{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36113/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36113","id":"gutenberg_36113","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36113","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian sects -- History -- 19th century"],"text":"\n\nTranscribed from the 1846 William Pickering edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n CHRISTIAN SECTS IN THE\n NINETEENTH CENTURY\n IN A SERIES OF LETTERS\n TO A LADY\n\n\n [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n \u201cBy this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye\n have love one to another.\u201d\u2014JOHN xiii. 35.\n\n [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n LONDON\n WILLIAM PICKERING\n 1846\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cHeaven and Hell are not more distant, than the benevolent spirit of\n the Gospel, and the malignant spirit of party. The most impious wars\n ever made were called\u2014\u2018Holy Wars.\u2019\u201d\n\n LYTTLETON.\n\n \u201cLet those ill-invented terms whereby we have been distinguished from\n each other be swallowed up in that name which will lead us hand in\n hand to heaven\u2014the name of CHRISTIAN.\u201d\n\n BISHOP RYDER.\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\nThe following letters grew out of a conversation between one of the\neditors of the \u201cSmall Books,\u201d and a lady of his acquaintance; and as\nthere are probably many who have felt the want of the information they\ncontain, it has been thought that by publishing them in a collected form\nthey may be useful. The views of the writer are sufficiently explained\nin the letters themselves. All lament the small sum of Christian charity\nto be found among religionists in general, but few when they begin to\nwrite have kept clear of a severity of comment which but prolongs\ndifferences. The writer, himself a member of the Church of England, is\nanxious to show that it is possible to be attached to one persuasion\nwithout imputing either folly or ill intention to others; and it is with\na view of promoting the loving fellowship of all whom God disdains not to\ncreate and support, that this slight sketch is given to the world.\n\n [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\n\nYou some time ago requested me to give you the result of my inquiries\ninto the tenets of the different religious sects which I had been\nacquainted with; and respecting which we had at different times\nconversed. In the time which has since elapsed I have been endeavouring,\nboth to ascertain them more completely, and to compare them with what I\nconceive to be the true spirit of Christianity; but the subject has so\ngrown as I proceeded, that even now I can only give you a very short, and\nI fear, in some cases, an imperfect notion of them. Yet the subject is\none of deep interest; and as I feel convinced that if we looked a little\ncloser into the differences between the established church and those who\nseparate from it, both parties would find them smaller and less important\nthan they imagine, and that Christian charity would be increased by the\nexamination, I do not shrink from the task however inadequately I may\nexecute it.\n\nI propose therefore to show you by extracts from the works of the\nprincipal writers among the different religious sects, how they all agree\nin most of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; at the same time\nthat I point out the evil consequences which I conceive would ensue were\nsome of their tenets _fully carried out_ into practice: and also to state\nwherein their peculiar opinions appear to me to be opposed to \u201cthe truth\nas it is in Christ Jesus,\u201d so far as to prevent me from adopting them;\nthough I can fully believe that those who hold these opinions in the\nabstract, may, notwithstanding, be excellent practical Christians.\n\nFirmly attached as I am to the Church of England, whose form of worship\n(allowing for the imperfections which naturally cling to all human\ninstitutions), I consider preferable to any other; I can still see much\nto admire in other persuasions and other ceremonies, mixed up, though it\nbe, with some imperfections and error; and my love to the established\nchurch does not blind me to some matters which might be better otherwise,\nand which I shall point out as I proceed.\n\n\u201cOf all the Christian graces,\u201d says a quaint writer, \u201czeal is the most\napt to turn sour;\u201d and the observation is no less true than it is sad,\nfor men too seldom remember that they must add to their faith knowledge,\nand that both are of no avail without the crowning gift of charity, {3}\nor in other words, brotherly love for all mankind. The real Christian,\nit seems to me, should imitate the liberality of St. Paul, who, after\nhaving been bred up in the habits of the \u201cstrictest sect\u201d of the Jews,\nscrupled not to quit all his former prejudices, in order to preach Christ\nto the Gentiles, without disgusting them by ceremonies which were no\nfundamental part of the religion he taught, and was content to become \u201cas\na Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them that were without law, to\nbecome as without law (being not without law to God), that he might by\nall means save some.\u201d {4}\n\nWe are too apt to hold each other accountable for all the consequences\nwhich can be logically deduced from an opinion, however extreme they may\nbe: and then having persuaded ourselves that those abstract tenets which,\nby straining them to an extreme point, _may_ have an evil effect, _must_\nhave an evil effect on all who profess them,\u2014we avoid those who differ\nfrom us on religious subjects, because we have assumed that they are\nactually immoral by virtue of their opinions; and thus we miss the\nopportunity of convincing ourselves of our mistake by a more intimate\nknowledge of their lives. \u201cBy their fruits ye shall know them,\u201d says our\nLord; but we seldom approach them closely enough to see the fruits.\n\nIf we would be content to sink minor differences, and be satisfied that\n\u201cin every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is\naccepted with him,\u201d we should soon meet on better terms; for we do not\nhold at a distance from those on earth whom we expect to meet in heaven;\nand thanks be to God, there is no religious persuasion that cannot boast\nof many such as Cornelius.\n\nSt. Paul recommends to the churches that they be \u201ckindly affectioned one\ntowards another, in honour preferring one another:\u201d {5a} \u201cby this shall\nmen know that ye are my disciples,\u201d says our Great Exemplar, \u201cif ye have\nlove one to another;\u201d but alas! if we contemplate what is called the\nChristian world, where shall we find Christ\u2019s _true_ disciples? Grievous\nindeed it is, as has been well observed, that that religion, which\n\u201cshould most correct and sweeten men\u2019s spirits, sours and sharpens them\nthe most.\u201d But surely \u201c_we_ have not so learned Christ.\u201d Let us for a\nmoment contemplate His conduct towards those who differed from him in\nreligious opinions; his compassion towards them; his meek reproofs not\nonly to the Sadducees and the Samaritans, but even to the more hardened;\n{5b} and then let us turn to our own hearts and confess with shame that\nwe have fallen miserably short of that charity without which \u201cwhosoever\nliveth is counted dead before God.\u201d\n\nSo clear is the command to exercise universal benevolence, that whatever\nobscurity there may be in other parts of Scripture, however men, even\nwise ones, may differ as to the real signification of certain passages in\nthe Bible, _here_ at least there can be no cavilling. It is intelligible\nto the most ignorant as well as the most learned, so that \u201cthe wayfaring\nman, though a fool, shall not err therein.\u201d\n\nArchbishop Tillotson relates of Mr. Gouge, an eminent nonconformist, that\nhe allowed men to differ from him in opinions that were \u201c_very dear_ to\nhim;\u201d and provided men did but \u201cfear God and work righteousness,\u201d he\nloved them heartily, how distant soever from him in judgment about things\nless necessary: \u201cin all which,\u201d observes the Archbishop, \u201che is very\nworthy to be a pattern to men of all persuasions.\u201d \u201cI abhor two\nprinciples in religion,\u201d says William Penn in a letter to the same\narchbishop, \u201cand pity them that own them. The first is obedience upon\nauthority without conviction; and the other, destroying them that differ\nfrom me for God\u2019s sake: such a religion is without judgment, though not\nwithout truth. Union is best, if right; if not, charity.\u201d\n\nI have given the opinion of these two eminent men of different\npersuasions, partly to show that the evil I complain of is one of long\nstanding; partly to justify my own opinion as to the remedy; namely, the\npaying _more_ attention to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity;\n_less_, to those minor differences which, from the very obscurity of the\ntexts on which they are founded, come more frequently under discussion,\nand thus, from a mental operation somewhat analogous to that of the laws\nof perspective, seem large and important because they are close under our\neyes, though they are in fact minute in comparison with those which we\nhave not been examining so closely. Thus men inadvertently reverse the\norder of things, and zeal for the maintenance of peculiar tenets too\noften supersedes the far more important virtue of Christian benevolence,\nto the scandal of all good Christians and the mockery of unbelievers.\n\nThe Quakers, in their address to James II. on his accession, told him\nthat they understood he was no more of the established religion than\nthemselves. \u201cWe therefore hope,\u201d said they, \u201cthat thou wilt allow us\nthat liberty which thou takest thyself:\u201d and it would be well if we took\na hint from this, and reflected that we differ as much from other sects\nas they do from us, {8} and that the greatest heresy is, as a Christian\nFather declared it to be long ago\u2014\u201ca wicked life.\u201d\n\nIt is, however, needful to distinguish between the Christian spirit of\nforbearance towards those who differ from us in religious opinions, which\nChrist and his apostles so strongly inculcate, and the indolent\nlatitudinarianism which induces many to declare that \u201ca man cannot help\nhis belief,\u201d that \u201csincerity is everything,\u201d that \u201call religious sects\nare alike,\u201d &c.: positions which, as you well observed on one occasion,\nought rather to be reversed; for when men are _not_ sincere, all sects\ncertainly _are_ alike: for then it is but a lip service which will never\ninfluence the life, and it matters not what opinion is professed; it will\nbe equally powerless.\n\nSincere belief must be the consequence of proof, without which we cannot\nbelieve truly; with it, we must. If then we content ourselves with the\nmere _ipse dixit_ of others without seeking proof, our belief is the\nresult of indolence, and for that indolence we shall be accountable when\nwe are called on to give an account of the talent committed to our\ncharge, if error has been consequent upon it. He, on the contrary, whose\neducation or whose means have not put proof within his reach, although he\nmay wish earnestly for it, _may_ be wrong in understanding, but he will\nnever be wrong in heart: his tenets may be wrong, but his life will be\nright. It behoves us therefore to be cautious how we pass sentence on\none another in religious matters, since, as has been well observed, we\nare ourselves amenable to a tribunal where uncharitable conduct towards\nothers, will bring down a just and heavy sentence on ourselves. We are\nnot to erect ourselves into judges of other men\u2019s consciences, {10} but\nleave them to the judgment and disposal of ONE who alone can see into the\nheart of men, and alone can ascertain the real nature and ultimate\nconsequence of all questions which admit of \u201cdoubtful disputation.\u201d\n\nThere will be some danger of losing our way among the almost numberless\ndivisions and subdivisions of sects, which present themselves as soon as\nwe begin to consider the subject at all narrowly. I therefore propose to\nsimplify my task, and make our course a little plainer, by adopting the\ntwo great divisions into which the reformed churches may have been said\nto have arranged themselves at the era of the Reformation, as a\nfoundation for the classification of Christian sects at present. Calvin\nand Melancthon may be considered as the prototypes and heads of these two\ndivisions, which however they may sometimes vary and sometimes\nintermingle, are continually reproduced, because they are grounded upon\ntwo great natural divisions of human kind, the stern and the gentle. My\nown leaning is to the latter, because it appears to me most in accordance\nwith the spirit of that gospel whose great Promulgator made universal\nbenevolence the test of his disciples; but at the same time I must\nacknowledge, and shall indeed prove before I have done, that the sterner\ntheoretical view may coexist in the mind with a large share of true\nChristian charity and benevolence. Be the abstract belief of the\nChristian what it may, if he be really at heart a disciple, the example\nof his mild Master will always influence his life and feelings, and he\nwill tread in the steps of his Lord, even if his judgment should\nsometimes have mistaken the true meaning of some of his words.\n\nThese two views of the Divine dispensations towards man were first\narrayed in actual hostility at the Synod of Dort in 1618, where the\ndoctrines of James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of\nLeyden, who had followed the opinions of Luther and Melancthon, were\ncondemned, and those of the Calvinistic church of Geneva affirmed. From\nthat time the various sects of the reformed church have generally been\nknown as Arminian or Calvinistic, according as they embraced the peculiar\ntenets of either party on the subject of man\u2019s salvation: I shall\ntherefore thus distinguish the two classes into which I propose to\narrange them, though they may not follow out either in the whole of their\nopinions.\n\n I. ARMINIAN.\n\n1. Quakers.\n\n2. Socinians and Unitarians.\n\n3. Wesleyan Methodists.\n\n4. General Baptists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Plymouth Brethren.\n\n II. CALVINISTIC.\n\n1. Presbyterians, Independents.\n\n2. Particular Baptists, Sub and Supralapsarians, Sandemanians.\n\n3. Calvinistic Methodists. Evangelical or Low Church.\n\n [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER II.\nQUAKERS.\n\n\nThe sect which I have placed first upon my list, arose about the middle\nof the seventeenth century, when a number of individuals withdrew from\nthe communion of every _visible_ church \u201cto seek,\u201d {14} as they expressed\nit, \u201cthe Lord, in retirement:\u201d and George Fox, their leader, or as they\ntermed him, their \u201chonourable elder,\u201d went about preaching their opinions\nin fairs and markets, in courts of justice, and steeple houses, i.e.\nchurches. He denounced the state worship as \u201csuperstitious,\u201d and warned\nall to obey the Holy Spirit, speaking by him. He was in consequence\nbrought before two justices of the peace in Derbyshire in 1650, one of\nwhom, Mr. Bennet, called Fox, and his hearers \u201cQuakers,\u201d in derision of\ntheir frequent admonitions to \u201c_tremble_ at the Word of God;\u201d and this\nappellation soon became general, though they themselves took then, and\nstill preserve, the title of \u201cthe Society of Friends.\u201d\n\nThe rigid peculiarities of phrase, &c. which Fox added to his religious\nsentiments; the regular discipline which he enforced; and the zeal with\nwhich he maintained and propagated his tenets gave consistency to this\nsect, although he was not, as has been supposed, the originator of their\ndoctrines. He conceived himself forbidden by divine command to pull off\nhis hat to any one, or to address any one excepting in the singular\nnumber, or to \u201ccall any man master;\u201d and for these peculiarities as well\nas for the refusal to give or accept titles of honour, or to take an\noath, the \u201cFriends\u201d suffered the most cruel persecutions; for we are told\nthat \u201cthey tortured with cruel whippings the bodies of both men and women\nof good estate and reputation;\u201d {15a} and were further punished by\nimpounding of their horses; by distress of goods; by fines,\nimprisonments, whipping, and setting in the stocks: {15b} yet,\nnotwithstanding these severities, the sect increased and spread far and\nwide, and great numbers of people were drawn together, many out of\nanimosity, to hear them.\n\nThe Declaration of Indulgence in 1663 stopped for a short time the\npersecution of the Quakers, but by the Conventicle Act of 1664, numbers\nof them were condemned to transportation: in 1666, however, their\ncondition improved, when the celebrated William Penn, the son of Admiral\nPenn, joined them.\n\nThe discipline of this society is kept up by monthly meetings, composed\nof an aggregate of several particular congregations, whose business it is\nto provide for the maintenance of their poor, and the education of their\nchildren; also to judge of the sincerity and fitness of persons desirous\nof being admitted as members; to direct proper attention to religion and\nmoral duty; and to deal with disorderly members. At each monthly meeting\npersons are appointed to see that the rules of their discipline are put\nin practice. It is usual when any member has misconducted himself, to\nappoint a small committee to visit the offender, to endeavour to convince\nhim of his error and induce him to forsake it. If they succeed, he is\ndeclared to have \u201cmade satisfaction for his offence,\u201d otherwise he is\ndismissed from the society. In disputes between individuals, it is\nenjoined that the members of this sect should not sue each other at law,\nbut settle their differences by the rules of the society.\n\nMarriage is regarded by the Quakers as a religious, not a mere civil\ncompact. Those who wish to enter into that state appear together, and\nstate their intentions at one of the monthly meetings, and if not\nattended by parents or guardians must produce their consent in writing\nduly witnessed; and if no objections are raised at a subsequent meeting,\nthey are allowed to solemnize their marriage, which is done at a public\nmeeting for worship; towards the close of which the parties stand up and\nsolemnly take each other for man and wife. A certificate of the\nproceedings is then read publicly and signed by the parties, and\nafterwards by the relations as witnesses. The monthly meeting keeps a\nregister of the marriages as well as of the births and burials of the\nsociety.\n\nChildren are named without any attending ceremony; neither is it held\n_needful_ that there should be any at burial, though the body followed by\nthe relatives and friends is sometimes carried into a meeting house, and\nat the grave a pause is generally made to allow of a discourse from any\nfriend attending if he be so inclined.\n\nThe women have monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings of their own sex,\nbut without the power of making rules. \u201cAs we believe,\u201d they say, \u201cthat\nwomen may be rightly called to the work of the ministry, we also think\nthat to them belongs a share in the support of Christian discipline; and\nthat some parts of it wherein their own sex is concerned devolve on them\nwith peculiar propriety.\u201d\n\nBut what, you will ask, are the religious tenets of this sect? The\nquestion will perhaps best be answered by an extract from their \u201cRules of\nDiscipline,\u201d a work published under the sanction of the society. \u201cThe\noriginal and immediate ground of the religious fellowship of the early\nFriends,\u201d says the writer of this manual, \u201cwas _union of sentiment in\nregard to Christ\u2019s inward teaching_.