« PrécédentContinuer »
or Dr. Bolles, or Mr. Emerson, is answerable for the scenes exhibited on" Gallows Hill," a century ago? Are Judge Story and Mr. Saltonstall disposed to hang witches? By what exuberance of liberality, we desire to know, are the Andover Professors held accountable for the reprehensible conduct of Calvin, three centuries ago? May we be permitted "to call for information," and request any intelligent gentleman to inform us what special purpose they expect to accomplish by this frequent rhetorical flourish? In the mean time we take the liberty of adding the following facts. Toulmin, no friend of Calvin and no enemy to Socinus, in his Life of the latter, speaking of Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, and Socinus, says, "they all erred in regard to Toleration," "it should, however, rather be ascribed to the times than the men, that they favored in one respect or another, intolerance or persecution." Let those who possess, as well as profess, liberality of sentiment, meditate upon this remark of the biographer of Socinus, and say, whether it is perfectly fair and just to the memory of the Genevan Reformer, without any reference to his merits, his attainments, or his efforts, thus to hold him up to perpetual scorn, while the circumstances of the age, and the feelings and conduct of his contemporaries, are studiously concealed? When the character of Socinus is drawn, is that trait of it, explained and modified by Toulmin, its leading, prominent feature? In what Unitarian imagination is not Calvin painted as only the gloomy, iron-hearted, relentless persecutor? Why, we ask again, and desire every Unitarian writer and declaimer before penning another sentence, or rounding another period, to answer the question, why is not Davidies entitled to as much commisseration in Boston, as Servetus? The plain truth is, that both Calvin and Socinus deserve reprehension. "Call no man master, for one is your master, even Christ." Imitate Paul only so far as he imitated Christ. Neither Abraham, nor David, nor Peter, nor Calvin, is the exemplar of Christian perfection. Yet what Unitarian would hazard his reputation for liberality by dwelling only, or chiefly, on the faults of the three names first mentioned? Why not treat Calvin with the same impartial justice as others, who either through remaining imperfections of nature, or the prescriptions of prejudice, fell into similar or equal faults? Really liberal men, of every denomination, need only have this subject presented in its proper light, to silence all the slang about "Calvin burnt Servetus." I would not have dwelt so long upon a topic, in itself so unimportant, but that the frequent recurrence to it in Unitarian sermons, periodicals, pamphlets, speeches, &c., has made it necessary, both in justice to the illustrious reformer, and to those who are now called Calvinists.
Thus far I have merely acted on the defensive, and exposed the hollowness of the Unitarian insinuation attempted to be conveyed by the unreflecting repetition of, “ Calvin burnt Servetus." Were it necessary, the state of things in Switzerland in the nineteenth century, opens a field, which strongly invites offensive operations. Geneva would present much, and the Canton of Vaud more, for thoughtful consideration, especially contrasted with the present state of England. If the theology of Dr. Ware's Letters be liberal and rational, the theology of the Canton of Vaud is liberal and rational. In both cases, and in that of Geneva also, it is anti-calvinistic. In regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, so far as I can learn, that is still held in the Canton of Vaud, but it is a solitary column of a once fair fabrie already tottering to its fall. All the connected doctrines, which constitute what is here called the Orthodox system, have long since been given up. Why, then, should a writer in the Christian Examiner call the Canton of Vaud an "Orthodox Canton"? The term Orthodox, in Boston, has a settled meaning, and when used by a Unitarian, is of necessity supposed to express that meaning, unless otherwise explained. Did not this writer know that the Canton of Vaud is not "Orthodox," in the sense in which his readers understand that word? If he did not, "it is a shame for him to write so confidently" on a subject he does not understand. If he did, we allow him to select the epithet appropriate to the deed. If he meant by Orthodox, what is so called in England, he should, in all fairness, have said so. In that case, it means anti-calvinistic, the complete antipodes of Orthodox in New England; just what is here understood by Unitarian, in contradistinction from Evangelical. The Mummers of Geneva and the Canton of Vaud have been ridiculed, or silenced, or imprisoned, or banished, simply and solely, because they preached distinctly and heartily the doctrines here held to be Orthodox; and were so exceedingly zealous as to hold night meetings, and to read the Bible, four or five of them together, and to pray over it for divine illumination. This we assert, and stand ready to prove, was the head and front of their offending in liberal, rational, anti-calvinistic Switzerland. Amphigouri would seem not confined to the Genevan clergy.
