the tendency of man’s mind always is, and always has been, towards the visible and the tangible. The pure abstraction of a Governing Will without any perceptible presence, has in it something too remote from the common habits, powers, and feelings of human nature, ever to be thoroughly embraced by the heart of man; and we find that the Deity has always condescended so far to the weakness of his creatures, as to give the imagination some resting place. Thus the patriarch had his altar of sacrifice, where the fire from heaven marked the present Deity—and the Israelite had first the pillar of the cloud, and then the tabernacle, where the mysterious Shechinah dwelt over the mercy seat. Yet even this indistinct representation of an embodied Deity, did not satisfy the people: they required a _form_, tangible, visible, and Aaron yielded to the wish; because he thought it a prudent and allowable compliance with the weakness of human nature. He was wrong, and was punished for it; and this transaction we shall find the type and foreshadowing of every thing that has since happened in the world with regard to religion. The Almighty gives man just enough to rest his thoughts upon: it is the fire on the altar, the cloud, the temple, and last of all _the man_, in whom our devotion may find also an object of affection: but he requires that we shall not go beyond this. We must not return to earth, and make for ourselves a worship less spiritual than he has instituted; on the contrary, he requires us to pierce through the veil as we advance in knowledge, and discern the spiritual through the visible. Hence the perpetual denunciations of the prophets against the Jews for their adherence to forms, which latterly they did adhere to, instead of giving attention to the purification of their hearts.

Among all but the Israelites, the progress of the tangible was much more rapid: idolatry, with all its gross rites, had established itself among _the people_, at any rate, in Egypt, at a very early period; and spread from that old and luxurious empire, through the more simple states which sprang up around and from it. The Exodus was a warning from on high, that there was a Being, unseen and intangible, whose fiat governed all things: and this lesson was not wholly without fruit: yet still the human race reverted to the objects of the senses, till, in God’s good time, he sent his Son: presented a tangible form on which the mind could dwell—then removed it from the earth, and said, “You may now think on this, and give your imagination a resting place: this form you shall see again; but in mean time you must purify your hearts from earthly desires: that form will only greet your eyes when you have cast off the burthen of the flesh, and have entered upon a spiritual existence.” The first Christians remembered and loved the man; his precepts, his example, his smallest words or actions were recurred to with the fondness of personal friendship; and this carried Christianity through the first two centuries; but then this remembrance began to have a character of abstraction, and again the human heart called for tangibility. Then came, step by step, gorgeous ceremonies, pictures, representations of the personal presence and sufferings of the Saviour. The very requirements of those who quitted the splendid and sensual rites of heathenism for the faith of Christ, led the Christian doctors to endeavour to replace the festival of the idol by something analogous in the Christian church: and thus without well knowing what they were tending to, the heads of the church yielded one point of spiritualism after another; sought to captivate and awe the people by impressive ceremonies; and finished by the sin of Aaron: they set up the image and said, “These be thy Gods, O Israel! that brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” {131a} For be it observed here, that Aaron set up this image merely as a tangible representation of the true Deity; _a help to the devotion of the people_, who could not worship without seeing something.

This then is Romanism; it is not transubstantiation, nor the mediation of the Virgin and the Saints, {131b} nor the infallibility of popes and councils; these are natural consequences indeed, but the distinctive character of the Romish church is _tangibility_. “There is the actual flesh,” it says, “there is the representation of the actual human presence of saints and martyrs; there is the actual man enthroned, who represents the power of God:” but it might have fifty other ways of satisfying this restless craving of the human mind, and it would be equally pernicious in any of these forms. Man’s great struggle has always been between the animal and the spiritual nature, and when religion goes one step farther towards tangibility than the Deity himself has allowed, the animal nature gains strength; and vice and licentiousness follow as naturally, among the mass of the people, as rain follows the cloud.

Observe, I do not here deny that many may profess a religion of sense, and remain spiritually-minded themselves: Heathenism had its Socrates, its Xenocrates, &c.—Romanism has its Pascal, its Fenelon, and a train of other great names: but look at the _people_ during that period, and the account will be very different. When an ignorant man imagines that he can remove the Divine anger by a sacrifice or a penance, he avoids the trouble of curbing his passions, and compounds, as he thinks, for indulgence of the one, by the performance of the other; but when he is told that purity of life and thought is the only road to Divine favour, if he sins, he sins at least with some feelings of compunction, some dread that he may not have it in his power to remove the stain he is incurring. The preaching of Wesley reformed multitudes, all enthusiastic as it was; but it would be difficult to find a parallel in the annals of Romanism. As great a movement of the public mind was made by the preaching of Peter the Hermit; but how different was the object and the result! The personal pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre, as a mode of wiping out sin, was undertaken by thousands, who perished miserably, or, if they lived, came back not better men than they went: under a system of less tangibility, and a preaching as effective, they might have staid in their homes, and glorified God by a life such as Christ came to teach and to exemplify.