\u201d They were firm believers in all\nthat is revealed in Holy Scripture respecting our Lord and Saviour Jesus\nChrist; nor would they have allowed that any one held the truth who\ndenied his coming in the flesh, or the benefit to fallen man by his\npropitiatory sacrifice. \u201cWe believe that, in order to enable mankind to\nput in practice the precepts of the gospel, every man coming into the\nworld is endued with a measure of the light, grace, or good Spirit of\nChrist, by which, as it is alluded to, he is enabled to distinguish good\nfrom evil, and to correct the disorderly passions and corrupt\npropensities of his fallen nature, which _mere reason_ is altogether\ninsufficient to overcome. For all that belongs to man is fallible, and\nwithin the reach of temptation: but the divine grace, which comes by Him,\ni.e. Christ, who hath overcome the world, is, to those who humbly and\nsincerely seek it, an all-sufficient and present help in time of need . . .\nwhereby the soul is translated out of the kingdom of darkness, and from\nunder the power of Satan into the marvellous light and kingdom of the Son\nof God. Now as we thus believe that the grace of God, which comes by\nJesus Christ, is alone sufficient for salvation, we can neither admit\nthat it is conferred upon a few only, while others are left without it;\nnor thus asserting its universality, can we limit its operation to a\npartial cleansing of the soul from sin even in this life.\u201d\n\nBaptism and the Lord\u2019s supper are regarded by this sect as mere types or\nshadows, representing in a figurative manner certain great particulars of\nChristian Truths, but not intended to be of permanent obligation. They\nconsider the former to have been superseded by the baptism of the Spirit:\nof the latter they say, \u201cthe emblem may be either used or disused as\nChristians may consider most conducive to the real advantage of the\nchurch: the only _needful_ supper of the Lord is altogether of a\nspiritual nature.\u201d They conceive that a reliance on the eucharist as a\n\u2018viaticum or saving ordinance,\u2019 is a dangerous tenet, as well as the\nconnecting the rite of baptism with regeneration. They think that\n\u201cordinances so liable to abuse, and the cause of so many divisions and\npersecutions, cannot truly appertain to the law of God.\u201d\n\nQuakers consider all holidays as \u201cshadows\u201d which ceased with the shadowy\ndispensations of the law, and that neither the first day of the week, nor\nany other, possesses any superior sanctity; {20} but as a society they\nhave never objected to \u201ca day of rest,\u201d for the purpose of religious\nimprovement. They consider the Christian Dispensation to have superseded\nthe use of oaths, and contend that our Lord\u2019s precepts {21}extend even to\nthe swearing of witnesses in courts of law. War they hold to be\naltogether inconsistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and\nurge that the primitive Christians during two centuries maintained its\nunlawfulness. They object on the same principle to capital punishments,\nand the slave trade.\n\nThe members of the society are bound by their principles to abstain\nentirely \u201cfrom profane and extravagant entertainments,\u201d from excess in\neating and drinking; from public diversions; from the reading of useless,\nfrivolous, and pernicious books; from gaming of every description; and\nfrom vain and injurious sports (such as hunting or shooting for\ndiversion); from unnecessary display in funerals, furniture, and style of\nliving: from unprofitable, seductive, and dangerous amusements, among\nwhich are ranked dancing and music; and generally from all \u201csuch\noccupations of time and mind as plainly tend to levity, vanity, and\nforgetfulness of our God and Saviour,\u201d and they object to all\ncomplimentary intercourse.\n\nIn the sketch I have now given of the tenets of this sect, you cannot\nhave failed to observe how closely their notions with regard to the\nfundamental doctrines of Christianity tally with those of the great body\nof the church; the differences being all on points of minor import, if we\nexcept the ceremonies of baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper; which, being the\nappointment of Christ himself, we are not at liberty to reject. And yet,\nbe it observed, the Quaker does not presumptuously reject them, but\nmerely acts upon, as we suppose, an erroneous view of their nature.\n\nOn points of minor difference it may be observed, that He who was the\nPRINCE OF PEACE, and came to establish it, never specifically forbad war,\n(for there may be cases where it is merely self defence,) but left it to\nthe spirit of the gospel to remove the _causes_ of war. {22} We all know\nthe appellation bestowed on the Centurion, Cornelius: and when soldiers\ncame to John the Baptist saying, \u201cWhat shall we do?\u201d he merely sought to\nretrench the disorders and injustice which those who follow the\nprofession of arms might be tempted to commit; but did not condemn their\nnecessary employments. We may therefore fairly conclude that the\nsweeping condemnation of _all_ war by the Quakers, is not warranted by\nScripture, although it is in many and indeed most instances, entered upon\nfar too carelessly.\n\nOne of the main distinctions of the Quakers is the rejection of certain\namusements and pursuits, which others on the contrary consider as\ninnocent, believing that the religion of Christ rather encourages than\nforbids a cheerful spirit, and allows by the example of the Saviour, a\nparticipation in social pleasures: and that \u201can upright, religious man,\nby partaking in such pleasures, may be the means of restraining others\nwithin due bounds, and by his very presence may prevent their\ndegenerating into extravagance, profligacy, and sin;\u201d {24a} and such do\nnot feel in their hearts that _these_ {24b} are the \u201cpomps and vanities\nof the world,\u201d which by their baptismal vow they renounce. But surely it\nis possible that different persons may regard the same pursuits and\namusements in a very different light, and yet both may be conscientious\nin their views, and both, whether in abstaining or enjoying, be equally\ndoing that which is lawful and right in the sight of God. That very\namusement or pursuit which is a snare to one, and therefore to be avoided\nby him, may be a source of innocent, and perhaps profitable recreation to\nanother. It is the intention, the _animus_ with which an act is done,\nand not the act itself which constitutes the sin. \u201cLet not him that\neateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge\nhim that eateth: to his own master he standeth or falleth.\u201d\n\n\u201cChristianity,\u201d says an excellent prelate of our church, \u201cforbids no\nnecessary occupation, no reasonable indulgences, no innocent relaxation.\nIt allows us to \u2018use\u2019 the world, provided we do not \u2018abuse\u2019 it. It does\nnot spread before us a delicious banquet, and then come with a \u2018Touch\nnot, taste not, handle not:\u2019 all it requires is that our liberty\ndegenerate not into licentiousness; our amusements into dissipation; our\nindustry into incessant toil; our carefulness into extreme anxiety and\nendless solicitude. When it requires us to be \u2018temperate in all things,\u2019\nit plainly tells us that we _may_ use all things temperately. {26} When\nit directs us to \u2018make our moderation known unto all men,\u2019 this evidently\nimplies that within the bounds of moderation we may enjoy all the\nreasonable conveniences and comforts of this present life.\u201d\n\nI have noticed this, in my opinion, erroneous practice of the Quakers at\nthe more length, because it is not confined to them. Asceticism, of\nwhich this is one branch, has been the bane of the church and of\nChristianity generally; and few sects are entirely free from the notion\nthat holiness requires a withdrawal from amusements, and a certain degree\nof seclusion from the world. Yet, if the world is to be improved, the\nleaven must be placed _in_ it; and a good man probably never does his\nFather\u2019s work more effectually than when he spreads the sanctifying\ninfluence of his example through all the relations of life; showing that\nthere is no position in society where Christianity does not add a grace\nand a relish unknown without it: spreading refinement of manners and\ndelicacy of thought, and insensibly rendering social intercourse more\npolished, and more delightful, by banishing from it all that can offend.\n\nThe Quakers adduce Matt. v. 33\u201337, James v. 12, &c. in support of their\nobjection to all oaths, even judicial ones, and consider that the\nChristian dispensation abrogated their use. But in answer to this we may\nobserve that even the Almighty is represented as confirming his promises\nby a solemn oath. \u201cBecause,\u201d says the apostle, \u201cHe could swear by no\nhigher, He sware by Himself;\u201d and St. Paul on particular occasions\nexpresses himself thus, \u201cAs God is true:\u201d \u201cBefore God I lie not:\u201d \u201cGod is\nmy record,\u201d &c. all which expressions undoubtedly contain the essence and\nformality of an oath; and the Apostle upon some occasions mentions this\nsolemn swearing with approbation, \u201can oath for confirmation is the end of\nall strife:\u201d the swearing, therefore, which our Saviour absolutely\nforbids, is common or unnecessary swearing, and we are recommended to\naffirm or deny in common conversation without imprecations. \u201cLet your\nconversation be yea, yea,\u2014nay, nay.\u201d\n\nThe repugnance entertained by the Quakers against paying tithes appears\nto me to arise from an error in their mode of viewing the question. The\nassertion made by them \u201cthat all the provision made for ministers of the\ngospel in the first ages was made by the love of their flocks,\u201d is true,\nthough that love very soon produced endowments, even before Christianity\nwas established as the law of the empire. But allowing this, it does not\nfollow, as they go on to assert, that \u201csince we are under the same\ndispensation of love as the Apostles were, the principles which governed\nthe church then are to govern it now.\u201d Tithes were originally given to\nthe church as a corporation, by the owners of the soil; and since that\ntime estates have been transferred from hand to hand subject to that\ncharge, till no man has any plea for refusing it. The question is not\none of religion but of property. If my estate devolve to me chargeable\nwith an annuity payable either to a corporation or an individual, I have\nno right to set up his religious opinions in bar of his claim: for I have\npaid less for the purchase in consequence of the existence of that claim,\nwhich in common honesty therefore I am bound to satisfy, be the annuitant\nwho he may. {29}\n\nHaving now noticed the points wherein I consider the peculiar tenets of\nthe Quakers to be erroneous, I shall conclude with the more agreeable\npart of my task, and prove by extracts from one of their writers how much\nof true Christian feeling exists among them. The following is from a\nlittle book given me by a Quaker, from the pen of J. Gurney, entitled \u201cAn\nEssay on Love to God.\u201d\n\n\u201cStill more completely than the provisions of nature fall in with our\nbodily state, and supply our temporal wants; still more properly than the\nair agrees with the functions of the lungs, and the light with those of\nthe eye, does the gospel of our Redeemer suit the spiritual condition of\nman. We are a fallen race, alienated from God by our sins, justly liable\nto his wrath: in the gospel we have pardon, peace and restoration.\n\u2018Christ made all things new,\u2019 says Grotius, \u2018and the latter creation is\n_more divine_ than the former.\u2019 If then the first creation of mankind\nand all the bounties of nature are the result of Love, that attribute is\nfar more gloriously displayed in the scheme of redemption and in the\nworks of grace.\u2014The love of God the Father is ever represented in\nScripture as the origin of all our hopes,\u2014as the eternal, unfathomable\nspring of the waters of life and salvation, and this love is plainly\ndescribed as extending to the whole world. \u2018God so loved the world, &c.\n{30a} God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself\u2019 {30b}\u2014\u2018God\nwould have all men to be saved, &c.\u2019 {30c} Do we ask for an overwhelming\nevidence of the love of God? Let the Apostle satisfy our inquiry. \u2018In\nthis was manifested the love of God towards us, because God sent his only\nbegotten Son into the world that we might live by him. Herein is love;\nnot that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the\npropitiation for our sins.\u2019 {31a} Do we ask whether God thus loved the\nwhole or only a part of the world?\u2014Let the same Apostle answer: \u2018He\ntasted death for _every man_\u2014He gave himself a ransom for _all_, &c.\u2019\nEven the Gentiles, who were without the benefit of an outward revelation,\nwere by no means destitute of an inward knowledge of the law of God, and\nsome of them showed \u2018the work of the law written on their hearts, their\nconsciences also bearing witness.\u2019 {31b} \u2018Christ is the true light which\nlighteth every man that cometh into the world.\u2019 {31c} Hence we may\nreasonably infer that as God appointed the death of Christ to be a\nsacrifice for the sins of the _whole_ world, so _all_ men receive through\nChrist a measure of moral and spiritual light, and all have their day of\ngracious visitation. If the light in numberless instances be extremely\nfaint, if the darkness fail to comprehend it, we may rest in the\nconviction that God is not only just but equitable, and that those \u2018who\nknow not their Master\u2019s will and do it not shall be beaten with few\nstripes.\u2019 {32} The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in\nthe Holy Scriptures, is intended for the benefit of the whole world: it\nis adapted to men of every condition, clime, and character: all are\ninvited to avail themselves of its benefits: all who _will_ come _may_\ncome, and \u2018take the water of life freely.\u2019\u201d\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER III.\nSOCINIANS AND UNITARIANS.\n\n\nWhen the first great movement which led to the Reform of a large part of\nthe Christian Churches in Europe, awakened men\u2019s minds from the lethargy\nin which they had slept whilst learning was confined to the cloister, the\nquestions with regard to the nature of the Deity which had distracted the\nearly church began again to be mooted; and as early as the year 1524,\n\u201cthe divinity of Christ was openly denied by Lewis Hetyer, one of the\nwandering and fanatical Anabaptists, who was put to death at Constance.\u201d\n{33a} He was succeeded by Michael Servede or Servetus, a Spanish\nphysician; who, for his wild notions on the same subject, was apprehended\non his road through Switzerland at the instigation of Calvin, accused of\nblasphemy, and condemned to the flames. {33b} But doctrines were never\nyet crushed by persecution, unless indeed it were so wholesale as to\nexterminate all who held them; and though these opinions were thus fatal\nto their professors, the main points were reproduced by others; and\nfinally assumed form as a sect, under the titles above named. The term\nSocinian was taken from two of its most distinguished promoters, L\u00e6lius\nand Faustus Sozinus, or Socinus. They were of an illustrious family at\nSiena in Tuscany, and L\u00e6lius, the uncle of Faustus, having taken a\ndisgust to popery, travelled into France, England, &c. to examine into\ntheir religious creed, in order, if possible, to come at the truth. He\nwas a man distinguished for his genius and learning, no less than for his\nvirtuous life; he settled at last at Zurich, embraced the Helvetic\nconfession of faith, and died at Zurich in 1562, before he had reached\nhis fortieth year. His sentiments, or rather doubts as to certain\npoints, were embodied, and more openly propagated by his nephew Faustus;\nwho, as is supposed, drew up from his papers the religious system\nafterwards known under the name of Socinianism. There is however a\nconsiderable degree of obscurity hanging over the rise of this sect, and\nno one has given a satisfactory history of it.\n\nThe first appearance of Unitarians, as a distinct congregation, was in\nPoland, where they obtained a settlement in the city of Cracow in the\nyear 1569; and in 1575 they published at Cracow the \u201cCatechism or\nConfession of the Unitarians;\u201d {35a} but Faustus Socinus having settled\namong them in the year 1579, soon obtained so much influence as finally\nto remodel the whole religious system of the sect, and a new form drawn\nup by Socinus himself, was substituted for the old Catechism.\n\nThe following is an abstract of the doctrines taught in this Catechism.\nAfter affirming that the Christian religion is \u201ca road for arriving at\neternal life, divinely made known,\u201d the pupil is told that the will of\nGod on points essential to salvation was revealed by Jesus Christ. The\nCatechism then goes on to affirm the entire unity of the Deity; since if\nhe is one essence, then must he also be individually one, {35b} and\ntherefore Christ cannot he truly said to be a _separate_ person or\nindividual, partaking of the _essentia_ of the Deity, since that\n_essentia_ is necessarily one. That the Spirit of God, being an\nessential part of the Deity, cannot be a separate individual (for in this\nsense the Catechism interprets the word _persona_ {36}), any more than\nhis wisdom or his goodness is a separate individual, and that therefore\nthe manifestations of the Spirit of God are manifestations of the Deity\nhimself.\n\n\u201cChrist,\u201d says the Catechism, \u201cis a man, according to Rom. v. 15,\nconceived by a virgin, through the power of the Divine Spirit, without\nthe intervention of man in the ordinary course of generation. He was\nfirst subject to suffering and death\u2014afterwards impassible and immortal,\nRom. vi. 9. It is in the sense of his existence derived immediately from\nGod, that he, though man, is called the Son of God\u2014as Adam is so termed\nfrom the same cause. Jesus Christ was the immediate instrument of God\u2019s\ncommunications to man; and being, whilst on earth, the voice of God, he\nis now the anointed King, or Christ, over the people of God.\u201d\n\nThe passages where he is said to have existed from the beginning: to have\ncreated all things, &c. are laboriously explained away, as referring to\nthe regeneration, or new state of things introduced by Christ\u2019s mission\non earth: and in this part there is much forced interpretation. I shall\nannex some of the passages in the language of the original, {37} as a\nproof that I have given a fair account of the real Socinian doctrine,\nwhich is very little understood at present. Writers from whom we might\nexpect greater accuracy, have very generally confounded Socinians and\nArians, although Faustus Socinus was at the pains to write a laboured\nrefutation of the Arian doctrine, and although a reference to the\ndoctrines of the two sects would show that they are the antipodes of each\nother. Arius taught that Christ was not of _the same_ nature\n(\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), with the Father, but of _a like_ nature (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) and\ntherefore individually separate\u2014separate in will, and capable of\ndiffering. This is a direct assertion of two Gods. Socinus on the\ncontrary strenuously asserts the unity of the Deity to the extent of\ndenying the pre-existence of Christ: which Arius though acknowledging\nthat there was a time when he began to exist, nevertheless refers to a\nperiod remote beyond human calculation. Thus upon their characteristic\ndoctrines, the two sects are diametrically opposed to each other.