Look at England for a moment. The House of Commons has re-' cently astounded Mr. Peel and the High Church party, by a large majority for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, and by a majority for removing Catholic disabilities. How happens this? Who does not know that, for the last thirty years, the Evangelical party in the Church and among the Dissenters has been rapidly in
creasing, while the Arminian party has been diminishing? The result is seen in the late votes in the House of Commons, the members of which might be, and the great majority of them, probably, are, wholly ignorant of the origin of that public sentiment of which they are merely the organ. Bible, and Missionary, and Tract, and Education Societies, and Sabbath schools are at once raising heathen nations to the rank of Christians, and casting off shackles that have too long encumbered Christians in the land of our Fathers. These institutions, be it remembered, are principally Evangelical in their origin, their character, their influence, and their support.
If the history of religious sects and opinions establishes one fact, it is this, to which we particularly invite philosophical Unitarian minds, Evangelical sentiments have ever favored civil liberty. So true is the text and the exposition of the text, by Prof. Stuart, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." The character and influence of the Puritans, as exhibited in the Edinburgh Review of Milton's Theological Treatise, arrested attention, and commanded universal approbation. I would suggest to the reflecting Unitarian, as a subject of curious investigation, the comparative influence and tendency of Calvinistic or Evangelical sentiments in England, and of Liberal sentiments in Switzerland.
The defection of Geneva from Evangelical sentiments, has been a subject of no slight rejoicing in this quarter. The mode, the circumstances, the consequences, have not been so much dwelt upon. We have not time nor space for detail here. We wish, however, to present a specimen of Unitarian "established" liberality. "The Venerable Compagnie," require all candidates for the ministry to sign a promise to abstain from expressing their opinions, either by a discourse, or part of a discourse, [Unitarians can be definite if necessary,] upon these topics-"1. The manner in which the divine nature is united to the person of Christ. 2. Original sin. 3. Efficacious grace. 4. Predestination." One would think this enough. Not so the Venerable Company. The candidates must also promise "not to oppose the opinions of any of the pastors." The Venerable Company, in these few "promise nots," beat the Bishop of Peterborough with his eighty-seven questions, out and out. In England, the Bishop was met with a public frown, from which he soon fled. Not so in liberal Geneva. A writer upon the spot well observes, upon this Venerable Company; "Self-contradictory men, who renounced a profession of faith, and forced subscription to promises; who mocked at ancient formularies, and established new ones; who declared that the spirit of the reformation was a spirit of liberty, and
chained up instruction." Yet the Christian Disciple and the Christian Examiner, published in Boston, United States of North America, volunteer apologies for the Venerable Company.
NOTE G. Page 74.