It is so much easier to make a pilgrimage, or endure a long fast, than to subdue and tame the animal nature till it becomes obedient to the rational will, and seconds instead of resisting its wishes, that it is not surprising that in all ages a religion of outward observance should be more popular than one of inward purification. Those even which set off with the highest pretensions in this way have degenerated, and the outward and visible form is too often substituted for the inward and spiritual grace, which it was intended to _represent_ not to _supersede_. That religion therefore has the best chance of influencing the soul, which, as far as is possible, renounces outward demonstrations which human indolence is so glad to rely on, and preaches boldly and effectually the uselessness of ceremonies, farther than as they tend to preserve the remembrance of HIM who came to call the world back to HIMSELF, to trample on the sensual and the animal, and to raise man to his pristine, or rather, to what is to be his future state. A public acknowledgment of Christ as our Master and Lord, and a compliance with his own few and simple ordinances; are all that Christian duty requires, and nearly as much as Christian prudence will permit. The rest is a matter of worldly expediency, and should be so regarded.

No doubt rests on my own mind—I leave others to think as they may—that Episcopacy was the established form of the Church as soon as the Christian communities began to assume enough of regularity to admit of any settled order; and I think it a wise form. As far as any institution can, it secures unity and decency in the church: and as far as any institution can, that was not positively established by Christ himself, it possesses, in my mind, the sanction of antiquity. It gives the concentration of purpose and regularity of effort which is bestowed by the discipline of an army; for as in an army a detachment acts upon the same system of tactics, and obeys officers constituted by the same authority, and thus assists the efforts of the main body, and falls into rank with it when they meet; so the church, under such a form, may send detachments to the ends of the earth, who may meet after long years, as brothers of the same communion, and find that though the individuals have passed away, others have stepped into their place in the ranks, and are teaching what their predecessors taught. The benefit of church discipline, therefore, in my mind is great; but I do not suppose that salvation depends on it, because God has repeatedly declared that Christ died _for all_, {135a} and that he is not willing that any should perish; {135b} consequently he can hardly have made our eternal state dependent on what no man can accomplish for himself. A person may not have it in his power to receive baptism from an ordained priest, but he may live as Christ taught; or, having never heard of Christ even, he may, like the gentiles, win glory and immortality, {135c} if, having not the law, he be a law unto himself. I would not receive Christ’s ordinances from the hands of any but an ordained priest, myself, because if a doubt exist in my mind, I sin in doing the doubtful thing; but herein I speak only for myself; let every man do as he is “persuaded in his mind” {136} in matters of secondary import, as all ceremonial matters must be.

You will now be prepared for my opinion with regard to the late movement made in the church by the Anglo-Catholics, as they term themselves; Puseyites, or Newmanites, as they have been termed by others. They have been thought to have introduced innovations—they have not:—there is not one of the ceremonies or practices which they have recommended, which was not very early practised in the church; but it was from the undue importance attached to these ceremonies, which came to be regarded with reverence from having been instituted by apostles and martyrs, that the after growth of Roman superstition sprang up so rankly. I believe the first promoters of this movement were as remote from actual Romanism as I am, when they first began it; but when once reason is submitted to any human dictum, in matters of religion, there is no resting place till we arrive at the “infallible” guide which the Romish church claims to be. There alone can the soul which will not think for itself, find a ready and confident director. Accordingly, we find that some of those very men who but a few years back exposed the errors of Romanism, have now yielded themselves blindfold to the guidance of that very church, which, as long as they allowed themselves to reason, they acknowledged to have departed from the truth. Yet it is perhaps fortunate for the people generally, that this declension of its pastors has been as rapid and complete as it has been:—they were going back towards the sin of Aaron—they were insisting on ceremonies as necessary to salvation, thus rendering religion gross and tangible, and the people thus taught would soon have forgotten what those ceremonies were intended to represent, and have depended for salvation on what could not avail them in the hour of need: for the repetition of prayer is not necessarily praying, nor is the reception of the eucharist necessarily sanctification, though these may be the outward and visible signs of the inward and spiritual grace which is working in the heart. Once teach a man that _any_ ceremony is _requisite_ to salvation, and he will soon go a step further by himself, and think the outward ceremony sufficient without the inward grace. This indeed is but a necessary corollary; for if the ceremony be requisite to salvation, then the inward grace working purity of life, avails not without the ceremony; and thus purity of life is no longer a substantive virtue; it cannot stand alone; and the prop which it requires being so very strong, why should not the prop itself be all in all? This will be the course of ratiocination in the mind of the mass of mankind, whether avowed or not; and however the promoters of a ceremonial religion may shrink from such a consequence, it is so certain, as all experience shows, that they might as well throw a man who cannot swim into the water, and recommend him not to drown, as give a half instructed man a ceremony, which he is told is requisite to salvation, and expect that he will not cling to that, as the more convenient and least difficult observance; and whilst perfect in complying with every ordinance of the church, forget that he has overlooked the weightier matters of the law—judgment, justice, and mercy.