\n\nHaving now given you the real opinions of Socinus, from his own works,\nfor the book is lying beside me as I write, I shall pursue my plan of\nexamining how far they accord with what was taught by those who certainly\nought to be best informed on the subject, namely, Christ himself, his\nApostles, and their immediate successors; as well as with the deductions\nof reason. The unity of the Deity is so frequently and so decidedly\nasserted in Scripture, that it is impossible to consider any man as\nunorthodox who professes to make this the groundwork of his belief\u2014so far\ntherefore the Socinian is in accordance both with Scripture and the\ngeneral voice of the Christian church, for the early Apologists for\nChristianity, who had to address polytheists, are full of declarations\nthat they worship One only Deity, who by various manifestations has made\nhimself, at different times, known to mankind. {39a} There is not a\nwriter of the first and second centuries who does not anxiously assert\nthe one-ness of the God whom the Christians worship: but then they as\nanxiously assert the identity of their Teacher and Lord with that God.\nFrom Christ himself, who says, \u201cBefore Abraham was, I am;\u201d {39b} \u201cI and\nthe Father are one;\u201d {39c} \u201cHe who hath seen me hath seen the Father;\u201d\n\u201cthe Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works;\u201d {39d} to St. Paul,\nwho tells us that \u201cGod was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,\u201d\n{39e} down to the fathers of the early church, to whom I may refer\n_passim_ for the same doctrine; all have distinctly asserted that the\nmessage of peace to man was delivered by God himself, making use of a\nhuman form as the mode of communication with his creatures, and dwelling\nin \u201cthe man Christ Jesus,\u201d {39f} as in a temple built up for his especial\nuse; the human nature, to use the expression of the church, \u201chaving been\ntaken into God,\u201d not the Godhead circumscribed in man. I will not swell\nthe length of my letter with quotations from the fathers which may be\nfound elsewhere; I think the texts I have quoted with many more of the\nsame purport, which you will readily call to mind, suffice to prove that\nwhen Socinus asserted the Christ to be _merely_ a man, he erred; for\nthough Jesus \u201cthe Carpenter\u2019s son,\u201d as his contemporaries called him, was\nto all intents and purposes a man \u201cof a reasonable soul and human flesh\nsubsisting;\u201d {40} and though this may be proved from numberless passages\nin the Scripture, where the man Jesus speaks of his inferiority to the\nFather and bestower of his human frame and spirit,\u2014yet if we do not\nentirely distort the meaning of words, _that man_ at times uttered\ndeclarations of divine power which could only have proceeded from the\nindwelling Deity, otherwise they must have been the assertions of\nimposture, which Socinus by no means teaches to have been the case. I\nknow not, therefore, how the believer in the Gospel can avoid\nacknowledging that Christ was a compound being:\u2014perfectly a man, and\nspeaking as such on some occasions; but, at the same time, the temple of\nthe Ever-living God, whose words flowed from his lips like the answer\nfrom the Mercy seat: \u201cHeaven and the heaven of heavens\u201d no doubt \u201ccannot\ncontain\u201d the Infinite; and no true believer will assert that God can be\ncircumscribed in a human body\u2014but, if so mean a comparison may be\npermitted\u2014as the crater of the volcano is but the mouthpiece of the\nmighty agents operating within for the fashioning of the earth,\u2014so the\nmanifestation of the Deity in the form, and from the lips of a man, is\nbut that spot of the material creation where the ever blessed Divinity\nallows himself, as it were, a vent; and gives forth a visible and\ntangible sign of his existence.\n\n\u201cHe that has seen me has seen the Father,\u201d says _the Christ_. \u201cI can of\nmy own self do nothing\u201d {41} says _the man_: and this distinction which\nthe Christ who necessarily knew something of the composition of his own\nnature so frequently asserts, has probably been the groundwork of the\nmistaken views of this class of Christians, and we may well look with\ncharitable indulgence on the errors of men, who dreading lest they should\nincur the penalty of giving the incommunicable glory of the Mighty God to\nanother, have not allowed their due weight to the passages, which assert\nthat Mighty God to have undertaken the task of bringing his creature man\nback to Himself.\n\nHaving thus given you a fair account of the creed of Socinus, I must next\nnotice the modern Unitarians, who on some points differ from him. Where\nthere is no acknowledged creed or catechism, {42} which may be quoted as\nauthority, it is difficult to give the doctrines of a sect with any\nprecision; but as far as it is possible to judge from the writings most\nin repute among the Unitarians, they disclaim the notion of the\nmiraculous conception, and believe Christ to have been to all intents and\npurposes _a mere man_. At the same time they allow him to have been so\ninspired and guided by God, that it is difficult to see where they draw\nthe line between their own creed and that of the church, which allows the\nperfect humanity of Jesus, but asserts that \u201cGod and man make one\nChrist,\u201d namely, that the message of peace was that of God speaking by\nhuman lips, and that the Anointed prophet who declared it, was, when so\nanointed, the temple and place of manifestation of the living God. They\ndisclaim the doctrine of atonement, and believe that the mission of\nChrist had for its object the reform of the world, and the restoration of\nman to a sense of his true relation towards God, and even here Scripture\nand the early church speak a language which differs not very greatly from\ntheirs. For the language in which our redemption is spoken of, is that\nof a master purchasing a slave, as will be seen on a reference to Rom.\nvi. in the original. The ransom by which man was purchased to be the\nservant of holiness instead of that of sin, was paid to his former\nmaster, sin; by the purchaser; and the purchaser is God. \u201cI speak after\nthe manner of men,\u201d says St. Paul, \u201cbecause of the infirmity of your\nflesh.\u201d i.e. I adopt the phraseology of a common transaction because your\nminds are not sufficiently accustomed to the contemplation of higher\nthings to understand them without a metaphor; but the Unitarian forgets,\nwhen asserting that the ransom was not paid _to_ God, that it was paid\n_by_ God: and that man, the slave, was bought from sin, the master, at no\nless a price than the condescension of the Deity himself to the infirmity\nof our flesh, by making himself visibly and tangibly known to his\ncreatures, through the medium of a human form.\n\nI have now endeavoured to give a dispassionate view of the doctrines of\nthese sects, hitherto so much misunderstood, and having marked the points\nwherein they appear to me to recede from Christian truth, I have the\npleasanter task before me, of showing by extracts from their writings,\nhow large a portion of the religion which we all profess, they still\nretain, and I may say from experience, on most occasions conscientiously\nact upon.\n\n\u201cIf with the Apostle we glory in the cross of Christ, or in that religion\nwhich could not have been confirmed without his death, let us not only be\ncareful to govern our lives by the precepts of it in general, but more\nparticularly be prepared to suffer what the strictest profession of it\nmay call us to. Let us remember that our Saviour hath said, if any man\nwill be his disciple he must \u201ctake up his cross, and follow him.\u201d That\nis, he must be ready to do it rather than abandon the profession of the\nGospel, or whatever the strictest purity of it may require. A true\nChristian is no more _of this world_ than his Lord and Master was of it.\nWith him every thing here below is but of secondary consideration,\n&c.\u2014but this we must remember for our consolation, that if, in time of\npersecution \u201cHe that keepeth his life shall lose it,\u201d \u201cHe that loseth his\nlife\u201d for the profession of the Gospel \u201cshall keep it to life eternal.\u201d\n\u201cIf we suffer with Christ, we shall also reign with him and be glorified\ntogether.\u201d {47}\n\n\u201cThe truths which relate to Jesus himself are among the _most important_\nwhich the Gospel reveals. \u2018We preach Christ,\u2019 says the Apostle, \u2018warning\nevery man and teaching every man, that we may present every man perfect\nin Christ Jesus.\u2019 From this passage we derive a most important\nsentiment, confirmed by the whole New Testament\u2014that the great design of\nall the doctrines and precepts of the Gospel, is, to exalt the\ncharacter,\u2014to promote eminent purity of heart and life, to make men\n\u2018perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect.\u2019 We must preach not to\nmake fiery partizans, and to swell the number of a sect; not to overwhelm\nthe mind with fear, or to heat it with feverish rapture; not to form men\nto the decencies of life, to a superficial goodness, which will secure\nthe admiration of mankind. All these effects fall infinitely short of\nthe great end of the Christian ministry. We should preach that we may\nmake men perfect Christians: perfect, not according to the standard of\nthe world, but according to the law of Christ; perfect in heart and in\nlife, in solitude and in society, in the great and in the common concerns\nof life. Here is the purpose of Christian preaching. In this, as in a\ncommon centre, all the truths of the Gospel meet; to this they all\nconspire; and no doctrine has an influence on salvation, any farther than\nit is an aid to the perfecting of our nature.\u201d {48}\n\n\u201cChrist is a great Saviour, as he redeems or sets free the mind,\ncleansing it from evil, breathing into it the love of virtue, calling\nforth its noblest faculties and affections, enduing it with moral power,\nrestoring it to order, health and liberty.\u201d * * * * \u201cChrist has revealed\nto us God as the Father, and as a Father in the noblest sense of that\nword. He hath revealed Him as the author and lover of all souls,\ndesiring to redeem all from sin, and to impress his likeness more and\nmore resplendently on all; as proffering to all that best gift in the\nuniverse, his \u2018holy Spirit;\u2019 as having sent his beloved Son to train us\nup and to introduce us to an \u2018inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and\nunfading in the heavens.\u2019\u201d {49}\n\n\u201cI confess when I can escape the deadening power of habit, and can\nreceive the full import of such passages as the following, \u2018Come unto me,\nall ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.\u2019 \u2018I am\ncome to seek and to save that which was lost.\u2019 \u2018He that confesseth me\nbefore men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven.\u2019 \u2018Whosoever\nshall be ashamed of me before men, of him shall the Son of Man be\nashamed, when he cometh in the glory of the Father with the holy angels.\u2019\n\u2018In my Father\u2019s house are many mansions; I go to prepare a place for\nyou;\u2019 I say, when I can succeed in realizing the import of such passages,\nI feel myself listening to a being, such as never before and never since\nspoke in human language. I am awed by the consciousness of greatness\nwhich these simple words express; and when I connect this greatness with\nthe proofs of Christ\u2019s miracles which I gave you in a former discourse, I\nam compelled to speak with the Centurion, \u2018Truly this was the Son of\nGod.\u2019 {50a}\n\n\u201cIn reading the Gospels I feel myself in the presence of one who speaks\nas man never spake; whose voice is not of the earth; who speaks with a\ntone of reality and authority altogether his own; who speaks of God, as\nconscious of his immediate presence, as enjoying with him the intimacy of\nan only Son; and who speaks of heaven, as most familiar with the higher\nstates of being.\u201d {50b}\n\n\u201cGo to Jesus Christ for guidance, inspiration, and strength in your\noffice.\u201d * * * \u201cThe privilege of communing with such a spirit is so\ngreat, and the duty of going from man to Christ is so solemn, that you\nmust spare no effort to place yourself nearer and nearer to the Divine\nMaster.\u201d \u201cMy brother, go forth to your labours with the spirit and power\nof Him who first preached the Gospel to the poor.\u201d {50c}\n\n\u201cTo Jesus the conqueror of death we owe the sure hope of immortality.\u201d *\n* * \u201cIs that teacher to be scorned, who in the language of conscious\ngreatness says to us, \u2018I am the resurrection and the life\u2019?\u201d {51a}\n\n\u201cWhat are we to understand by the Divinity of Christ? In the sense in\nwhich many Christians, and perhaps a majority interpret it, we do not\ndeny it, but believe it as firmly as themselves. We believe firmly in\nthe Divinity of Christ\u2019s mission and office, that he spoke with Divine\nauthority, and was a bright image of the Divine perfections. We believe\nthat God dwelt in him, manifested himself through him, taught men by him,\nand communicated to him his spirit without measure. We believe that\nJesus Christ was the most glorious display, expression, and\nrepresentative of God to mankind, so that in seeing and knowing him, we\nsee and know the invisible Father; so that when Christ came, God visited\nthe world and dwelt with men more conspicuously than at any former\nperiod. In Christ\u2019s words, we hear God speaking; in his miracles, we\nbehold God acting; in his character and life, we see an unsullied image\nof God\u2019s purity and love.\u201d {51b}\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER IV.\nWESLEYAN METHODISTS.\n\n\nTowards the beginning of the last century, two young men at Oxford, the\none a fellow of Lincoln College, struck by the thoughtlessness or\nlukewarmness of those about them, resolved to devote themselves to closer\nand more profitable study. They were brothers, by name John and Charles\nWesley; and two other students joined them in their evening readings of\nthe New Testament in the Greek: the elder of the brothers was at this\ntime about twenty-six. {52} After a year of this kind of life, they\nadmitted two or three of the pupils of the elder brother, and one of\nthose of the younger, to their meetings; and the following year, being\njoined by yet more of the students, the regularity of their lives\nobtained for them the title of _Methodists_ from those who were not\ninclined to follow their example.\n\nIn 1735 another name was added to their number, which has also become\ncelebrated: this was George Whitfield of Pembroke College, then in his\neighteenth year; but of him I shall have occasion to speak by and by. I\nshall therefore confine myself to the Wesleys. A difference of opinion\non the subjects of Freewill and Predestination separated them from their\nyounger coadjutor in 1741, and their respective friends, adopting\nstrongly the distinctive opinions of the two, the grand division of the\nsect, which sprung up from their preaching, into Wesleyan or Arminian,\nand Whitfieldian or Calvinistic Methodists, ensued. All three received\nholy orders according to the ceremonial of the Church of England, and\nWesley never ceased to hold his spiritual mother in high estimation.\n\u201cThe Church of England,\u201d he says in one place, \u201cis the purest in\nChristendom.\u201d But the singularity of their proceedings raised suspicion,\nand though both brothers continued to profess the fullest assent to the\narticles and liturgy of the established church, yet their manner of\npreaching and form of worship had something in it which led the bishops\nand clergy in general to consider them as verging on Sectarianism. In\nmany places they were refused the use of the pulpit; and then, in the\nperhaps enthusiastic belief that they were the appointed instruments of\nrekindling religion in hearts where it had been dead hitherto, they began\na system of field preaching.\n\nThere were at that time large districts slumbering in utter darkness and\nignorance of the saving truths of the Gospel: and it was to these that\nthe Wesleys especially directed their attention, with a success\nproportioned to their zeal; and had the then heads of the church availed\nthemselves of the assistance of these earnest men in the way they might\nhave done, by sanctioning their missionary labours among the poor and the\nuninstructed, the benefit would have been incalculable. But the harsh\ntreatment {54} they met with, drove John Wesley at last into complete\nschism: and then the ambition, which had perhaps animated his first\nexertions almost unknown to himself, assumed a bolder flight, and he\naspired to the distinction of being the head and leader of a sect which\ngrew so rapidly, that at the time of his death in 1791, \u201cthe number of\nmembers in connexion with him in Europe, America, and the West Indian\nIslands, was 80,000. And at the last conference in 1831 the numbers\nreturned were, in Great Britain, 249,119; in Ireland, 22,470; in the\nForeign Missions, 42,743. Total 314,332. Exclusive of more than half a\nmillion of persons in the Societies in the States of America.\u201d {55}\n\nYou are probably aware that, besides the public preaching, Wesley\ninstituted among his people several kinds of private meetings. To the\npublic prayer meetings, which were generally held in private houses,\npersons not of this sect were often invited, and on these occasions a\nhymn was first sung, then they all knelt, and the first who felt \u201cmoved\u201d\nmade an extempore prayer: when he had finished, another commenced, and so\non for about two hours. These prayer meetings were held in such high\nesteem among the Methodists, that they asserted more were \u201cborn again\u201d\nand \u201cmade free,\u201d as they termed it, \u201cfrom all the remains of sin\u201d than at\nany other meetings, public preachings, &c.\n\nThere was much in this kind of meeting which was likely to lead to\nenthusiasm, which is universally found to be most easily awakened where\nnumbers are congregated; and according to an author formerly of their\npersuasion, {56} the consequence was such as might have been expected.\n\u201cIt is impossible,\u201d says he, \u201cto form any just idea of those assemblies\nexcept you had been present at them. One coaxes the Divine Being,\nanother is amorous, and a third will tell the Deity, \u2018He must be a liar\nif he does not grant all they ask.\u2019 They thus go on working up each\nother\u2019s imagination until they become as it were spiritually intoxicated,\nand while in this state they sometimes recollect a text or two of\nScripture, such as \u2018Thy sins are forgiven thee\u2019\u2014\u2018Go and sin no more\u2019\u2014\u2018Go\nin peace,\u2019 &c. and then declare themselves to be \u2018born again\u2019 or\n\u2018sanctified.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe love feast is also a private meeting of as many members of the\ncommunity as choose to attend; and they generally assemble from all parts\nwithin several miles of the place where the feast is held. They then\nalternately sing and pray, and some among them, who think that their\nexperience, as they term it, is remarkable, stand up, and narrate all the\ntransactions which they say have taken place between God, the devil, and\ntheir souls.\n\nThere is a curious propensity to egotism in human nature which frequently\nshews itself in religious matters. Men love to talk of themselves: and\nthe Romanist finds pleasure in the power of pouring forth all his\nfeelings and thoughts to his father confessor, whenever he is strongly\nexcited by passion: of this I have become aware from personal knowledge.\nOther enthusiasts enjoy no less satisfaction in talking of the interior\nconflicts they have sustained; for all ungoverned feeling loves to vent\nitself in speech, and the lover who talks of his mistress, or the\npenitent who talks of his sins, is for the time being in the same state\nof restless excitement. _Governed_ feeling, on the contrary, as far as\nmy experience goes, is silent.\n\nIn these Love Feasts those present have buns to eat, which are mutually\nbroken between each \u201cBrother and Sister,\u201d and water to drink, which they\nhand from one to another. These meetings commence about seven o\u2019clock,\nand last till nine or ten.