References to passages of the New Testament, exclusive of the Apocalypse, which relate to evil spirits. Matthew, iv. 1-11, 24. viii. 16, 28-34. ix. 32-34. x. 1, 8. xii. 22-29, 43-45. xiii. 18, 19, 24-30, 36-39. xv. 21-28. xvi. 23. xvii. 14-21. XXV. 41. Mark, i. 13, 23, 27, 32, 34, 39. iii. 11, 13, 14, 22-27. iv. 14, 15, 24. v. 1-20. vi. 7, 13. vii. 24-30. ix. 17-29, 38-40. xvi. 9. Luke, iv. 1-13, 33-36, 40, 41. vi. 18. vii. 21, 22, viii. 12, 26-36. ix. 1, 37-42, 49, 50. x. 17–20. xi. 14–26. xiii. 16, 32. xxii. 31. John, vi. 70. xii. 31. xiii. 2, 27. xiv. 30. xvi. 11. Acts, v. 3. viii. 7. x. 38. xiii. 10. xix. 12-16. xxvi. 18. On the narrative contained xvi. 16-18, see Storr, vol. ii. p. 26. Romans, xvi. 20. 1 Cor. v. 5. vii. 5. x. 20, 21. 2 Cor. ii. 11. iv. 3, 4. vi. 15. xi. 3, 14, 15. xii. 7. Eph. ii. 2. iv. 27. vi. 10-18. Coll. i. 13. ii. 15. 1 Thess. ii. 18. iii. 5. 2 Thess. ii. 9. 1 Tim. iv. 1. v. 14, 15. 2 Tim. ii. 26. Heb. ii. 14. James, ii. 19. IV. 7. 1 Peter, v. 8. 2 Peter, ñ. 4-11. 1 John, ii. 13. iii. 8-12. v. 18. Jude, 6-9.
By Christ himself, by the eight writers of the New Testament, in sixty-seven different chapters, and in more than two hundred verses, the personal existence and agency of " the devil and his angels" are distinctly asserted. Are the united, explicit, and often repeated declarations of Christ and his apostles worthy of credit? Whose decision is authoritative and final, in the land of the Pilgrims, that of divine inspiration or that of a self-styled rationalism?
NOTE H. Page 75.
REASON-ITS PROVINCE AND USE. JUDGE STORY.
It is a common assertion with Unitarians, that their system is more rational than the Orthodox. If this be true, it is more worthy of eredit, and the sooner its claims are substantiated, the better. The following remark is a fair specimen of Unitarian assertion on this subject. "In addition to novelty, it has the advantage of claiming a
more intimate alliance with reason than those systems, which require a belief in doctrines that are incomprehensible." Month. Rep. 1806, p. 434. Let us examine the validity of this claim. Do the Orthodox discard reason? Who dare assert it? Do they undervalue reason? To answer this question we must ask another, what is the legitimate province of reason? To this the Orthodox reply, that reason is properly employed, 1. In examining the evidence of the existence of the Divine Being. 2. In examining the evidence on which a professed revelation of the divine will rests. 3. In ascertaining the authenticity and genuineness of the documents, which contain the truly divine revelation. 4. In investigating the meaning of these documents according to the established principles of language.
The Orthodox, believing the Bible to be the Word, and to contain the will, of God, profess to use reason simply for this purpose, to discover what the will of God is, as revealed in his Word. They conduct the investigation on principles similar to those applied by the classical critics to Homer, Hesiod, and Euripides. These critics, however, do not feel bound to defend the sentiments of those writers as true or rational. They merely state them as they find them. The Orthodox, on the other hand, adopt this argument of an able reasoner, "no demonstration can be stronger than this, GOD HATH SAID SO, THEREFORE IT IS TRUE." And what is true, they hold to be rational. The Orthodox, then, use their reason to discover what God hath said, not what he ought to say. Unitarians, practically at least, adopt the latter course, or there is no dispute between them and the Orthodox as to the principle of reasoning in this instance. The course practically adopted by Unitarians, their opponents consider both irrational and presumptuous. Reason with the one party acts as a judge, deciding what the law is; with the other, it is too often a legislator, declaring what the law shall be. The Orthodox found the reasonableness of their belief, chiefly, on the declarations of that God, who gave them reason, who knows the truth, and cannot lie. What firmer foundation for a truly rational belief does the Universe afford? Who, then, make the proper use of reason,-those, who submit their reason to the declarations of the omniscient Jehovah; or those, who subject the declarations of the eternal God to their mole-eyed reason? If it be irrational to trust God rather than man, the Orthodox cheerfully submit to the imputation. It should be kept distinctly in mind, that the question here, relates not to the interpretation put upon any passage, but to the principle of interpretation, applied to the whole sacred