This may sound harsh, but it is true; and I appeal to the calm judgment even of the excellent Dr. Pusey himself, who has so unintentionally drawn many into a course from which, haply, he would now gladly draw them back, whether it be not so? His learning will show him how, through all ages, the spiritualism taught from heaven, has been counteracted by the visible and the tangible contrived by man; and in the step from the patriarchal religion, to the idolatry of Greece and Rome; from Christianity as preached by Christ and his Apostles, to the gross superstitions of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, he may see a type of what would be the consequence of again enforcing a ceremonial religion.

[Picture: Decorative header]

APPENDIX.

The following are extracts from the “Christianæ Religionis Institutio,” of Faustus Socinus:

_Q_. Quid igitur de Dei natura, sive essentia, nosse omnino nos debere statuis?

_R_. Hæc duo in summa. Quod sit et quod unus tantum sit.

* * * * *

_Q_. Verum quid quæso saltem de Spiritu Sancto nunc mihi dicis de quo isti similiter affirmant eum esse divinam personam, nempe tertiam, et unum atque eundem numero Deum cum Patre et Filio?

_R_. Nempe illum non esse personam aliquam a Deo cujus est spiritus, distinctam, sed tantum modo (ut nomen ipsum _Spiritus_, quod flatum et afflationem, ut sic loquar, significat, docere potest) ipsius Dei vim et efficaciam quandam, id est eam, quæ secum sanctitatem aliquam afferat.

* * * * *

_Q_. Quid censes de Christi natura sive essentia nobis cognitii esse necessarium?

_R_. Id, ut antea dixi, sine cujus cognitione voluntas Dei erga nos per ipsum Christum patefacta, a nobis vel sciri, vel servari nequeat.

_Q_. Quid igitur ex iis quæ ad Christi naturam sive essentiam pertinent, ejusmodi esse censes?

_R_. Vix quidquam. Nam quædam, quæ ad ipsius Christi personam alioqui pertinent, et nobis omnino ob prædictam causam cognita esse debent, non naturalia illi sunt, sed a Deo postmodum ipsi data et concessa, et sic ad Dei voluntatem sunt referenda, et quidem ad primam quam fecimus ejus partem, id est ad Dei operationes.

_Q_. Quæ nam sunt ista?

_R_. Divinum imperium quod in nos habet. Rom. xiv. 9.; et suprema illa majestas. Ephes. i. 20, &c.; qua quidquid usquam est, aut excogitari potest, præter unam tantum ipsius Dei majestatem longe excellit. 1 Cor. xv. 27. Phil. ii. 8, 9. Heb. ii. 9. Hæc enim Christo haud naturalia esse, sed a Deo Patre illi data fuisse, ipsumque ea per et propter mortem atque obedientiam et resurrectionem suam adeptum esse, apertissime scriptura testatur.

_Q_. Cur vero hæc de Christo cognoscere omnino debemus?

_R_. Quia, ut Christum divino cultu officiamus vult Deus. Joh. v. 25. Psal. xlv. 12. Heb. i. 6. Philip. ii. 10.; ejus generis, inquam, cultu cujus is est, quem ipsi Deo exhibere debemus.

* * * * *

_Q_. Quid de ipsa tamen Christi essentia seu natura statuis?

_R_. De Christi essentia ita statuo, illum esse hominem. Rom. v. 15.; in virginis utero, et sic sine viri ope, divini spiritus vi conceptum ac formatum. Matt. i. 20. 23. Luc. i. 35.; indeque genitum, primum quidem patibilem ac mortalem. 2 Cor. xiii. 4.; donec, scilicet munus sibi a Deo demandatum hie in terris obivit; deinde vero postquam in cœlum ascendit, impatibilem et immortalem factum. Rom. vi. 9.

* * * * *

_Q_. Quid enim primum sibi vult, quod innuis hoc quod Christus Dei filius sit proprius et unigenitus non omnino ad ejus naturam pertinere?

_R._ Divina ista Christi filiatio, eatenus tantum ad ejus naturam aliquo modo referri potest, quatenus id respicit quod Christus divini Spiritus vi sine viri ope in virginis utero conceptus et formatus fuit. Nam hujusce rei causa eum Dei filium vocatum ire, ipsius Dei Angelus ipsimet virgini, ex qua natus est, prædixit. Luc. i. 35; et quidem consequenter Dei filium proprium et unigenitum, cum nemo alius hac ratione, et ab ipso primo ortu Dei films unquam extiterit.

* * * * *

_R_. Quod attinet ad primum testimonium quod habetur (i.e. of præexistence) Joh. i. 3. Dictio universalis _omnia_ non prorsus universaliter accipienda est, sed ad subjectam materiam restringenda, ut scilicet ea tantum omnia complectatur, quæ ad Evangelium pertinent.