\n\nEach society is divided into smaller companies called \u201cclasses\u201d according\nto their respective places of abode. There are about twelve persons in\nevery class, one of whom is styled \u201cthe Leader,\u201d whose business it is to\nsee each person in his class, at least once a week, to advise, comfort,\nor exhort, as occasion may require, and to receive what each is willing\nto give towards the support of the Gospel.\n\nIt is expected that every member should continue to evince his desire of\nsalvation by abstaining from \u201cthe taking of the name of the Lord in\nvain\u201d; \u201cthe profaning of the Lord\u2019s day, either by ordinary work thereon,\nor by buying and selling\u201d; \u201cdrunkenness, buying or selling spirituous\nliquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity;\nfighting, quarreling, brawling; going to law with a brother; returning\nevil for evil, or railing for railing; the using many words in buying or\nselling. {59a} The buying or selling uncustomed goods; the giving or\ntaking things on usury, i.e. unlawful interest; the putting on of gold or\ncostly apparel; the taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name\nof the Lord Jesus Christ; the singing those songs or reading those books,\nthat do not tend to the knowledge or love of God;\u2014softness and needless\nself-indulgence, &c. {59b}\n\nAmong the duties expected and required of the members are all kinds of\nbeneficence, diligence, frugality, {59c} self-denial, and attendance on\nall the ordinances of God, among which is specifically mentioned fasting.\nIf any member habitually break any of these rules he is admonished; and\nif he do not then repent, expulsion follows. \u201cMarrying with\nunbelievers,\u201d and bankruptcy, if the party has not kept fair accounts,\nare also followed by expulsion.\n\nNo one I think can doubt that much good was effected by the first\npreaching of Wesley and his disciples, for at that time our church was in\na lethargic state, and the lower orders shamefully neglected in spiritual\nmatters in many parts of England. Yet there are some things which excite\none\u2019s regret in their practices, and of these none displeases me more\nthan the familiar use of Scripture language, which when properly and\njudiciously applied is striking and solemn; but to hear every notion of\nenthusiastic ignorance, every rise and fall of the animal spirits,\nexpressed in the language of the Apostles and Evangelists, and even of\nour Lord himself; to witness their familiarity with the Almighty, their\nfull trust and confidence in the reality of small miracles wrought at\ntheir request;\u2014must always be painful to a soberly religious mind. In a\nbook entitled \u201cThe Bank of Faith,\u201d the author asserts, that a dog brought\nhim mutton to eat, that fish died at night in a pond on purpose to be\neaten by him in the morning, and that money, clothes, &c. in short every\nthing he could desire he attained by prayer. {61}\n\nAn old woman of Wesley\u2019s society, named Mary Hubbard, would often wash\nher linen, hang it out to dry, and go away to work in the fields or to\nTaunton Market four miles from her house, and when blamed for thus\nleaving her linen unprotected, she would reply that \u201cthe Lord watched\nover her and all that she had, and that he would prevent any person from\nstealing her two old smocks, or if He permitted them to be stolen, He\nwould send her two new ones in their stead.\u201d I seriously assure you,\nsays the author who relates this tale, and who at one time went even\ngreater lengths {62} than this old woman, \u201cthat there are many thousand\nMary Hubbards among the Methodists.\u201d\n\nIt may be added, that their strict abstinence from the common amusements\nof the world, even where innocent in themselves, has its evils, as I have\nalready noticed when speaking of the Quakers; for the mind cannot always\nbe kept in a state of tension, and if we refuse ourselves recreation\naltogether, there is danger that we shall find the yoke of Christ a\nwearisome instead of an easy one, and cast it off in disgust; nay, I am\nafraid that if we were to inquire closely, we should find instances\nenough of this result to demonstrate, what indeed wants but little proof,\ni.e. that God knows better than we do \u201cwhereof we are made,\u201d and that it\nis not wisdom to bind a heavy burthen on our shoulders when Christ\nhimself has declared that his is light. Still, though tinged with a\ndegree of enthusiasm which we may regret, the doctrine of the Wesleyan\nMethodists retains the fundamental parts of Christianity, and after\nreading the following extracts from Wesley\u2019s Sermons, I think you will\nhardly forbear asking, Why is this a separate sect?\n\n\u201cJustifying Faith implies not only a Divine \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, evidence or\nconviction, that \u2018God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,\u2019\nbut a sure trust and confidence that Christ died for _my_ sins, that he\nloved _me_, and gave himself for me; and the moment a penitent sinner\nbelieves this, God pardons and absolves him.\u201d {64a} \u201cChristian\nperfection does not imply, as some men seem to have imagined, an\nexemption either from ignorance, or mistake, or infirmities, or\ntemptations; indeed it is only another term for holiness: thus every one\nthat is holy, is in the Scripture sense \u2018perfect.\u2019 We may yet observe\nthat neither in this respect is there absolute perfection on earth.\u201d\n{64b} \u201cIf the Scriptures are true, those who are holy or religious in\nthe judgment of God himself, those who are endued with the faith that\npurifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; those who live by\nfaith in the Son of God; those who are sanctified by the blood of the\nCovenant may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly,\ntherefore let him who thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.\u201d \u201cIn\nstrictness neither our faith nor our works justify us, i.e. _deserve_ the\nremission of our sins, but God himself justifies us of his own mercy\nthrough the merits of his Son only.\u201d {65}\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER V.\nGENERAL BAPTISTS, MORAVIANS, SWEDENBORGIANS, PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.\n\n\nAmong the sects which arose about the period of the Reformation of the\nchurch in the sixteenth century, we find the Anabaptists {66} playing\nrather a conspicuous part, by exciting political tumults in Saxony and\nthe adjacent countries. For this, Munzer, their leader, after the defeat\nof his forces, was put to death, and the sect generally was proscribed,\nand the profession of its doctrines punished capitally. What those\ndoctrines were is not easy, nor is it essential now, to state, since the\nmodern sect, which we now term Baptists, retain only so much of them as\nrelates to baptism by immersion, and of adults only, and the rejection of\nepiscopal church government.\n\nThe more modern sect is subdivided into General and Particular Baptists.\nThe General or Arminian Baptists admit \u201cmuch latitude in their system of\nreligious doctrine, which consists in such general principles, that their\ncommunion is accessible to Christians of almost all denominations, and\naccordingly they tolerate in fact, and receive among them persons of\nevery sect, who profess themselves Christians, and receive the Holy\nScriptures as the source of truth, and the rule of faith.\u201d {67} They\nagree with the PARTICULAR BAPTISTS in this, that they admit to baptism\nadults only, and administer that sacrament either by dipping or total\nimmersion; but they differ from them in another respect, for they repeat\nthe administration of baptism to those who had received it, either in a\nstate of infancy, or by aspersion instead of dipping: for if the common\naccounts may be believed, the Particular Baptists do not carry matters so\nfar.\n\nThe General Baptists consider their sect as the only true church; in\nbaptism they dip only once and not three times as was the practice in the\nprimitive church: and they consider it a matter of indifference whether\nthat sacrament be administered in the name of Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, or in that of Christ alone: {68a} they adopt the doctrine of Menno\nwith regard to the Millennium; many of them also embrace his particular\nopinion concerning the origin of Christ\u2019s body. {68b} They look upon the\nprecept of the Apostles prohibiting the use of blood and of things\nstrangled, as a law that was designed to be in force in all ages and\nperiods of the church: they believe that the soul, from the moment that\nthe body dies until its resurrection at the last day, remains in a state\nof perfect insensibility: they use the ceremony of extreme unction, and\nfinally, to omit matters of a more trifling nature, several of them\nobserve the Jewish as well as the Christian Sabbath. {68c} In some of\ntheir churches they have three distinct orders separately ordained, i.e.\nmessengers, elders, and deacons; and their general assembly (where a\nminister preaches, and the churches are taken into consideration), is\nheld annually in London on the Tuesday in Whitsun week, and they\nafterwards dine together. They have met thus for upwards of a century.\n\nThe propriety of the exclusive application of the term \u201cBaptists\u201d to\nthose who baptize adults by immersion, has been questioned; and for this\nreason they are by many styled Antip\u00e6dobaptists, {69} namely, opposers of\ninfant baptism; but the term Anabaptist should not be applied to them, it\nbeing a term of reproach.\n\nThe old General Baptists have been on the decline for many years; their\nchurches are principally in Kent and Sussex. The English and most\nforeign Baptists consider a personal profession of faith, and immersion\nin water, essential to baptism: this profession is generally made before\nthe church at a church meeting. Some have a creed, and expect the\ncandidate for baptism to assent to it, and give a circumstantial account\nof his conversion: others only require him to profess himself a\nChristian. The former generally consider baptism as an ordinance which\ninitiates persons into a particular church, and they say, that without\nbreach of Christian liberty, they have a right to expect an agreement in\narticles of faith in their own societies. The latter think that baptism\ninitiates into the Christian religion generally, and therefore think that\nthey have no right to require an assent to their creed from such as do\nnot join their churches. They quote the baptism of the Eunuch in Acts\nviii. in proof.\n\nThe first mention of the Baptists in English History is as the subject of\npersecution in the reign of Henry VIII. During that of Edward VI. a\ncommission was issued to bishops and other persons \u201cto try all\nAnabaptists, heretics, and despisers of the common prayer,\u201d and they were\nempowered, in the event of their contumacy, to commit them to the flames.\nThe same inhuman policy was persisted in under Elizabeth. The last\nBaptist martyr burned in England was Edward Wightman; he was condemned by\nthe bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, {70a} and burned at Lichfield April\n11, 1612. {70b}\n\nThe celebrated Whiston became a Baptist towards the close of his life,\nretaining nevertheless his Arian belief.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe MORAVIANS are supposed to have derived their origin from Nicholas\nLewis, Count Zinzendorf, a German nobleman, who died in 1760. The\nsociety however assert that they are descended from the old Moravian and\nBohemian Brethren, who existed as a distinct sect sixty years prior to\nthe Reformation. No sooner had these Moravian Brethren heard of Luther\u2019s\nbold testimony to the truth, and of the success which attended his\nlabours, than they sent in the year 1522 two deputies to assure him of\n\u201cthe deep interest which they took in his work;\u201d giving him, at the same\ntime, an account of their own doctrine and constitution. They were most\nkindly received; and both Luther, and his colleague Bucer, recognised the\nMoravians as holding the same faith; and bore honourable testimony to the\npurity of their doctrine, and the excellence of their discipline. The\nchief doctrine of the Moravian society is, that \u201cby the sacrifice for sin\nmade by Jesus Christ, and by that alone, grace and deliverance from sin\nare to be obtained for all mankind:\u201d and they stedfastly maintain the\nfollowing points:\n\n1. The divinity of Christ.\n\n2. The atonement and satisfaction made for us by Jesus Christ; and that\nby his merits alone we receive freely the forgiveness of sin, and\nsanctification in soul and body.\n\n3. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace.\nThat it is he who worketh in us conviction of sin, faith in Christ, and\npureness of heart.\n\n4. That faith must evidence itself by willing obedience to the\ncommandments of God from love and gratitude.\n\nThe internal constitution of the ancient church of the Moravians, which\nis still substantially adhered to, was originally adopted in 1457, and\nmore definitely settled in 1616 by the Synod of Zerawitz. Its principal\npeculiarities are,\n\n1. Every church is divided into three classes, i.e. 1. _Beginners_ or\n_Catechumens_. 2. _The more advanced_ or _communicants_, who are\nconsidered as members of the church. 3. _The perfect_, consisting of\nsuch as have persevered for some time in a course of true piety. From\nthis last class are chosen in every church _the Elders_, from three to\neight in number.\n\n2. Every congregation is directed by a board of elders, whose province\nit is to have a watchful eye over its members with respect to the\ndoctrine and deportment. Once in three months these elders are bound to\nvisit the houses of the brethren, in order to observe their conduct, and\nto ascertain whether every one is labouring diligently in his calling,\n&c. of which they make a report to the pastor. They also are required to\nvisit the sick, and assist the poorer brethren with money, contributed by\nthe members of the church, and deposited in an alms box.\n\n3. The ministration of the Word and Sacrament is performed either by\nmembers who have received ordination from the bishops of the church of\nthe brethren, or by those who have received that of the Calvinist or\nLutheran church. The deacons, according to the ancient constitution of\nthe church, are the chief assistants of the pastors, and are considered\nas candidates for the ministry. The bishops, who are nominated by the\nministers, appoint the pastors to their stations, and have the power of\nremoving them when they think fit, and of ordaining the deacons as well\nas the ministers. Every bishop is appointed to superintend a certain\nnumber of churches, and has two or three co-bishops, who, if necessary,\nsupply their place. The ancient church appointed some of its members to\nthe business of watching over the civil affairs of the congregation,\nunder the name of _Seniores Civiles_, who were ordained with imposition\nof hands. This office is still continued. The synods, which are held\nevery three or four years, are composed of the bishops and their\nco-bishops the Seniores Civiles, and of \u201csuch servants of the church and\nof the congregation as are called to the synod by the former elders\u2019\nconference, appointed by the previous synod, or commissioned to attend it\nas deputies from particular congregations.\u201d Several female elders also\nare usually present at the synods, but they have no vote. All the\ntransactions of the synod are committed to writing, and communicated to\nthe several congregations.\n\nA liturgy, peculiar to the Brethren, is regularly used as a part of the\nmorning service on the Sabbath; on other occasions the minister offers\nextempore prayer. The singing of hymns is considered as an essential\npart of worship, and many of their services consist entirely of singing.\nAt the baptism of children, both the witnesses and the minister bless the\ninfant, with laying on of hands immediately after the rite. The Lord\u2019s\nSupper is celebrated every month: love feasts are frequently held, i.e.\nthe members eat and drink together in fellowship: cakes and tea are\ndistributed during the singing of some verses by the congregation. The\nwashing of feet is practised at present only at certain seasons by the\nwhole congregation, and on some other occasions in the choirs. Dying\npersons are blessed for their departure by the elders, during prayer and\nsinging a verse with imposition of hands. At funerals, the pastor\naccompanies the corpse to the burial place with the singing of hymns; and\nan address is delivered at the grave. Marriages are, by general\nagreement, never contracted without the advice and concurrence of the\nelders. {75a} The casting of lots is used among them to know, as they\nexpress it, \u201cThe will of the Lord.\u201d {75b}\n\nWith regard to discipline, \u201cthe Church of the Brethren have agreed upon\ncertain rules and orders. These are laid before every one, that desires\nto become a member of the church, for his consideration. Whoever after\nhaving voluntarily agreed to them, does not act conformably, falls under\ncongregation discipline.\u201d This has various degrees, and consists in\nadmonitions, warnings, and reproofs, continued until genuine repentance\nand a real conversion become evident in the offender, when he is\nreadmitted to the holy communion, or reconciled to the congregation,\nafter a deprecatory letter has been read, expressing the offender\u2019s\nsorrow for his transgression, and asking forgiveness. The Brethren\nassert that the church government in the established Protestant churches\n\u201cdoes not apply to the congregations of the Brethren, because they never\nwere intended to form a national establishment: for their design is no\nother than to be a true and living congregation of Jesus Christ, and to\nbuild up each other as a spiritual house of God, to the end that the\nkingdom of Jesus Christ may be furthered by them.\u201d Hence the doctrine of\nJesus and his Apostles, and the order and practice of the Apostolic\nchurches, are the models by which they wish to be formed. It may be\nadded, that they are generally the most successful Missionaries, and that\ntheir society seems the most nearly to realize the practice of the early\nChristians, of any sect now remaining.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe SWEDENBORGIANS take their name from Emmanuel Swedenborg, who was born\nat Stockholm in 1683. His father was Jasper Swedberg, bishop of West\nGothland. He received his education chiefly in the University of Upsala;\nand in 1716 was appointed by Charles XII. Assessor of the Royal College\nof Sciences; he was ennobled by Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and received the\nname of Swedenborg. He published scientific works on various subjects,\nbut in 1747 he resigned his office, in order, as he himself states, that\nhe might be more at liberty to attend to that new function which he\nconsidered himself called to, and the rest of his life was spent in\ncomposing and publishing the voluminous works which contain his peculiar\ndoctrines. He died in 1772. He was a man of blameless life and amiable\ndeportment, and was distinguished for his attainments in mathematics and\nmechanics.\n\nHis writings are so very obscure, that it is difficult to state what are\nthe opinions contained in them; he taught, however, that by the New\nJerusalem which came down from heaven, was intended a new church as to\ndoctrine, and that he was the person to whom this doctrine was revealed,\nand who was appointed to make it known to the world. Swedenborg made no\nattempt to found a sect; but after his death, his followers, in 1788,\nformed themselves into a society under the denomination of \u201cThe New\nJerusalem Church.\u201d They have several places of meeting, both in London\nand Manchester, and send delegates to a \u201cGeneral Conference,\u201d under whose\ndirection a liturgy has been prepared, from which I shall make a few\nextracts to shew the peculiar doctrines of this sect.\n\nThe following are some of the questions asked of the candidate for\nordination, which is performed by imposition of hands, of course of a\nminister of their own communion.\n\n\u201c_Min._ Dost thou believe that Jehovah God is One both in Essence and in\nPerson; in whom, nevertheless, is the Divine Trinity of Father, Son, and\nHoly Spirit; and that these are, his Essential Divinity, his Divine\nHumanity, and his Divine Proceeding, which are the three Essentials of\nOne God, answering to the soul, the body, and the operative energy, in\nman, and that the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is that God?\n\nDost thou believe that by his temptations, the last of which was the\npassion of the cross, the Lord united, in his Humanity, Divine Truth to\nDivine Good, or Divine Wisdom to Divine Love, and so returned into his\nDivinity in which he was from eternity, together with, and in, his\nGlorified Humanity?\n\nDost thou believe that the sacred Scripture, or Word of God, is Divine\nTruth itself, and that it contains a spiritual and celestial sense,\nheretofore unknown, whence it is divinely inspired and holy in every\nsyllable; as well as a literal sense, which is the basis and support of\nits spiritual and celestial sense?\n\nDost thou believe that the books which have the internal sense and are\ntruly the Word of God are,\u2014the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, the\ntwo books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the Psalms of David, the\nprophets, including the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the four Gospels, and\nthe Revelation?\u201d {79}\n\nIt is further stated in their eleventh article of faith, \u201cThat\nimmediately after death, which is only a putting off of the material\nbody, never to be resumed, man rises again in a spiritual or substantial\nbody, in which he continues to live to eternity.\u201d\n\nOn these doctrines it may be observed that the forms of worship founded\non them are not such as Christ and his apostles ordered. The doxology\nis, \u201cTo Jesus Christ be glory and dominion for ever and ever;\u201d the\nblessing, \u201cThe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.\u201d The\nprayers are addressed to the \u201cblessed Lord Jesus.\u201d Whereas Christ, when\nhe gave us a form of prayer, bade us address \u201cour Father in heaven;\u201d and\nbade us ask of the Father in his name; and the form of the apostolic\ndoxology is, \u201cTo God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ for ever\u201d;\n{80a} and the blessing, \u201cGrace be unto you and peace from God our Father,\nand from the Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d {80b} As at this time Christ had\nascended from the earth, had the human nature been entirely merged in the\nDivine, as this sect asserts, Paul the Apostle would not have made this\ndistinction, which implies that the Lord Jesus still existed somewhere in\nhis human form as the everlasting visible temple of the Invisible father\nof all things, for \u201cno man hath seen God at any time,\u201d says the beloved\nApostle, {81a} and this is confirmed by Christ himself. {81b} If the man\nthen be lost in the Deity, it follows that the Lord Jesus exists no more\nfor us. I am aware that this consequence is denied by the sect, but it\nis a self evident proposition: for their creed runs thus, \u201cI believe in\none God in whom is a Divine Trinity, &c., and that this God is the Lord\nand Saviour Jesus Christ who is Jehovah in a glorified human form.\u201d Now\na human form must have some properties of matter; it must be visible, and\ncircumscribed, or it is not form; and what is circumscribed and visible\ncannot be God, who, of necessity, is uncircumscribed, and therefore\ninvisible. The infinite Eternal Omnipotent Deity _must_ be where that\nglorified body is not; therefore, the Great Father of all things must\nalways be the object of worship, through Jesus Christ, who is the\n_visible_ image of his glory. The _form_ of baptism is retained by this\nsect, though they assert that the rite was \u201cconstantly administered by\nthe Apostles in the name of Christ alone\u201d; an assertion contradicted by\nthe whole testimony of antiquity from the earliest times; adding,\n\u201cnevertheless it is well to use the express words of the Lord, when it is\nknown and acknowledged in the church that the Father and the Son and the\nHoly Spirit are not three separate persons but three Divine Essentials,\nconstituting the single Divine Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d {82}\nWith regard to the \u201cinternal sense\u201d of Scripture it is sufficient to\nobserve that if \u201cevery syllable\u201d were to be considered as inspired and\nholy, the long list of various readings would grievously shake our faith,\nthough these are quite immaterial as to the general meaning.\n\nThere are serious objections to the distinctive tenets of this sect, yet,\nin justice to them, it must be allowed that the unguarded language of\nsome preachers does so split up the Deity into separate individuals as to\nmake the doctrine so taught a complete tritheism, and that a serious mind\nreturning to the express declaration of the Scripture, that God is One,\nmay be so far shocked by such unmeasured expressions, as to run into the\nextreme which I have condemned. Unitarianism on the one hand, and the\ndoctrine of Swedenborg on the other, have equally sprung from a want of\nproper caution when speaking of the different manifestations of the\nDeity, and an unmeasured itch for the definition of things too far beyond\nthe reach of our finite faculties to admit of any precision of terms.\n_Words_ were formed for the things pertaining to earth; how then can they\never exactly express the nature of the Deity?\n\nNotwithstanding the faith professed by this sect, their teaching,\nnevertheless, returns to the doctrine of the Gospel. In a tract \u201con the\ntrue meaning of the intercession of Jesus Christ,\u201d published at\nManchester by their own religious tract society, we have the following\npassage: \u201cThe Humanity named Jesus is the medium whereby man may come to\nGod, because the Father, _heretofore invisible_, is manifested and made\n_visible_ and _approachable_ in him. This is meant by _our coming unto\nGod by him_;\u201d and elsewhere, as we cannot obtain this \u201clight of life\u201d\nwithout following the Lord, and doing his will, as he did the will of the\nFather, agreeably to his own saying, \u201cIf ye keep my commandments, even as\nI have kept my Father\u2019s commandments, and abide in his love;\u201d so neither\ncan we obtain that divine food by which our spiritual life is to be\nsustained, unless we labour for it, as the Lord himself instructed us\nwhen he said \u201cLabour for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life\u201d;\nand is it not of the greatest importance clearly to understand what this\nlabour implies? Let the reader be assured that he must labour in that\nspiritual vineyard which the Lord desires to plant in his soul, in order\nthat it may bear abundant fruits of righteousness to the glory of his\nheavenly father.\u201d {84} Thus we see again that the fundamental doctrines\nof Christianity _will_ find their way, however men may speculatively\ndisclaim them. Why then do we differ outwardly, when at heart we agree?\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, so called probably from the place where this\nsociety first arose, do not allow themselves to be a sect, though in\ntheir practices they differ considerably from those of the Established\nChurch. They meet together on the morning of the first day of the week\nto celebrate the Lord\u2019s Supper, when any \u201cBrother\u201d is at liberty to speak\nfor mutual edification. In the afternoon and evening, when they have\npreachers, the services are similar to those in the Congregational\nChurches (Independents): the desk, however, for they condemn pulpits, is\nnot occupied by one man, but used as a convenient place for speaking,\nbeing alternately occupied by the \u201cBrother,\u201d who reads the hymn, the one\nwho prays, and the one who teaches or preaches the Word. There are also\n\u201cMeetings for Prayer,\u201d and what are technically called \u201creading\nmeetings;\u201d when a chapter is read, and those \u201cBrethren\u201d who have made it\nmatter of reflection, speak upon it clause by clause for their mutual\ninstruction.\n\nBefore a person is acknowledged a \u201cBrother,\u201d his name is announced at one\nof the times of \u201cmeeting together to break bread,\u201d as it is termed, and\nif nothing occurs in the interval, he takes his seat with them the next\nSunday.{85} Any one is admitted to their communion whom they believe to\nbe \u201ca child of God;\u201d but they do not receive or acknowledge him as a\nbrother, \u201cwhile in actual connection with any of the various forms of\nworldliness,\u201d i.e. the other churches of Christ. Their preachers move\nabout from place to place, forming different congregations, which they\nagain leave for other places where their services are required. None of\ntheir ministers receive any _stipulated_ charity. The \u201cBrethren\u201d\ndisapprove of any association of Christians for any purpose whatever,\nwhether civil or religious, and therefore discountenance all Sunday\nSchool, Bible, Missionary, or even purely Benevolent, Societies. They do\nnot disapprove of sending either Bibles or Missionaries to the heathen;\nbut they say that if they go at all, \u201cGod and not the church must send\nthem.\u201d They do not think that the Gospel is to convert the world, but\nthat it is to be \u201cpreached as a witness to\u201d or rather against \u201call\nnations.\u201d The world, they say, \u201cis reserved for judgment, and therefore\nit is wholly contrary to the character of a Christian to have any thing\nto do with it or its government.\u201d When a child of God is born again, \u201che\nlays,\u201d say they, \u201call his worldly relations down at the feet of Christ,\nand he is at liberty to take up none but those which he can take up in\nthe Lord.\u201d They neither pray for pardon of sin, nor for the presence and\ninfluence of the Spirit, and carefully exclude such petitions from their\nhymns. Many of them think it inconsistent with the Christian character\nto amass wealth, or to possess furniture or clothing more than is\n_necessary_ for health and cleanliness; and very great sacrifices have\nbeen made by the more wealthy of them.\n\nThese are most of them unimportant peculiarities; but the great feature\nof this sect, for so notwithstanding their protest, I must call these\n\u201cBrethren,\u201d is a degree of self approbation and uncharity for others,\nwhich, to say the least, is not what Christ taught. \u201cNo sect,\u201d says\nRust, {87a} \u201cis more Sectarian, and none more separate from Christians of\nall denominations than \u201cThe Plymouth Brethren.\u201d The Church of Rome they\nconsider \u201cbad.\u201d The Church of England \u201cbad.\u201d \u201cA popish priest and a\nparish priest, both bad;\u201d \u201cbut infinitely worse,\u201d says one of the\nBrethren (a Captain Hall), \u201cis a people\u2019s preacher.\u201d They occasionally\nindulge in what they term \u201cbiting jests and sarcastic raillery,\u201d of the\nministers of our church, and of those who differ from them, which evince\nbut little of the meek and peaceable spirit of the Gospel; {87b} for, as\nLord Bacon has well observed, \u201cto intermix Scripture with scurrility in\none sentence;\u2014the majesty of religion and the contempt and deformity of\nthings ridiculous,\u2014is a thing far from the reverence of a devout\nChristian, and hardly becoming the honest regard of a sober man.\u201d If I\nhave appeared to speak harshly of this sect, it is because they seem to\nme to have abandoned so much of the spirit of the Gospel. \u201cIf the tenets\nof the Plymouth Brethren be consistent with themselves,\u201d observes Mr.\nRust, \u201cthey necessarily withdraw them from all society, and every\nexisting form of Christianity, shutting them out from all co-operation\nwith the holy and benevolent, for the relief and blessing of their poor\nor sinful fellow creatures, making it sinful to fulfil the duties of a\nsubject, a citizen, &c.\u201d But I hope and believe that these tenets must\nbe and are counteracted by the instinctive love of our kind, which for\nthe benefit of the world God has implanted in man. The human race is so\nessentially social that they who endeavour to dissociate mankind, stand\nin much the same situation as he would do who should hope to dam up the\nocean. It is in fact to these silent tendencies of human nature, whose\nforce we never know till we attempt to check them, that we owe much of\nthe innocuousness of false or overstrained opinions: the reason is\ndeluded, but the feelings which the Creator has made a part of our very\nbeing, generally correct the false argument; and the man, if not\npreviously corrupted by vice, acts right though he argues wrong.\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VI.\nCALVINISM.\n\n\nI have already noticed that the sects into which the reformed churches\nare split, may be classified generally under two great divisions, the one\nadopting mainly the milder views of Melancthon, whose advice was much\nused in the reform of the Anglican church; the other following those of\nCalvin, which were chiefly carried out, at Geneva, the birthplace of that\nreformer, and among the Huguenots of France. It may be well, therefore,\nbefore we proceed to notice the particular sects which profess to combine\nin a greater or less degree the doctrines usually termed Calvinistic, to\nexamine what the opinions are which pass under that name. {90}\n\nIt was at the Synod of Dort, which was assembled in the year 1618, that\nthese opinions received a decided form; for James Arminius, professor of\ndivinity in the University of Leyden, having rejected some part of the\nGenevan doctrine respecting predestination and grace, this synod was\ncalled in order to settle the disputed points. After much debate the\nopinions of Arminius were condemned, and the doctrine of Calvin was\nsummed up in five points, which gave name to what has been called the\nQuinqueticular controversy between the Calvinistic and Anti-calvinistic\ndivines of Holland. They related to,\n\n1. Predestination or Election.\n\n2. The extent of redemption.\n\n3. Moral depravity and impotency. {91}\n\n4. Effectual calling.\n\n5. Final perseverance of the sanctified.\n\nCalvinists are understood to maintain that predestination is absolute;\nredemption limited; moral impotency total; grace inevitable; and the\nsalvation of the believer, certain. But among Calvinistic as among\nArminian divines, there are many shades of difference indicated by the\nterms _high_ Calvinist, and _moderate_ Calvinist, _sub_ lapsarian and\n_supra_ lapsarian, _scholastic_ Calvinism and _popular_ Calvinism; which\nlatter has been described as \u201cthe Augustinian theology strained off from\nits mathematics.\u201d These all differ so materially that Bishop Horsley\nfound it necessary to admonish his clergy \u201cto beware how they aimed their\nshaft at Calvinism before they knew what it is, and what it is not;\u201d a\ngreat part of what ignorantly goes under that name, being \u201cclosely\ninterwoven with the very rudiments of Christianity.\u201d I believe, however,\nthat though differences may subsist among Calvinists themselves, as to\nthe explication of their doctrines, they generally allow,\n\n1. That God has chosen a certain number in Christ, to everlasting glory\nbefore the foundation of the world, according to his immutable purpose,\nand of his free grace and love; without the least foresight of faith,\ngood works, or any conditions performed by the creature; and that the\nrest of mankind he was pleased to pass by, and ordain them to dishonour\nand wrath for their sins to the praise of his vindictive justice.\n\n2. That Christ by his death and sufferings made an atonement only for\nthe sins of the elect. {93a}\n\n3. That mankind are _totally_ depraved in consequence of the fall.\n\n4. That all whom God has predestined to life, he is pleased in his\nappointed time effectually to call by his Word and Spirit out of that\nstate of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and\nsalvation by Jesus Christ.\n\n5. That those whom God has effectually called and sanctified by his\nSpirit, shall never finally fall from a state of grace.\n\nThe prominent feature then, of the Calvinistic system, {93b} is the\nelection of some, and reprobation of others from all eternity; but to\nthis we may answer, that if all mankind are really appointed to sin and\npunishment, holiness and salvation irrespectively to any act of their\nown, then they will be judged in exact opposition to our Saviour\u2019s\ndeclaration, that he will reward every man _according to his works_:\n{95a} and again, that it is \u201cnot the will of \u2018our\u2019 Father which is in\nheaven that one of those little ones,\u201d i.e. children, \u201cshould perish.\u201d\n{95b} These declarations would, I think, sufficiently prove that St.\nPaul\u2019s expressions on the subject relate to national, and not individual\nelection, even had the Apostle himself left his meaning unexplained: for\nthe servant is not greater than his master, and it is not possible that\nan inspired Apostle should preach a doctrine different from that of Him\nwho commissioned him; but if I mistake not, he has himself taken especial\ncare that his meaning on this important subject should _not_ be\nmisunderstood. For first, it is a notorious fact, though often\noverlooked in argument, that the very passage, \u201cI will have mercy on whom\nI will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have\ncompassion,\u201d which is the main support claimed for the doctrine of\nabsolute decrees, is quoted from Exodus, and forms the assurance given by\nGod himself to Moses, that He had separated _the Hebrew nation_ from all\nthe people on the face of the earth. {96a} Again St. Paul has asserted\nthat God will render to _every_ man _according to his deeds_, for there\nis _no respect of persons_ with God. {96b} God will have _all men_ to be\nsaved, &c. &c.\n\nGod forbid that we should consider that a man may not be a sincere\nChristian, who believes himself irrevocably called, \u201celect,\u201d and\ninevitably secure of his salvation; or declare that a strict Calvinist\ncannot be attached to our church: but St. Paul teaches that \u201cChrist died\nfor all;\u201d that grace instead of being irresistible may be received in\nvain; that those who have been once justified instead of being _sure_ of\n\u201cfinal perseverance\u201d and salvation, _may_ \u201csin wilfully after they have\nreceived the knowledge of the truth,\u201d and \u201cdraw back to perdition,\u201d so\nthat it behoves every one \u201cwho thinketh he standeth to take heed lest he\nfall.\u201d {96c}\n\nIn regard to \u201cirresistible\u201d (special) \u201cgrace,\u201d Scripture assures us that\ngrace sufficient for salvation is denied to none; for St. Paul in every\npassage of the Epistles, which relates to grace, declares that the Spirit\nworks in the souls of _all_, enabling them, if they do not obstinately\nresist it, \u201cto work out their salvation.\u201d The following passage is taken\nfrom the work of a teacher of the doctrine of Special Grace. \u201cThe reign\nof sin consists not in the multitude, greatness or prevalency of sins,\nfor all these are consistent with a state of grace, and may be in a child\nof God, in whom sin doth not and cannot reign; but in the in-being of sin\nwithout grace, whether it act more or less violently, yea, whether it\nacts at all or no: yet if the habit of sin possess the soul without any\nprinciple of grace implanted, which is contrary to it, that man may be\nsaid to be still under the dominion of sin. This mortification then of\nsin, as to its reigning power, is completed in the first act of\nconversion and regeneration.\u201d {98a} But this language is by no means\nthat of St. Paul: for the writer makes grace the test of holiness;\nwhereas the apostle, following therein the doctrine of his master,\u2014\u201cby\ntheir fruits ye shall know them,\u201d\u2014makes holiness the test of grace.