_Q_. Sed quid dices, quod in loco isto apud Johannem additur; sine verbo, id est Deo filio, nihil esse factum?

_R_. Immo cum certum esse videatur, mox sequentia verba _quod factum est_ (quidquid nonnulli contra sentiant) cum additione ista conjungenda esse: dicendum potius videtur, voluisse Evangelistam cum ista addidit indicare se de quibusdam nunquam antea et nova ac mirabili ratione factis loqui. Nam ad docendum simpliciter se loqui de iis quæ sunt facta nec semper fuerunt, satis habebat illa verba addere, _et sine ipso factum est nihil_. Itaque mysterio non videtur carere, quod præterea addit _quod factum est_; subaudi novum et mirabile, ad mundi ipsius statum pertinens, &c. &c.

* * * * *

Jam dictum est (est de pœnis persolvendis primum agamus) pœnam quam uniusquisque nostrum propter delicta sua pendere tenebatur, mortem æternam esse. Hanc profecto Christus non subiit; et si cam subiisset, universi salutis nostræ et liberationis a peccatorum pœna spes, et ratio funditus eversa fuisset. Immo si jam Christus non resurrexisset, vana, ut inquit Paulus. 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17.; esset Evangelii prædicatio, et nos adhuc essemus in peccatis nostris. Et tamen, si idcirco nos servasset Christus, quod pœnas nostris peccatis debitas ipse sustinuisset, et nobis ejus rei fides quoad ejus fieri poterat facienda fuisset; eum nunquam resurgere, sed in morte perpetuo manere oportuisset: Op. Vol. p. 197, fol. Edit.

Ac dicitis, ut conjeci potest, animadvertendum esse, aliam in ipsa essentia divina personam patris esse, aliam personam filii: et Patri potuisse a Filio satisfieri seu ut satisfierat, vim suppeditari: nec tamen aliquid quod satisfactioni per solutionem facienda adversetur, committi. Sed dicite obsecro, nonne ipsius filii personæ non minus quam patris satisfaciendum fuisse affirmatis. Si filius patri satisfacit, hoc est, quod illi debetur solvit: quis ipsi filio, quod ipsi debetur, dabit? Respondebitis, ut arbitror, si patri satisfactum fuit, filio quoque satisfactum esse; cum eadem sit utriusque voluntas . . . Quomodo patri a filio quidquam ullo parto solvi potuisset si quod unius aut est, aut fit, alterius reipsa esse necesse foret? . . . At vero quis deinde ambigere queat filium patri nihil dare posse: cum quidquid filius habet patris revera sit, et ipse Christus disertè dixerit, Joh. xvii. 10, omnia quæ sua erant patris esse? Annon ex ipsa disciplina vestra, hoc est Dei essentiam non distinguere, sed partiri: si præter personarum proprietates, aliquid unam personam habere velitis quod alia non habeat. Filii autem personam proprietates suas patris personæ pro peccatorum nostrorum satisfactione solvisse, cui unquam in mentem venire poteret? Ib. p. 202.

* * * * *

FINIS.

* * * * *

* * * * *

CHARLES WHITTINGHAM, CHISWICK.

* * * * *

Footnotes.

{3} αγαπη which is the word generally translated _charity_ in the New Testament means _affectionate regard_. The distinction between charity and almsgiving is well laid down by St. Clement of Alexandria. “Charity,” says he, “leads to the sharing our good things with others; but this is not in itself charity, but only our outward sign of that feeling.”

{4} See 1 Cor. ix. 19, 20.

{5a} Rom. xii. 10.

{5b} “No national prejudices, no religious differences could hinder our Saviour from doing good. We should consider that men’s understandings naturally are not all of the same size and capacity, and that this difference is greatly increased by different education, different employments, different company, and the like. No man is infallible. We are liable to errors perhaps as much as others. The very best men may sometimes differ in opinion, as St. Paul ‘withstood St. Peter to the face;’ and if there was such a difference between two of the chiefest of the Apostles, well may there be between inferior mortals. About modes of faith there will always be dispute and difference; but in acts of mercy and kindness all mankind may and should agree.”—_Newton_.

{8} “In fact, all the religious persecutions in the world, all the penalties and inflictions upon those who differ from ourselves, however conscientiously, take their rise from an imperfect and erroneous notion of what really constitutes the glory of God, and the manner in which we best can assist its display and extension. The angels at the birth of Christ sang that the glory of God was in unison with ‘Peace on earth, and good will towards men.’—‘No!’ said the Schoolman, ‘the glory of God consists in thinking of the Deity as we think.’—‘No!’ said the Inquisitor, ‘the glory of God consists in worshiping as we prescribe.’—‘No!’ said the Covenanters, ‘the glory of God consists in exterminating those whom we call his enemies.’ Mistaken men! who _thus_ propose to honour the God and Father of the universe, the merciful God, and the gracious Father of all his rational creatures! Instead of perusing with delight and conviction the plain declaration contained in our Sacred records, too many Christians have in almost every age passed over the characteristics of kind design throughout nature: they have mistaken or forgotten the clear delineations of Divine Mercy and Goodness in the Book of Grace, and have had recourse to the narrowed circle of their own prejudices.”—_Maltby’s Sermons_.