\nIndeed the obscurity and perplexing nature of the doctrine above quoted,\nstands in no favourable contrast with the simple and clear declaration of\nthe Saviour, that we \u201cdo not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of\nthistles,\u201d\u2014and that therefore the heart must be known by the words and\nactions: and the no less decided and simple exposition of the doctrine of\nChrist, by the beloved disciple, \u201cLittle children, let no man deceive\nyou: he that doeth righteousness is righteous . . . he that committeth\nsin is of the devil. Whosoever is born of God _doth not commit sin_ . . .\nwhosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.\u201d {98b}\n\nThe doctrine of the _total_ depravity of human nature, it appears to me,\ncannot be proved from Scripture any more than the two former. St. John,\nwhilst asserting that no man is wholly without sin, exhorts to efforts,\nand supposes a possible state of Christian perfection in his converts,\nwholly incompatible with a state of entire corruption: and St. Paul,\nthough he clearly states that sin has brought all men under condemnation,\nand that the unspirituality of the flesh can only be successfully opposed\nby the influence of the Holy Spirit, does not declare the consequences of\nthe Fall in terms such as we find in the Calvinistic writers\u2014as \u201cMan,\ninstead of the image of God, was now become the image of the Devil;\ninstead of the citizen of heaven, he was become the bond-slave of hell,\nhaving in himself no one part of his former purity, but being altogether\nspotted and defiled\u2014now he seemed to be nothing else but a lump of sin.\u201d\nAnd again: \u201cMan is of his own nature fleshly and corrupt, &c. without any\nspark of goodness in him; only given to evil thoughts and evil deeds.\u201d\nEven human nature, if closely examined, does not bear testimony to this\nas truth: for either the grace of God is accorded in such large measure\nto man from his birth, that none can be considered as wholly bad; or the\nutter corruption preached by Calvin does not exist. All experience may\nbe appealed to on this point, even that of the persons who use the above\nlanguage; for if they search their own hearts in sincerity, they will\nbecome conscious of amiable affections, and admiration of what is good\nand right: neither, probably, are they guilty of any such gross and\nhabitual sins, as must mark a nature so wholly depraved. The Calvinist\ntherefore can only use these strong phrases with certain grains of\nallowance: and he would be wiser if he were to avoid offending his\u2014if he\nprefer so to call him\u2014weaker brother, by technical terms which he himself\ncannot use in their _full force_ before the Searcher of hearts.\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VII.\nPRESBYTERIANS. INDEPENDENTS.\n\n\nWhen the preaching of Luther and his coadjutors had effectually called\nmen\u2019s attention to the affairs of the church, it was natural that\nquestions with regard to its government no less than its doctrine, should\nbe freely mooted. The usurpations of Rome had a tendency to disgust the\nReformers with episcopal government, and accordingly we find both Calvin\nand Luther establishing a more republican form; and instead of giving the\necclesiastical power into the hands of one man, they judged it proper to\ndelegate it to the elders (presbyters) of each church respectively;\nsubject only to the control of the majority of a general synod. Such was\nthe origin of what we now term Presbyterians as a sect: for in _England_\nmore moderate councils, and the circumstance that the reformed tenets\nwere embraced by many of the bishops, led to retaining the Episcopal form\nof church government. In _Scotland_, after a struggle, the Presbyterian\nform was finally established, and the church or kirk of that part of\nGreat Britain is regulated upon that system. A secession has lately\ntaken place on the question of the right of presentation to livings, but\nthe _doctrine_ taught in both is nearly similar, i.e. that of the\nCalvinistic churches.\n\nThe General Synod of Ulster (originally a branch of the established kirk\nof Scotland), is the principal body of Presbyterians considered as\ndissenters from the establishment: and there also, there is a\nPresbyterian Synod, or Church of \u201cthe Apostolic Seceders,\u201d formed by\nseceders from the General Synod, which is thoroughly Calvinistic, and\nwhich maintains the same discipline that is usually observed among the\nseceding \u201cScottish Presbyterians.\u201d In the reign of Geo. I. Arianism\n{102} was openly embraced by some of the more speculative of the\nPresbyterian ministers in Ireland, and in consequence, a theological\ncontroversy was carried on for twenty years (from 1705 to 1725), which\nended in the secession of eight Arian ministers, and the formation of the\nPresbytery of Antrim. Some who were secretly inclined to Arianism had\nnot the courage to follow the example of the eight seceders, and the\nleaven continued to spread among the general body during the latter part\nof the eighteenth century, till at length inquiries were instituted in\nthe Synod, which led to a fresh separation. Seventeen at length seceded\nout of thirty-seven ministers, holding Arian or Socinian tenets in the\nyear 1830, and they subsequently formed themselves into a distinct Synod,\nunder the name of \u201cthe Remonstrant Synod of Ulster,\u201d and the Presbytery\nof Antrim has now become incorporated with this Synod. These Arian\ncongregations are chiefly situated in the counties of Antrim and Down, in\nthe north and eastern part of the province. There are ten or twelve\ncongregations in the south of Ireland forming the Synod of Munster, which\nwere also, till within a few years, Arian or Socinian. The total number\nof Remonstrant and Socinian congregations is between thirty and forty.\n_All_ the Presbyterian bodies,\u2014Orthodox and Arian, share in the\nGovernment grants known under the name of \u201cRegium Donum.\u201d This royal\nbounty was originally dispensed among the Presbyterian clergy of Ulster\nin lieu of the tithes which were taken from them at the Restoration, and\nbestowed upon the Episcopal conformists. It was withdrawn towards the\nclose of the reign of Charles II.; but at the Revolution, letters patent\npassed the great seal of Ireland, granting \u00a31200 per annum to seven\nPresbyterian ministers, during pleasure, for the use of the ministers of\nthe north of Ireland, to be paid quarterly out of any of the revenues of\nthe kingdom. This grant was renewed, under certain limitations, in the\nreign of Queen Anne: and in the reign of Geo. I. \u00a3800 per annum was\ndivided in equal shares between the ministers of the Ulster Synod and\nthose of the Southern Association. In 1784 an additional grant was made\nto the Ulster Synod of \u00a31000 per annum. In 1792 the grant was augmented\nto \u00a35000 to be divided among the ministers of the Synod,\u2014the Presbytery\nof Antrim,\u2014the Seceders,\u2014the Southern Association,\u2014and the ministers of\nthe French church, Dublin. In 1803 some fresh regulations were made, by\nwhich the distribution of the bounty was taken immediately into the hands\nof Government, and the Presbyterian clergy were thus rendered more\nostensibly what they had previously been only in effect, i.e.,\nstipendiaries of the state. The congregations under the care of the\nseveral Synods and Presbyteries are now arranged in three classes\naccording to the number of families and the stipend of each minister; and\nthe allowance to the ministers of the three classes was fixed at \u00a350,\n\u00a375, and \u00a3100 per annum. The members of the congregation feel under no\nobligation to contribute much, if anything, to their pastor\u2019s support,\nwho is therefore often compelled to have recourse to farming, grazing, or\nsome other secular employment, for the support of his family.\n\n\u201cIn 1834 the ascendant party in the Synod succeeded in carrying a\nresolution enforcing unqualified subscription to the \u201cConfession of\nFaith,\u201d which had not previously been enforced. The ostensible motive\nfor this is a desire to bring about a closer union with the Established\nChurch of Scotland. The Irish Synod being now so far connected with the\nstate as to form a species of ecclesiastical establishment, a feeling has\nbeen generated in favour of the established church of both countries: a\nstrong protest, however has been made against the decision, but without\navail.\u201d {106}\n\nThe increase of the Presbyterians in Ireland from whatever cause has\nborne no due proportion to that of the general population.\n\n\u201cPresbyterianism received as a scheme of policy, though admirably adapted\nto the exigencies of the times in which it originated, partakes of the\nessential defectiveness of the incipient reformation of the sixteenth\ncentury, embodying these erroneous principles which were adopted by the\nfounders of most of the Protestant churches, and which soon proved not\nless fatal to the cause of scriptural truth than to the internal peace of\nthe Christian communities.\u201d\n\nThe first Presbyterian church was founded in Geneva by John Calvin, about\nA.D. 1541, and the system afterwards introduced into Scotland, with\nmodifications by John Knox, about the year 1560, but not _legally_\nestablished there till 1592. It has never flourished greatly in England,\nand the Unitarian doctrine has now been almost universally received among\nthe quondam Presbyterian congregations.\n\nThe _theory_ of discipline in the SCOTTISH CHURCH does not differ very\nwidely from that of the English episcopacy, but the _practice_ of the two\nchurches, as modified by the habits of the two nations, is totally\ndifferent. In order to reconcile the Anglican and Scottish confessions\nof faith, it would be requisite that the Church of England should consent\nto suppress Articles III. VII. XXXV. and XXXVI. also that part of Art.\nVI. which sanctions the public reading of the Apocrypha, and the first\nclause of Art. XX, attributing to the church a power to decree rites and\nceremonies, as well as authority in controversies of faith. Agreeing, as\nthe English and Scottish Churches do _substantially_ in the doctrines of\nthe Protestant faith, they nevertheless differ widely,\n\n1. As to the nature of holy orders and the power of ordination.\n\n2. As to the hierarchical constitution of the Anglican Church.\n\n3. As to matters of ritual, especially the use of liturgies which the\nChurch of Scotland rejects.\n\n4. As to the doctrines of sacramental grace and sacerdotal absolution,\nimplied in the offices of the Anglican Church.\n\n5. As to the whole system of discipline, Ecclesiastical Courts, &c.\n\n6. As to certain points of Calvinistic theology.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe INDEPENDENTS differ from the Presbyterians chiefly in three points,\nnamely:\n\n1. As to ordination, and the liberty of preaching.\n\n2. As to the political form and constitution of church government, and\nthe conditions of church communion.\n\n3. As to the grounds and limits of religious liberty.\n\n\u201cOrdination alone,\u201d say the Independents, \u201cwithout the precedent consent\nof the Church by those who formerly have been advanced by virtue of that\npower they have received by their ordination, doth not constitute any\nperson a church officer, or communicate office power unto him.\u201d The\nPresbyterians on the other hand deny that the mere invitation and choice\nof the people could confer the pastoral office, or that it was even a\npre-requisite. The Independents seem to have identified the ministerial\nfunction with the pastoral office; and argued that it was absurd to\nordain an officer without a province to exercise the office in. Their\nopponents viewed the Christian ministry more as an order invested with\ncertain inherent powers; a faculty or profession endowed with peculiar\nprivileges, the admission into which required to be jealously guarded;\nand this power and authority they conceive could be transmitted by those\nof the order. All approved candidates for the ministerial office among\nthe Presbyterians, are ordained without reference to any local change;\namong the Independents no probationer is ordained till he has been\nappointed to the pastoral office. The first Independent or\nCongregational Church in England was established by a Mr. Jacob, A.D.\n1616, though it is asserted that a Mr. Robinson was the founder of this\nsect, of which Dr. John Owen, Dr. Isaac Watts, Dr. Doddridge, and Job\nOrton were members.\n\nThe following extracts are from the discourses of Robert Hall, who,\nthough a Baptist, dissented from most of his brethren on the subject of\nstrict communion. He was a preacher both of Baptist and Independent\ncongregations, but he did not hesitate to avow that \u201che had more\nfellowship of feeling for an Independent or a Presbyterian than for a\nclose communion Baptist.\u201d His system of theological tenets was on the\nmodel of what has come to be denominated \u201cModerate Calvinism.\u201d With\nregard to the distinctive Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination, \u201cI\ncannot,\u201d says his biographer, \u201canswer for the precise terms in which he\nwould have stated it, but I presume he would have accepted those employed\nby the Church of England. In preaching he very rarely made any express\nreference to that doctrine.\u201d\n\n\u201cJesus Christ did not come, let it be remembered, to establish a mere\nexternal morality, that his followers might be screened from human laws\nand human justice, for human laws will take care of this. The holy\ninstitution of Christianity has a nobler object, that of purifying our\nhearts and regulating our behaviour by the love of God. In the most\npractical accounts of the proceedings of the last day given in the\nScriptures, the excellency which is represented as being a criterion and\ndistinguishing feature of the disciple of Christ, and which He will\nacknowledge, is: Christian benevolence\u2014love to man manifested in the\nrelief of the poor. The Apostle St. John has given us a most sublime\ndescription of the love of God, when he says, \u2018God is love;\u2019 love is not\nso much an attribute of His nature as His _very essence_; the spirit of\nHimself. Christian benevolence is not only the \u2018image of God,\u2019 but is\npeculiarly an imitation of Christ.\u201d \u201cI do not ask, my brethren, what\nparticular virtue you have, but _how much are you under the influence of\nHim_? for just so much virtue we have, as we have of His spirit and\ncharacter.\u201d \u201cOur Saviour places the acceptance of men, not upon their\ndispositions, but upon their actions; upon what _they have done_, not\nupon what they have _merely believed_ or _felt_, or in any undefined\nstate of mind.\u201d\u2014\u201cI am persuaded that the cause of the ruin of professing\nChristians does not arise so much from a mistake of the doctrines of\nChristianity as from a low idea of Christian morals; in abstaining from\ncertain crimes and disorders through fear of the loss of character and of\npunishment, without reflecting on the spirit of that holy religion which\nwe profess.\u201d\u2014\u201cChrist went about doing good, not as an _occasional_\nexercise, but as his _employment_; it was the one thing which he did.\nThough possessed of infinite power, he never employed it in resenting or\nretaliating an injury. He was pre-eminently devout. His was an active\nlife; it was not the life of a solitary monk. That devotion which\nterminates in itself is a luxury which sometimes perverts the principles\nof benevolence to a pernicious purpose. Let us rather recede from being\ncalled Christians than forget the great symbol of our profession, love to\none another.\u201d\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER VIII.\nPARTICULAR BAPTISTS, SUB AND SUPRALAPSARIANS, SANDEMANIANS.\n\n\nHaving now given some account of the principal Calvinistic sects, I shall\nconclude by mentioning a few of those less numerous societies, which,\nwhilst agreeing in the peculiar doctrines of Calvin, differ upon other\npoints. THE PARTICULAR BAPTISTS, agreeing with the General Baptists on\nmost other practices and doctrines, differ from them on this. The\nseparation took place in the year 1616, when a controversy on the subject\nof infant baptism having arisen among the Baptists, one portion calling\nitself the \u201cIndependent Congregation\u201d seceded, embraced the Calvinistic\ndoctrine, and became the first Particular Baptists: others, who were in\ngeneral attached to the opinions of Calvin, concerning the decrees of God\nand Divine Grace, were not entirely agreed concerning the manner of\nexplaining the doctrine of the Divine decrees. The greater part believed\nthat God only _permitted_ the first man to fall into transgression,\nwithout particularly predetermining his fall: these were termed\nSUBLAPSARIANS. But others again maintained that \u201cGod in order to\nexercise and display his justice and his free mercy, had decreed from all\neternity the transgression of Adam, and so ordered the course of events,\nthat our first parents could not possibly avoid their fall. These were\ntermed SUPRALAPSARIANS.\n\nThere is a modern sect that originated in Scotland about 1728, termed\nGlassites, from its founder Mr. John Glass, who was expelled by the Synod\nfrom the Church of Scotland, for maintaining that \u201cthe kingdom of Christ\nwas not of this world.\u201d His adherents then formed themselves into\nchurches, conformable in their institution and discipline to what they\napprehended to be the plan of the first churches recorded in the New\nTestament. Soon after the year 1755, Mr. John Sandeman (an elder in one\nof these congregations in Scotland) attempted to prove that \u201cFaith is\nneither more nor less than a simple assent to the Divine testimony,\nconcerning Jesus Christ delivered for the offences of men and raised\nagain for their justification, as recorded in the New Testament.\u201d He\nalso mentioned that the word _Faith_ or _Belief_, is constantly used by\nthe Apostles to signify what is denoted by it in common conversation,\ni.e. a persuasion of the truth of any proposition, and that there is no\ndifference between believing any common testimony, and believing the\napostolic testimony, except that which results from the testimony itself,\nand the Divine authority on which it rests. This led to controversy\namong the Calvinists and Sandemanians, concerning the nature of\njustifying faith; and the latter formed themselves into a separate sect.\nThey administer the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper weekly, and hold \u201clove\nfeasts,\u201d of which every member is not only allowed but required to\npartake, and which consists of their dining together at each other\u2019s\nhouses, in the interval between the morning and afternoon service. They\ninterpret literally the precept respecting the \u201ckiss of charity,\u201d which\nthey use on the admission of a new member, as well as on other occasions,\nwhen they deem it necessary or proper: they make a weekly collection\nbefore the sacrament of the Lord\u2019s supper; use mutual exhortation;\nabstain from blood and things strangled; wash each other\u2019s feet; hold\nthat every one is to consider all that he possesses to be liable to the\ncalls of the poor and the church, and that it is unlawful to \u201clay up\ntreasure upon earth,\u201d by setting them apart for any future use. They\nallow of public and private diversions, so far as they are not connected\nwith circumstances really sinful; but apprehending a lot to be sacred,\nthey disapprove of lotteries, playing at cards, dice, &c. They maintain\nthe necessity of a plurality of elders, pastors, or bishops in each\nchurch, and the necessity of the presence of two elders in every act of\ndiscipline, and at the administration of the Lord\u2019s supper. Second\nmarriages disqualify for the office of elder. The elders are ordained by\nprayer and fasting, imposition of hands, and giving the \u201cright hand of\nfellowship.\u201d In their discipline they are strict and severe, and in\nevery transaction esteem unanimity to be absolutely necessary.\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER IX.\nCALVINISTIC METHODISTS. EVANGELICAL OR SERIOUS CHRISTIANS.\n\n\nI noticed the name of George Whitfield when speaking of Wesley and his\nfollowers, for during a time they acted in unison; Whitfield, however,\nsoon embraced the Calvinistic tenets, and then the friends separated with\nmuch of unkindly feeling. Wesley held the doctrines of Calvin in\nabhorrence, as altogether unchristian and unfounded in Scripture. \u201cI\ndefy you to say so hard a thing of the Devil,\u201d said he with\ncharacteristic earnestness, when speaking of the notion that God could\narbitrarily create any for eternal reprobation. This separation between\nthe leaders soon extended to their congregations, and from that time\nCalvinistic and Wesleyan Methodists became distinct sects, differing,\nhowever, but little on any other point, excepting in the greater tendency\nto enthusiasm among the followers of Whitfield.\n\n\u201cWesley and Whitfield,\u201d says Mr. Sidney in his life of Rowland Hill,\n\u201cwere men of widely different characters, both in respect to their\nnatural dispositions as well as the discipline of their minds; and\npainful frailties were visible in the midst of their true greatness. An\nambitious love of power was evidently the besetting weakness of John\nWesley; aspiration to the _honours_ when he had no prospect of the\n_suffering_ of martyrdom, was that of Whitfield.\u201d In his letters to\nRowland Hill, it is evident how he courted and enjoyed persecution; and\nwhenever \u201c_the fire_ (to use his own expression) was kindled in the\ncountry;\u201d he was not satisfied unless \u201chonoured\u201d by being scorched a\nlittle in its flame. This was a wrong spirit, and did injury to his own\nmind, and to his followers, by encouraging a morose and morbid carriage\ntowards the world, giving needless offence, and provoking animosity in\nthose who might have been attracted and endeared to truth by the lovely\ngraces of pure Christianity.\u201d\n\nAt the time when he, and his early friends the Wesleys began their\nministry, the piety of all classes was at a very low ebb. The\nearnestness of these men gave a new impulse to religious feeling, and\nafter a time a considerable number of other episcopally ordained\nministers of the church, together with a portion of the laity, became\ninfluenced by the same sentiments. Without seceding, they formed a party\nin the church, leaning to Calvinism to the extent they thought justified\nby the XXXIX Articles; and this party soon became designated by several\ndistinguishing terms. They called themselves _Evangelical_ first,\nafterwards when that became a cant term of misapplied reproach, they took\nthe title of _Serious_ Christians, and by others were called _Low\nChurch_, and _Methodistical_. Besides distinguishing themselves by an\nespecial name, they avoided public amusements, used a peculiar\nphraseology, and seemed to delight in wearing their religion externally\nin the sight of all men, thinking perhaps to reform the thoughtless by\nthe example of their greater strictness. But herein, in my opinion, they\nmade a net for their own feet, for that very aspiration after greater\nexaltation which is implanted in us as a spur to strive after glory and\nimmortality, is soon by mismanagement perverted into a love of earthly\ndistinction. Hence comes ambition; but the ambition for worldly honours\nhas in it this alleviation, that the man who toils after a title or a\nfortune, knows that he is, after all, seeking but a mean object; and if\never his mind is awakened at all to a sense of the world to come, the\nsoul springs back to its true ambition, and launches into the career\nnatural to it: but the man who seeks to be distinguished among his\nbrethren for superior holiness, and wears it externally, that it may be\nseen and honoured by men, blinds his better nature, and fetters it to\nearth by chains forged in heaven; he sees not that he is ambitious; he is\nnot aware that while seeking, as he imagines, to honour God in his life,\nhe is enjoying at his heart\u2019s core the respectful homage of men; and\nwhilst attending to his outward deportment, and making a display even of\nhis humility, he too frequently leaves the inner heart unchastened. Our\nSaviour knew the frailties of man, and his injunction that our religion\nshould chiefly be manifested by our benevolent feelings towards our\nfellow creatures, while the communing with God should be carried on in\nsilence and secrecy, is the only safe guide in these matters.\n\nI have no doubt that there are many of the Low Church party, whose\nconscientiousness sets at defiance the dangers of the system they have\nadopted: indeed my own private friendships warrant me in saying so: but\nit is not well to lead others into dangerous paths where our own skill\nindeed may enable us to walk safely, but where the hindmost, whom we are\nnot leading by the hand, are in continual hazard of deviating from the\ntrue course; and therefore whilst honouring individual virtues, I\ncontinue to consider the whole system erroneous: one whose tendency is to\ncreate spiritual pride, and lower the standard of Christian benevolence\nby restricting to a party that fellowship which should be universal. It\ndoes but substitute the excitement of the crowded church where a popular\npreacher charms with all the graces of rhetoric, of the committee room,\nof the speakers at Exeter Hall, for the ball room and the theatre; with\nthis difference, that in the first case the instinct which makes the mind\nseek this excitement, is overlooked; the man believes himself performing\na meritorious action, and looks with some contempt on his weaker\nbrethren, who cannot exist without worldly amusements; on the other he\nknows what he is about, and if he be well-intentioned, guards against\nexcess. It would be wiser therefore to acknowledge the instinct; not bad\nin itself, for God implanted it, and if it be denied a due indulgence,\nthe mind sinks into hopeless imbecility; and not to blame those who seek\nother, but innocent means of gratifying it. {122a}\n\nThe extracts that I am about to give, from the writings of two men of\nnote, in that party, distinguished also for their genuine Christian\nfeeling, will show that they saw the dangers I have pointed out, and were\nanxious to guard against them. The following extracts are given in Mr.\nSidney\u2019s \u201cLife of the Rev. Rowland Hill.\u201d {122b}\n\n\u201cI hate dry doctrinal preaching, without warm, affectionate, and\nexperimental applications. Oh! \u2019tis most pleasant to love one another\nwith pure hearts fervently. Love is of God, for \u2018God is love.\u2019 The\nsummit of our happiness must be the perfection of our holiness. By this\nblessed grace we have the brightest evidence that we are \u2018born of God.\u2019\nIf we allow that little shades of difference may exist, we ought to \u2018love\nas brethren,\u2019 and where Christian candour and love are found to reign,\nthe odious sin of schism, according to its general interpretation, cannot\nexist.\u201d \u201cIt is no sign that we value the blessings of God, if we can\npart with them\u201d (i.e. dear friends) \u201cwithout regret. That mind is badly\nframed that prefers stoical indifference to Christian sensibility, and\nthough the pain is abundantly more acute where those finer feelings of\nthe mind are found to exist; yet who deserves the name of a human being\nwho is without them?\u201d \u201cWhile a soul within our reach is ignorant of a\nSaviour, we must endeavour to win it to Christ. How weary I am of a\ngreat deal of what is called the \u2018_religious world_!\u2019 High and Low\nChurch Sectarianism seems to be the order of the day; we are much more\nbusy in contending for _parties_ than for _principles_. These evils are\nevidences of a lack of genuine Christianity. Oh! when shall that happy\nday dawn upon us, when real Christians and Christian ministers of all\ndenominations shall come nearer to each other.\u201d\n\nThe next extracts shall be from the writings of one who was scarcely\nappreciated by the world in general, but of whose excellencies I was\nenabled to judge, during my residence at Cambridge; Mr. Simeon.\n\n\u201cReligion appears in its true colours when it regulates our conduct in\nsocial life; your religion must be seen, not in the church, or in the\ncloset only, but in the shop, the family, the field: it must mortify\npride and every other evil passion, and must bring faith into exercise.\nTry yourselves by this standard: see what you are as husbands or wives,\nparents or children, masters or servants.\u201d {124}\n\n\u201cThe self-righteous, self-applauding moralist can spy out the failings\nand infirmities of those who profess a stricter system of religion; but\nlet me ask such an one, \u2018Are there not in thee, even in thee, sins\nagainst the Lord thy God?\u2019 Verily if thou wouldst consult thy own\nconscience, thou wouldst see little reason, and feel little inclination\ntoo, to cast stones at others. Professors of religion also are but too\nguilty of this same fault, being filled with an overweening conceit of\ntheir own excellencies, and a contemptuous disregard of their less\nspiritual neighbours. But I would ask the professed follower of Christ,\nAre there not sins with thee too as well as with the pharisaic formalist?\nAre there not great and crying evils in the religious world, which prove\na stumbling block to those around them? Are there not often found among\nprofessors of religion the same covetous desires, the same fraudulent\npractices, the same deviations from truth and honour, as are found in\npersons who make no profession? Are there not many whose tempers are so\nunsubdued, that they make their whole families a scene of contention and\nmisery? Yes! Though the accusations which are brought against the whole\nbody of religious people as \u2018hypocrites,\u2019 are a gross calumny, there is\nbut too much ground for them in the conduct of many.\u201d \u201cNothing is more\ncommon, and nothing more delusive than a noisy, talkative religion. True\nreligion is a humble, silent, retired thing; not affecting public notice,\nbut rather wishing to approve itself to God. It is not in _saying_\n\u2018Lord, Lord!\u2019 but in _doing_ the will of our heavenly Father, that we\nshall find acceptance at the last day. Happy would it be if many who\nplace all their religion in running about and hearing sermons, and\ntalking of the qualifications of ministers, would attend to this hint,\nand endeavour to acquire more of that wisdom which evinces its Divine\norigin by the excellence of its fruits.\u201d {126}\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nLETTER X.\nON ROMANISM AND CEREMONIAL RELIGION.\n\n\nI promised that as the completion of my task, I would notice those\ndifferences which have occurred in the bosom of the church itself, even\nthough they can scarcely be called _sects_; I therefore propose to\nconclude my correspondence with a short survey of the above-named, which\nI think should rather be viewed as the working out of great principles,\nthan as parties distinguished by particular creeds or opinions on\nabstract subjects. I may run counter to some prejudices, perhaps, in so\ndoing; but the truth is well worth running a tilt for:\u2014you may sit by as\numpire, and decide when I have done, whether I have carried my spear in a\nknightly fashion.\n\nThough I shall not think it necessary, like Racine\u2019s advocate in Les\nPlaideurs, to go back to the Assyrians and the Babylonians to illustrate\nmy proposition, yet I must begin from a very distant period, in order to\nmake my views thoroughly comprehensible. I must therefore beg you to\nnotice that the tendency of man\u2019s mind always is, and always has been,\ntowards the visible and the tangible. The pure abstraction of a\nGoverning Will without any perceptible presence, has in it something too\nremote from the common habits, powers, and feelings of human nature, ever\nto be thoroughly embraced by the heart of man; and we find that the Deity\nhas always condescended so far to the weakness of his creatures, as to\ngive the imagination some resting place. Thus the patriarch had his\naltar of sacrifice, where the fire from heaven marked the present\nDeity\u2014and the Israelite had first the pillar of the cloud, and then the\ntabernacle, where the mysterious Shechinah dwelt over the mercy seat.\nYet even this indistinct representation of an embodied Deity, did not\nsatisfy the people: they required a _form_, tangible, visible, and Aaron\nyielded to the wish; because he thought it a prudent and allowable\ncompliance with the weakness of human nature. He was wrong, and was\npunished for it; and this transaction we shall find the type and\nforeshadowing of every thing that has since happened in the world with\nregard to religion. The Almighty gives man just enough to rest his\nthoughts upon: it is the fire on the altar, the cloud, the temple, and\nlast of all _the man_, in whom our devotion may find also an object of\naffection: but he requires that we shall not go beyond this. We must not\nreturn to earth, and make for ourselves a worship less spiritual than he\nhas instituted; on the contrary, he requires us to pierce through the\nveil as we advance in knowledge, and discern the spiritual through the\nvisible. Hence the perpetual denunciations of the prophets against the\nJews for their adherence to forms, which latterly they did adhere to,\ninstead of giving attention to the purification of their hearts.\n\nAmong all but the Israelites, the progress of the tangible was much more\nrapid: idolatry, with all its gross rites, had established itself among\n_the people_, at any rate, in Egypt, at a very early period; and spread\nfrom that old and luxurious empire, through the more simple states which\nsprang up around and from it. The Exodus was a warning from on high,\nthat there was a Being, unseen and intangible, whose fiat governed all\nthings: and this lesson was not wholly without fruit: yet still the human\nrace reverted to the objects of the senses, till, in God\u2019s good time, he\nsent his Son: presented a tangible form on which the mind could\ndwell\u2014then removed it from the earth, and said, \u201cYou may now think on\nthis, and give your imagination a resting place: this form you shall see\nagain; but in mean time you must purify your hearts from earthly desires:\nthat form will only greet your eyes when you have cast off the burthen of\nthe flesh, and have entered upon a spiritual existence.\u201d The first\nChristians remembered and loved the man; his precepts, his example, his\nsmallest words or actions were recurred to with the fondness of personal\nfriendship; and this carried Christianity through the first two\ncenturies; but then this remembrance began to have a character of\nabstraction, and again the human heart called for tangibility. Then\ncame, step by step, gorgeous ceremonies, pictures, representations of the\npersonal presence and sufferings of the Saviour. The very requirements\nof those who quitted the splendid and sensual rites of heathenism for the\nfaith of Christ, led the Christian doctors to endeavour to replace the\nfestival of the idol by something analogous in the Christian church: and\nthus without well knowing what they were tending to, the heads of the\nchurch yielded one point of spiritualism after another; sought to\ncaptivate and awe the people by impressive ceremonies; and finished by\nthe sin of Aaron: they set up the image and said, \u201cThese be thy Gods, O\nIsrael! that brought thee out of the land of Egypt.\u201d {131a} For be it\nobserved here, that Aaron set up this image merely as a tangible\nrepresentation of the true Deity; _a help to the devotion of the people_,\nwho could not worship without seeing something.\n\nThis then is Romanism; it is not transubstantiation, nor the mediation of\nthe Virgin and the Saints, {131b} nor the infallibility of popes and\ncouncils; these are natural consequences indeed, but the distinctive\ncharacter of the Romish church is _tangibility_. \u201cThere is the actual\nflesh,\u201d it says, \u201cthere is the representation of the actual human\npresence of saints and martyrs; there is the actual man enthroned, who\nrepresents the power of God:\u201d but it might have fifty other ways of\nsatisfying this restless craving of the human mind, and it would be\nequally pernicious in any of these forms. Man\u2019s great struggle has\nalways been between the animal and the spiritual nature, and when\nreligion goes one step farther towards tangibility than the Deity himself\nhas allowed, the animal nature gains strength; and vice and\nlicentiousness follow as naturally, among the mass of the people, as rain\nfollows the cloud.\n\nObserve, I do not here deny that many may profess a religion of sense,\nand remain spiritually-minded themselves: Heathenism had its Socrates,\nits Xenocrates, &c.\u2014Romanism has its Pascal, its Fenelon, and a train of\nother great names: but look at the _people_ during that period, and the\naccount will be very different. When an ignorant man imagines that he\ncan remove the Divine anger by a sacrifice or a penance, he avoids the\ntrouble of curbing his passions, and compounds, as he thinks, for\nindulgence of the one, by the performance of the other; but when he is\ntold that purity of life and thought is the only road to Divine favour,\nif he sins, he sins at least with some feelings of compunction, some\ndread that he may not have it in his power to remove the stain he is\nincurring. The preaching of Wesley reformed multitudes, all enthusiastic\nas it was; but it would be difficult to find a parallel in the annals of\nRomanism. As great a movement of the public mind was made by the\npreaching of Peter the Hermit; but how different was the object and the\nresult! The personal pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre, as a mode of\nwiping out sin, was undertaken by thousands, who perished miserably, or,\nif they lived, came back not better men than they went: under a system of\nless tangibility, and a preaching as effective, they might have staid in\ntheir homes, and glorified God by a life such as Christ came to teach and\nto exemplify.\n\nIt is so much easier to make a pilgrimage, or endure a long fast, than to\nsubdue and tame the animal nature till it becomes obedient to the\nrational will, and seconds instead of resisting its wishes, that it is\nnot surprising that in all ages a religion of outward observance should\nbe more popular than one of inward purification. Those even which set\noff with the highest pretensions in this way have degenerated, and the\noutward and visible form is too often substituted for the inward and\nspiritual grace, which it was intended to _represent_ not to _supersede_.\nThat religion therefore has the best chance of influencing the soul,\nwhich, as far as is possible, renounces outward demonstrations which\nhuman indolence is so glad to rely on, and preaches boldly and\neffectually the uselessness of ceremonies, farther than as they tend to\npreserve the remembrance of HIM who came to call the world back to\nHIMSELF, to trample on the sensual and the animal, and to raise man to\nhis pristine, or rather, to what is to be his future state. A public\nacknowledgment of Christ as our Master and Lord, and a compliance with\nhis own few and simple ordinances; are all that Christian duty requires,\nand nearly as much as Christian prudence will permit. The rest is a\nmatter of worldly expediency, and should be so regarded.