{10} It would be well if Rom. xiv. were more attentively studied and more universally practised among Christians.

{14} They have in consequence been sometimes called “Seekers.”

{15a} Gough’s History of the Quakers. Vol. i. p. 139.

{15b} Probably their resolute refusal to pay tithes and other dues brought on them some of these punishments.

{20} “Keep the Sabbath holy,” says Luther, “for its use both to body and soul; but if any where the day is made holy for the mere day’s sake; if any where any one sets up its observance upon a _Jewish_ foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do any thing that shall remove this encroachment on the Christian spirit and liberty.” This is language which may be easily misunderstood and perverted from Luther’s meaning; but it was uttered by him from a jealousy of Sabbatical superstition.

{21} Matt. v.

{22} “There is an unreasonable, uncharitable, and superstitious notion that a soldier, so far as his profession is concerned, is ‘of the world;’ and that a man who dies in the field of battle is _necessarily_ less prepared for his change than one who dies in his bed. These feelings, which have sadly tended to degrade and impoverish the mind of modern Europe . . . to make armies what they are told they _must_ be; and therefore to make them dangerous by depriving them of any high restraining principles, have been greatly encouraged by the tone which religious men of our day have adopted from the Quakers.” _Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ_.

{24a} Moral education, in spite of all the labours of direct instruction, is really acquired in hours of recreation. Sports and amusements are, and must be the means by which the mind is insensibly trained: ‘Men are but children of a larger growth;’ they will have their pleasures; and unless care be taken, the sermon of the church or chapel will be neutralized by the association of the tavern and the raceground. There must be safety valves for the mind, i.e. there must be means for its pleasurable, profitable, and healthful exertion; those means it is in our power to render safe and innocent; in too many instances they have been rendered dangerous and guilty.” _Dr. Taylor_.

{24b} Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. (1 Tim. iv. 4.) Extend this maxim, apply it to the several means of enjoyment, either supposed or real, that the world presents to us. Those pleasures from which we cannot unreservedly arise, and thank our Maker; those pursuits which mar our devotions, and render us unwilling or afraid to come before Him, cannot be innocent. It would be no easy matter to lay down, as applicable to all, a rule as to how far conformity with the world is admissible, and where the Christian must stop: for as the habits and tempers and propensities of men differ, so also do their temptations and their danger. Thus through the rule by which one would stand securely, another would as certainly fall. _Lectures on the Church Catechism_.

{26} See 1 Tim. iv. 4.

{29} “A reverend Doctor in Cambridge was troubled at his small living at Hoggenton (Oakington) with a peremptory Anabaptist, who plainly told him, ‘It goes against my conscience to pay you tithes except you can show me a place of Scripture whereby they are due unto you.’ The Dr. returned, ‘Why should it not go as much against my conscience that you should enjoy your nine parts for which you can show no place in Scripture?’ To whom the other rejoined, ‘But I have for my land deeds and evidences from my fathers, who purchased and were peaceably possessed thereof by the laws of the land.’ ‘The same is my title,’ said the Doctor, ‘tithes being confirmed unto me by many statutes of the land, time out of mind.’” _Fuller’s Church History_, _Book II_.

{30a} John iii. 16.

{30b} 2 Cor. v. 19.

{30c} 1 Tim. ii. 4.

{31a} 1 John iv. 9, 10.

{31b} Rom. ii. 15.

{31c} John i. 9. See also 1 John ii. 1, 2. 2 Heb. ii. 9.

{32} Luke xii. 48.

{33a} Mosh. Ecc. Hist. Cent. xvi. Sect. iii.

{33b} Ib.

{35a} Some of the passages of this Catechism are quoted by Mosheim, which differ very little from the doctrine of the primitive church: all that can be noticed is, that they omit a distinct recognition of the divinity of Christ.

{35b} “Fausti Socini Senensis Opera omnia,” vol. i. p. 561. These works form a part of the “Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum qui Unitarii appellantur.” Irenopoli post anno dom. 1656.

{36} It is remarkable that _persona_ should so often be confounded with individual. _Persona_ in its original sense was the mask of the actor, _through which the sound_ came. The same actor might wear many _personæ_. If Socinus had recollected this, he might have spared himself the trouble of controverting a notion never maintained by the orthodox, i.e. that the Deity was _individually divided_.

{37} Vide Appendix.

{39a} Small Books &c. No. VII. p. 21, &c.

{39b} πρἰν Άβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ είμι.

{39c} John. x. 30.

{39d} John xiv. 9, 10.

{39e} 2 Cor. v. 19.

{39f} 1 Tim. ii. 5.

{40} Athanasian Creed.

{41} John v. 30.

{42} The following are extracts from the “Book of Common Prayer reformed,” professing to have been a selection made by “the late Rev. Theophilus Lindsey for the use of the congregation in Essex Street”—and as a liturgy is generally allowed to be a fair exponent of the doctrines of those who use it—perhaps we may assume that the violent and reprehensible expressions made use of by some few persons of this persuasion, are not such as would be acknowledged by the congregations of Unitarians in general.

Form of baptism. “I baptize thee into (εἰς) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

“Almighty and ever blessed God, by whose providence the different generations of mankind are raised up to know thee and to enjoy thy favour for ever; grant that this child now dedicated to thee as the disciple of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, may be endued with heavenly virtues . . . and that we may daily proceed in all virtue and goodness of living, till we come to that eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our Lord.”

Order for the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Confession, the same as in the liturgy of the English church as far as “we do heartily repent and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings, the remembrance of which is grievous unto us. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; forgive us all that is past: and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life to the honour and glory of thy name.” The absolution is the same with the trifling change of _us_ for _you_. The sentences following are the same till “Hear also what St. John saith,” where the text 1 John i. 8, 9, is substituted.

Prayer before the minister receives the communion. “Almighty God, our heavenly Father, by whose gracious assistance and for our benefit, thy beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ, was obedient even to the death upon the cross; who did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memorial of his death until his coming again; hear us, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we may receive this bread and wine in grateful remembrance of his death and sufferings, and of thy great mercy to mankind in sending him, thy chosen messenger, to turn us from darkness to light, from vice to virtue, from ignorance and error to the knowledge of thee, the only true God, whom to know is life everlasting.”

Form of administration. “Take and eat this bread in remembrance of Christ”—“Take and drink this wine in remembrance of Christ.”

In the daily service many prayers are omitted, so as to make the service much shorter. The exhortation and confession are the same; for the absolution is substituted “Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid; purify the thoughts of our hearts that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name through Christ our Lord.”—It would be useless to multiply extracts—enough has been given to show the doctrine of the Unitarian congregations who use this liturgy.

{47} Priestly’s “Discourses on Various Subjects,” p. 419. See also p. 14, &c. and Prefatory Discourse, p. 93.

{48} Channing’s Discourse on preaching Christ.

{49} Channing’s Works. On the great purpose of Christianity.

{50a} Channing’s Character of Christ.

{50b} Channing’s Sunday School.

{50c} Channing’s Charge at the Ordination of Rev. R. C. Waterston.

{51a} Channing On Infidelity.

{51b} Channing’s System of Exclusion.

{52} John Wesley was born in 1703.

{54} “I rode over to a neighbouring town,” says Wesley, “to wait upon a justice of peace, a man of candour and understanding; before whom I was informed their angry neighbours had carried a whole waggon load of these new heretics.” But when he asked, “what they had done,” there was a deep silence, for that was a point their conductor had forgot. At length one said, “Why they pretend to be better than other people, and besides they pray from morning till night.” Mr. S--- asked, “But have they done nothing besides?” “Yes, Sir,” said an old man, “an’t please your worship they have _convarted_ my wife; till she went among them she had such a tongue, and now she is as quiet as a lamb.” “Carry them back,” replied the justice, “and let them convert all the scolds in the town.”—(Wesley’s Journal.)

{55} Watson’s Life of Wesley, page 484.

{56} Lackington.

{59a} “Who does as he would be done by, in buying or selling? particularly selling horses? Write him a knave that does not, and the Methodist knave is the worst of all knaves.”—_Wesley’s Large Minutes_, Q. 13.

{59b} Snuff-taking and drams are expressly forbidden.

{59c} In May 1776, an order was made in the House of Lords, “That the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Excise do write circular letters to all such persons whom they have reason to suspect to have plate, as also to those who have not paid regularly the duty on the same.” In consequence of this order the Accountant-general for household plate sent a copy of it to John Wesley. The answer was as follows:

Sir,

I have _two_ silver teaspoons in London and two at Bristol: this is all the plate which I have at present, and I shall not buy any more while so many round me want bread.

I am Sir, your most humble servant, JOHN WESLEY.

{61} “I used my prayers,” says the author of the ‘Bank of Faith,’ “_as gunners do swivels_; _turning them every way_ as the cases required.” Wesley relates in his Journal that “By prayer he used to cure a violent pain in his head,” &c.

{62} This writer, the celebrated Lackington the bookseller, relates the following occurrence soon after he turned Methodist. “One Sunday morning at eight o’clock, my mistress seeing her sons set off, and knowing they were gone to a Methodist meeting, determined to prevent me from doing the same, by locking the door; on which in a superstitious mood I opened the Bible for direction what to do, and the first words I read were these, “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” This was enough for me, so without a moment’s hesitation I ran up two pair of stairs to my own room, and out of the window I leapt to the great terror of my poor mistress. My feet and ancles were most intolerably bruised, so that I was obliged to be put to bed; and it was more than a month before I recovered the use of my limbs. I was then ignorant enough to think that _the Lord had not used me very well_; and I resolved _not to put so much trust in him_ for the future. My rash adventure made a great noise in the town, and was talked of many miles round. Some few admired my prodigious strength of faith; but the major part pitied me as a poor ignorant, deluded, and infatuated boy.”

{64a} Wesley’s Works, vol. xii. p. 49. Some of Wesley’s expressions, when confronted with each other, appear incompatible; in such cases the main drift of the writer must always be considered; for it is much more usual to fail in expressing our meaning than to express contradictory opinions: since the latter implies a cerebral defect verging on insanity, the former merely results from a faulty style. Scripture does not any where warrant us in saying “_the moment_ a penitent sinner,” &c.; but requires from us a proof of this belief by actions conformable to it. God has promised us immortality through his Son, only if we not merely believe, but “do that which is lawful and right.”

{64b} Wesley censured some of his preachers for pushing the doctrine of perfection too far.

{65} Wesley’s Works, vol. viii. p. 219. and vol. xi. p. 415.

{66} So called from their habit of rebaptizing those who entered their communion. They were afterwards called _Antipædobaptists_, from their objection to _pædo_ or infant baptism; and finally, the English habit of abbreviation of words at all commonly used, contracted the word into _Baptist_.

{67} Mosheim. Ecc. Hist. Cant. XVI. Sect, iii. Part 2.

{68a} Milton belonged to the class of Anti-Trinitarian General Baptists.

{68b} That the body of Jesus was not derived from the substance of the blessed Virgin, but created in her womb by an omnipotent act of the Holy Spirit.

{68c} V. Mosheim’s Ecc. Hist.

{69} All who baptize infants may be termed pædo-baptists; the word is derived from the Greek πάις a child or infant, and βὰπτω to baptize.

{70a} Yet the bishop ought to have known that baptism by immersion was practised in the church for many centuries, and the rubric of our common prayer leaves the option of immersion or aspersion.

{70b} Condor’s View. p. 380.

{75a} Marriage is enumerated in one of the Moravian hymns amongst the services of danger, for which the United Brethren are “to hold themselves prepared.”

“You as yet single are but little tried, Invited to the supper of the bride, That like the former warrior each may stand Ready for land, sea, marriage, at command.”

{75b} See Latrobe’s edition of Spangenburgh’s Exposition of Christian Doctrine.

{79} Litany of the New Church. Office of ordination, p. 151.

{80a} Rom. xxi. 27.

{80b} 1 Cor. i. 3.

{81a} John i. 18.

{81b} John vi. 46.

{82} Liturgy of the New Church Office of Baptism, p. 58.

{84} “Jesus the Fountain of Life and Light,” p. 12.

{85} In some places it is not till the end of a fortnight.

{87a} Examination of the opinions of the Plymouth Brethren.

{87b} The following is a sample from one of their published works: “The first eclogue of Virgil has always appeared to me to express most felicitously the pleasures of a _pastoral_ life as we too frequently see it in these days. With what force the following lines describe the grateful feeling of a _young clergyman_, who is recounting the benefits conferred on him by his patron:

O Melibœe, Deus nobis hæc otia fecit. Namque erit ille mihi semper Deus— Ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum Ludere, qæe vellem, calamo permisit agresti.

My patron shall always be a divinity to me, for he put me into this life of ease when he gave me this _gem_, _the prettiest living in England_. He gave me this _easy duty_, so that I can let my flock wander wheresoever it may please them, as you see they do; while I myself do just what 1 like, and occasionally amuse myself with a _pianoforte_ by Stoddart, that cost eighty-five guineas.”

“He (the congregational minister) is now, in his own opinion, the ONE MAN of the whole body of believers in all the services of the sanctuary. He utters all their sentiments of faith and doctrine, and offers up all their prayers! How can he justify the position he has assumed as _an usurper_? yea as a _grievous wolf_! in that he has swallowed up _all the gifts of the Holy Ghost_ in the _voracity of his selfishness_,” &c. It is not thus that the “unity of the church,” which they profess to desire is likely to be cemented.

{90} Bishop Jewel, in his “Defence of his apology for the Church of England,” says, that “the term _Calvinist_ was in the first instance applied to the Reformers and the English Protestants as a matter of reproach by the Church of Rome.”

{91} Whatever difference may have subsisted between Luther and Calvin on the subject of Divine decrees, no language can be stronger than that in which Luther insists upon the moral impotence of man’s depraved nature in opposition to the Pelagian doctrine of freewill.

{93a} It is difficult to reconcile this doctrine with 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 1 Tim. ii. 6. 2 Pet. iii. 9. Rom. viii. 32. 1 Tim. iv. 10. &c.

{93b} The best account of their system is to be found in “The Assembly’s Catechism,” which is taught their children. To this sect belongs more particularly the doctrine of _Atonement_, or, “that Christ by his death made satisfaction to the Divine justice for the _Elect_; appeasing the anger of the Divine Being, and effecting on his part a reconciliation.” That thus Christ had, as they term it, “the sin of the Elect laid upon him.” But some of their teachers do not hold this opinion, but consider Christ’s death as simply a medium through which God has been pleased to exercise mercy towards the penitent. “The sacrifice of Christ,” says Dr. Magee, “was never deemed by any (who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement), to have made God placable: but merely viewed as the means appointed by Divine wisdom by which to bestow forgiveness.” To this it may be further added, that the language used throughout the Epistles of St. Paul with regard to the redemption of man, is that of the then familiar slave market. Man is “bought with a price” from his former master, Sin, for the service of God. The scholar who will consult Romans vi. will see immediately that all the metaphors used are those of purchase for military service; “Your members,” says he, ver. 13, “shall not be the arms (ὄπλα) of unrighteousness used for the service of sin; but the arms (ὄπλα) of righteousness for God.” And ver 23, τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ὰμαρτίας, θάνατος· τὸ δὲ χαρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ, ζωὴ, αἰώνιος ἐν Χριτῷ Ιησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἠμῶν. i.e. The rations of sin are death, but the donative of God is eternal life, by means of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is impossible to express more clearly that it was not the wrath of God which required to be appeased by the great sacrifice—the slave was _bought by Him for Himself_—the price was of course paid to another. Much misunderstanding has arisen from the careless interpretation of these and the like passages, whose phraseology has become obsolete along with the practice of buying and selling slaves, at least in this country.

{95a} Matt. xvi. 27.

{95b} Matt. xviii. 14.

{96a} Vide Exod. xxxiii. 14, et seq.

{96b} According to the Calvinistic doctrine above stated, character has no concern whatever with their call; ergo, if this is right, St. Paul is wrong, and mankind _are_ called with respect of persons.

{96c} “This system (Calvinism) by setting aside the idea of a human will, leaves the doctrine of Divine Will barren and unmeaning; the idea of a personal ruler disappears, and those most anxious to assert the government of the Living God have been the great instruments in propagating the notion of an atheistical necessity.” _Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ_.

{98a} Hopkins on the New Birth.

{98b} 1 John iii. 7–10, see also v. 21 of the same chapter, where our confidence towards God is shown to depend on the judgment of our own consciousness of wrong or well doing. The whole chapter is well worth the study of every Christian.

{102} I take this from books, not having personal acquaintance with the Presbyterians of Ireland: and such is the confusion generally made by authors between Arianism, Socinianism, and Unitarianism, that it is difficult to know which is meant. As a large proportion of the modern Presbyterians have embraced Unitarian doctrines, it seems improbable that the Irish should have adopted those of Arius, though my author uses the term Arian as applied to the doctrine of the seceders.

{106} See “The Use and Abuse of Creeds and Confession of Faith,” by the Rev. Charles James Carlile, Dublin, 1836. “The Irish Church and Ireland,” p. 66–68, and “A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Associate Synod in Ireland and Scotland in the affair of the Royal Bounty,” by James Bryce. Belfast, 1816.

{122a} Although the excellent Bishop Heber’s mind was deeply imbued with devotional feelings, he considered a moderate participation in what are usually called worldly amusements, to be allowable and blameless. “He thought,” says his biographer, “that the strictness which made no distinction between things blameable only in their abuse, and the practices which were really immoral, was prejudicial to the interests of true religion; and on this point his opinion remained unchanged to the last. His own life indeed was a proof that amusement so participated in, may be perfectly harmless, and no way interfere with any religious or moral duty.”

{122b} “Rowland Hill, in his theological opinions, leaned towards Calvinism, but what is called Hyper-calvinism, he could not endure. In a system of doctrine he was follower of no man, but drew his sermons fresh from a prayerful reading of the Bible. He was for drawing together all the people of God wherever they could meet, and was willing to join in a universal communion with Christians of every name. When, on one occasion, he had preached in a chapel, where none but baptized adults (i.e. baptized after attaining years of discretion), were admitted to the sacrament, he wished to have communicated with them, but was told respectfully, ‘You cannot sit down at _our_ table.’ He calmly replied, ‘I thought it was the Lord’s table.’” Sidney’s Life of R. Hill, p. 422, 3rd Edit.

{124} Simeon’s Works, Vol. III. p. 101, &c.

{126} Simeon’s Works, Vol. III. p. 333.

{131a} Exod. xxxii. 4.

{131b} Vide Colossians ii. 18, 19.

{135a} 2 Cor. v. 15. 1 Tim. ii. 6.

{135b} 2 Pet. iii. 9.

{135c} Rom. ii. 6–11.

{136} Rom. xiv. 5.