\n\nNo doubt rests on my own mind\u2014I leave others to think as they may\u2014that\nEpiscopacy was the established form of the Church as soon as the\nChristian communities began to assume enough of regularity to admit of\nany settled order; and I think it a wise form. As far as any institution\ncan, it secures unity and decency in the church: and as far as any\ninstitution can, that was not positively established by Christ himself,\nit possesses, in my mind, the sanction of antiquity. It gives the\nconcentration of purpose and regularity of effort which is bestowed by\nthe discipline of an army; for as in an army a detachment acts upon the\nsame system of tactics, and obeys officers constituted by the same\nauthority, and thus assists the efforts of the main body, and falls into\nrank with it when they meet; so the church, under such a form, may send\ndetachments to the ends of the earth, who may meet after long years, as\nbrothers of the same communion, and find that though the individuals have\npassed away, others have stepped into their place in the ranks, and are\nteaching what their predecessors taught. The benefit of church\ndiscipline, therefore, in my mind is great; but I do not suppose that\nsalvation depends on it, because God has repeatedly declared that Christ\ndied _for all_, {135a} and that he is not willing that any should perish;\n{135b} consequently he can hardly have made our eternal state dependent\non what no man can accomplish for himself. A person may not have it in\nhis power to receive baptism from an ordained priest, but he may live as\nChrist taught; or, having never heard of Christ even, he may, like the\ngentiles, win glory and immortality, {135c} if, having not the law, he be\na law unto himself. I would not receive Christ\u2019s ordinances from the\nhands of any but an ordained priest, myself, because if a doubt exist in\nmy mind, I sin in doing the doubtful thing; but herein I speak only for\nmyself; let every man do as he is \u201cpersuaded in his mind\u201d {136} in\nmatters of secondary import, as all ceremonial matters must be.\n\nYou will now be prepared for my opinion with regard to the late movement\nmade in the church by the Anglo-Catholics, as they term themselves;\nPuseyites, or Newmanites, as they have been termed by others. They have\nbeen thought to have introduced innovations\u2014they have not:\u2014there is not\none of the ceremonies or practices which they have recommended, which was\nnot very early practised in the church; but it was from the undue\nimportance attached to these ceremonies, which came to be regarded with\nreverence from having been instituted by apostles and martyrs, that the\nafter growth of Roman superstition sprang up so rankly. I believe the\nfirst promoters of this movement were as remote from actual Romanism as I\nam, when they first began it; but when once reason is submitted to any\nhuman dictum, in matters of religion, there is no resting place till we\narrive at the \u201cinfallible\u201d guide which the Romish church claims to be.\nThere alone can the soul which will not think for itself, find a ready\nand confident director. Accordingly, we find that some of those very men\nwho but a few years back exposed the errors of Romanism, have now yielded\nthemselves blindfold to the guidance of that very church, which, as long\nas they allowed themselves to reason, they acknowledged to have departed\nfrom the truth. Yet it is perhaps fortunate for the people generally,\nthat this declension of its pastors has been as rapid and complete as it\nhas been:\u2014they were going back towards the sin of Aaron\u2014they were\ninsisting on ceremonies as necessary to salvation, thus rendering\nreligion gross and tangible, and the people thus taught would soon have\nforgotten what those ceremonies were intended to represent, and have\ndepended for salvation on what could not avail them in the hour of need:\nfor the repetition of prayer is not necessarily praying, nor is the\nreception of the eucharist necessarily sanctification, though these may\nbe the outward and visible signs of the inward and spiritual grace which\nis working in the heart. Once teach a man that _any_ ceremony is\n_requisite_ to salvation, and he will soon go a step further by himself,\nand think the outward ceremony sufficient without the inward grace. This\nindeed is but a necessary corollary; for if the ceremony be requisite to\nsalvation, then the inward grace working purity of life, avails not\nwithout the ceremony; and thus purity of life is no longer a substantive\nvirtue; it cannot stand alone; and the prop which it requires being so\nvery strong, why should not the prop itself be all in all? This will be\nthe course of ratiocination in the mind of the mass of mankind, whether\navowed or not; and however the promoters of a ceremonial religion may\nshrink from such a consequence, it is so certain, as all experience\nshows, that they might as well throw a man who cannot swim into the\nwater, and recommend him not to drown, as give a half instructed man a\nceremony, which he is told is requisite to salvation, and expect that he\nwill not cling to that, as the more convenient and least difficult\nobservance; and whilst perfect in complying with every ordinance of the\nchurch, forget that he has overlooked the weightier matters of the\nlaw\u2014judgment, justice, and mercy.\n\nThis may sound harsh, but it is true; and I appeal to the calm judgment\neven of the excellent Dr. Pusey himself, who has so unintentionally drawn\nmany into a course from which, haply, he would now gladly draw them back,\nwhether it be not so? His learning will show him how, through all ages,\nthe spiritualism taught from heaven, has been counteracted by the visible\nand the tangible contrived by man; and in the step from the patriarchal\nreligion, to the idolatry of Greece and Rome; from Christianity as\npreached by Christ and his Apostles, to the gross superstitions of the\ntwelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, he may see a type of what\nwould be the consequence of again enforcing a ceremonial religion.\n\n [Picture: Decorative header]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nThe following are extracts from the \u201cChristian\u00e6 Religionis Institutio,\u201d\nof Faustus Socinus:\n\n_Q_. Quid igitur de Dei natura, sive essentia, nosse omnino nos debere\nstatuis?\n\n_R_. H\u00e6c duo in summa. Quod sit et quod unus tantum sit.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Q_. Verum quid qu\u00e6so saltem de Spiritu Sancto nunc mihi dicis de quo\nisti similiter affirmant eum esse divinam personam, nempe tertiam, et\nunum atque eundem numero Deum cum Patre et Filio?\n\n_R_. Nempe illum non esse personam aliquam a Deo cujus est spiritus,\ndistinctam, sed tantum modo (ut nomen ipsum _Spiritus_, quod flatum et\nafflationem, ut sic loquar, significat, docere potest) ipsius Dei vim et\nefficaciam quandam, id est eam, qu\u00e6 secum sanctitatem aliquam afferat.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Q_. Quid censes de Christi natura sive essentia nobis cognitii esse\nnecessarium?\n\n_R_. Id, ut antea dixi, sine cujus cognitione voluntas Dei erga nos per\nipsum Christum patefacta, a nobis vel sciri, vel servari nequeat.\n\n_Q_. Quid igitur ex iis qu\u00e6 ad Christi naturam sive essentiam pertinent,\nejusmodi esse censes?\n\n_R_. Vix quidquam. Nam qu\u00e6dam, qu\u00e6 ad ipsius Christi personam alioqui\npertinent, et nobis omnino ob pr\u00e6dictam causam cognita esse debent, non\nnaturalia illi sunt, sed a Deo postmodum ipsi data et concessa, et sic ad\nDei voluntatem sunt referenda, et quidem ad primam quam fecimus ejus\npartem, id est ad Dei operationes.\n\n_Q_. Qu\u00e6 nam sunt ista?\n\n_R_. Divinum imperium quod in nos habet. Rom. xiv. 9.; et suprema illa\nmajestas. Ephes. i. 20, &c.; qua quidquid usquam est, aut excogitari\npotest, pr\u00e6ter unam tantum ipsius Dei majestatem longe excellit. 1 Cor.\nxv. 27. Phil. ii. 8, 9. Heb. ii. 9. H\u00e6c enim Christo haud naturalia\nesse, sed a Deo Patre illi data fuisse, ipsumque ea per et propter mortem\natque obedientiam et resurrectionem suam adeptum esse, apertissime\nscriptura testatur.\n\n_Q_. Cur vero h\u00e6c de Christo cognoscere omnino debemus?\n\n_R_. Quia, ut Christum divino cultu officiamus vult Deus. Joh. v. 25.\nPsal. xlv. 12. Heb. i. 6. Philip. ii. 10.; ejus generis, inquam, cultu\ncujus is est, quem ipsi Deo exhibere debemus.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Q_. Quid de ipsa tamen Christi essentia seu natura statuis?\n\n_R_. De Christi essentia ita statuo, illum esse hominem. Rom. v. 15.;\nin virginis utero, et sic sine viri ope, divini spiritus vi conceptum ac\nformatum. Matt. i. 20. 23. Luc. i. 35.; indeque genitum, primum quidem\npatibilem ac mortalem. 2 Cor. xiii. 4.; donec, scilicet munus sibi a Deo\ndemandatum hie in terris obivit; deinde vero postquam in c\u0153lum ascendit,\nimpatibilem et immortalem factum. Rom. vi. 9.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Q_. Quid enim primum sibi vult, quod innuis hoc quod Christus Dei\nfilius sit proprius et unigenitus non omnino ad ejus naturam pertinere?\n\n_R._ Divina ista Christi filiatio, eatenus tantum ad ejus naturam aliquo\nmodo referri potest, quatenus id respicit quod Christus divini Spiritus\nvi sine viri ope in virginis utero conceptus et formatus fuit. Nam\nhujusce rei causa eum Dei filium vocatum ire, ipsius Dei Angelus ipsimet\nvirgini, ex qua natus est, pr\u00e6dixit. Luc. i. 35; et quidem consequenter\nDei filium proprium et unigenitum, cum nemo alius hac ratione, et ab ipso\nprimo ortu Dei films unquam extiterit.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_R_. Quod attinet ad primum testimonium quod habetur (i.e. of\npr\u00e6existence) Joh. i. 3. Dictio universalis _omnia_ non prorsus\nuniversaliter accipienda est, sed ad subjectam materiam restringenda, ut\nscilicet ea tantum omnia complectatur, qu\u00e6 ad Evangelium pertinent.\n\n_Q_. Sed quid dices, quod in loco isto apud Johannem additur; sine\nverbo, id est Deo filio, nihil esse factum?\n\n_R_. Immo cum certum esse videatur, mox sequentia verba _quod factum\nest_ (quidquid nonnulli contra sentiant) cum additione ista conjungenda\nesse: dicendum potius videtur, voluisse Evangelistam cum ista addidit\nindicare se de quibusdam nunquam antea et nova ac mirabili ratione factis\nloqui. Nam ad docendum simpliciter se loqui de iis qu\u00e6 sunt facta nec\nsemper fuerunt, satis habebat illa verba addere, _et sine ipso factum est\nnihil_. Itaque mysterio non videtur carere, quod pr\u00e6terea addit _quod\nfactum est_; subaudi novum et mirabile, ad mundi ipsius statum pertinens,\n&c. &c.\n\n * * * * *\n\nJam dictum est (est de p\u0153nis persolvendis primum agamus) p\u0153nam quam\nuniusquisque nostrum propter delicta sua pendere tenebatur, mortem\n\u00e6ternam esse. Hanc profecto Christus non subiit; et si cam subiisset,\nuniversi salutis nostr\u00e6 et liberationis a peccatorum p\u0153na spes, et ratio\nfunditus eversa fuisset. Immo si jam Christus non resurrexisset, vana,\nut inquit Paulus. 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17.; esset Evangelii pr\u00e6dicatio, et nos\nadhuc essemus in peccatis nostris. Et tamen, si idcirco nos servasset\nChristus, quod p\u0153nas nostris peccatis debitas ipse sustinuisset, et nobis\nejus rei fides quoad ejus fieri poterat facienda fuisset; eum nunquam\nresurgere, sed in morte perpetuo manere oportuisset: Op. Vol. p. 197,\nfol. Edit.\n\nAc dicitis, ut conjeci potest, animadvertendum esse, aliam in ipsa\nessentia divina personam patris esse, aliam personam filii: et Patri\npotuisse a Filio satisfieri seu ut satisfierat, vim suppeditari: nec\ntamen aliquid quod satisfactioni per solutionem facienda adversetur,\ncommitti. Sed dicite obsecro, nonne ipsius filii person\u00e6 non minus quam\npatris satisfaciendum fuisse affirmatis. Si filius patri satisfacit, hoc\nest, quod illi debetur solvit: quis ipsi filio, quod ipsi debetur, dabit?\nRespondebitis, ut arbitror, si patri satisfactum fuit, filio quoque\nsatisfactum esse; cum eadem sit utriusque voluntas . . . Quomodo patri a\nfilio quidquam ullo parto solvi potuisset si quod unius aut est, aut fit,\nalterius reipsa esse necesse foret? . . . At vero quis deinde ambigere\nqueat filium patri nihil dare posse: cum quidquid filius habet patris\nrevera sit, et ipse Christus disert\u00e8 dixerit, Joh. xvii. 10, omnia qu\u00e6\nsua erant patris esse? Annon ex ipsa disciplina vestra, hoc est Dei\nessentiam non distinguere, sed partiri: si pr\u00e6ter personarum\nproprietates, aliquid unam personam habere velitis quod alia non habeat.\nFilii autem personam proprietates suas patris person\u00e6 pro peccatorum\nnostrorum satisfactione solvisse, cui unquam in mentem venire poteret?\nIb. p. 202.\n\n * * * * *\n\n FINIS.\n\n * * * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n CHARLES WHITTINGHAM, CHISWICK.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes.\n\n\n{3} \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7 which is the word generally translated _charity_ in the New\nTestament means _affectionate regard_. The distinction between charity\nand almsgiving is well laid down by St. Clement of Alexandria.\n\u201cCharity,\u201d says he, \u201cleads to the sharing our good things with others;\nbut this is not in itself charity, but only our outward sign of that\nfeeling.\u201d\n\n{4} See 1 Cor. ix. 19, 20.\n\n{5a} Rom. xii. 10.\n\n{5b} \u201cNo national prejudices, no religious differences could hinder our\nSaviour from doing good. We should consider that men\u2019s understandings\nnaturally are not all of the same size and capacity, and that this\ndifference is greatly increased by different education, different\nemployments, different company, and the like. No man is infallible. We\nare liable to errors perhaps as much as others. The very best men may\nsometimes differ in opinion, as St. Paul \u2018withstood St. Peter to the\nface;\u2019 and if there was such a difference between two of the chiefest of\nthe Apostles, well may there be between inferior mortals. About modes of\nfaith there will always be dispute and difference; but in acts of mercy\nand kindness all mankind may and should agree.\u201d\u2014_Newton_.\n\n{8} \u201cIn fact, all the religious persecutions in the world, all the\npenalties and inflictions upon those who differ from ourselves, however\nconscientiously, take their rise from an imperfect and erroneous notion\nof what really constitutes the glory of God, and the manner in which we\nbest can assist its display and extension. The angels at the birth of\nChrist sang that the glory of God was in unison with \u2018Peace on earth, and\ngood will towards men.\u2019\u2014\u2018No!\u2019 said the Schoolman, \u2018the glory of God\nconsists in thinking of the Deity as we think.\u2019\u2014\u2018No!\u2019 said the\nInquisitor, \u2018the glory of God consists in worshiping as we\nprescribe.\u2019\u2014\u2018No!\u2019 said the Covenanters, \u2018the glory of God consists in\nexterminating those whom we call his enemies.\u2019 Mistaken men! who _thus_\npropose to honour the God and Father of the universe, the merciful God,\nand the gracious Father of all his rational creatures! Instead of\nperusing with delight and conviction the plain declaration contained in\nour Sacred records, too many Christians have in almost every age passed\nover the characteristics of kind design throughout nature: they have\nmistaken or forgotten the clear delineations of Divine Mercy and Goodness\nin the Book of Grace, and have had recourse to the narrowed circle of\ntheir own prejudices.\u201d\u2014_Maltby\u2019s Sermons_.\n\n{10} It would be well if Rom. xiv. were more attentively studied and\nmore universally practised among Christians.\n\n{14} They have in consequence been sometimes called \u201cSeekers.\u201d\n\n{15a} Gough\u2019s History of the Quakers. Vol. i. p. 139.\n\n{15b} Probably their resolute refusal to pay tithes and other dues\nbrought on them some of these punishments.\n\n{20} \u201cKeep the Sabbath holy,\u201d says Luther, \u201cfor its use both to body and\nsoul; but if any where the day is made holy for the mere day\u2019s sake; if\nany where any one sets up its observance upon a _Jewish_ foundation, then\nI order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it,\nto do any thing that shall remove this encroachment on the Christian\nspirit and liberty.\u201d This is language which may be easily misunderstood\nand perverted from Luther\u2019s meaning; but it was uttered by him from a\njealousy of Sabbatical superstition.\n\n{21} Matt. v.\n\n{22} \u201cThere is an unreasonable, uncharitable, and superstitious notion\nthat a soldier, so far as his profession is concerned, is \u2018of the world;\u2019\nand that a man who dies in the field of battle is _necessarily_ less\nprepared for his change than one who dies in his bed. These feelings,\nwhich have sadly tended to degrade and impoverish the mind of modern\nEurope . . . to make armies what they are told they _must_ be; and\ntherefore to make them dangerous by depriving them of any high\nrestraining principles, have been greatly encouraged by the tone which\nreligious men of our day have adopted from the Quakers.\u201d _Maurice\u2019s\nKingdom of Christ_.\n\n{24a} Moral education, in spite of all the labours of direct\ninstruction, is really acquired in hours of recreation. Sports and\namusements are, and must be the means by which the mind is insensibly\ntrained: \u2018Men are but children of a larger growth;\u2019 they will have their\npleasures; and unless care be taken, the sermon of the church or chapel\nwill be neutralized by the association of the tavern and the raceground.\nThere must be safety valves for the mind, i.e. there must be means for\nits pleasurable, profitable, and healthful exertion; those means it is in\nour power to render safe and innocent; in too many instances they have\nbeen rendered dangerous and guilty.\u201d _Dr. Taylor_.\n\n{24b} Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be\nreceived with thanksgiving. (1 Tim. iv. 4.) Extend this maxim, apply it\nto the several means of enjoyment, either supposed or real, that the\nworld presents to us. Those pleasures from which we cannot unreservedly\narise, and thank our Maker; those pursuits which mar our devotions, and\nrender us unwilling or afraid to come before Him, cannot be innocent. It\nwould be no easy matter to lay down, as applicable to all, a rule as to\nhow far conformity with the world is admissible, and where the Christian\nmust stop: for as the habits and tempers and propensities of men differ,\nso also do their temptations and their danger. Thus through the rule by\nwhich one would stand securely, another would as certainly fall.\n_Lectures on the Church Catechism_.\n\n{26} See 1 Tim. iv. 4.\n\n{29} \u201cA reverend Doctor in Cambridge was troubled at his small living at\nHoggenton (Oakington) with a peremptory Anabaptist, who plainly told him,\n\u2018It goes against my conscience to pay you tithes except you can show me a\nplace of Scripture whereby they are due unto you.\u2019 The Dr. returned,\n\u2018Why should it not go as much against my conscience that you should enjoy\nyour nine parts for which you can show no place in Scripture?\u2019 To whom\nthe other rejoined, \u2018But I have for my land deeds and evidences from my\nfathers, who purchased and were peaceably possessed thereof by the laws\nof the land.\u2019 \u2018The same is my title,\u2019 said the Doctor, \u2018tithes being\nconfirmed unto me by many statutes of the land, time out of mind.\u2019\u201d\n_Fuller\u2019s Church History_, _Book II_.\n\n{30a} John iii. 16.\n\n{30b} 2 Cor. v. 19.\n\n{30c} 1 Tim. ii. 4.\n\n{31a} 1 John iv. 9, 10.\n\n{31b} Rom. ii. 15.\n\n{31c} John i. 9. See also 1 John ii. 1, 2. 2 Heb. ii. 9.\n\n{32} Luke xii. 48.\n\n{33a} Mosh. Ecc. Hist. Cent. xvi. Sect. iii.\n\n{33b} Ib.\n\n{35a} Some of the passages of this Catechism are quoted by Mosheim,\nwhich differ very little from the doctrine of the primitive church: all\nthat can be noticed is, that they omit a distinct recognition of the\ndivinity of Christ.\n\n{35b} \u201cFausti Socini Senensis Opera omnia,\u201d vol. i. p. 561. These works\nform a part of the \u201cBibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum qui Unitarii\nappellantur.\u201d Irenopoli post anno dom. 1656.\n\n{36} It is remarkable that _persona_ should so often be confounded with\nindividual. _Persona_ in its original sense was the mask of the actor,\n_through which the sound_ came. The same actor might wear many\n_person\u00e6_. If Socinus had recollected this, he might have spared himself\nthe trouble of controverting a notion never maintained by the orthodox,\ni.e. that the Deity was _individually divided_.\n\n{37} Vide Appendix.\n\n{39a} Small Books &c. No. VII. p. 21, &c.\n\n{39b} \u03c0\u03c1\u1f30\u03bd \u0386\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b9.\n\n{39c} John. x. 30.\n\n{39d} John xiv. 9, 10.\n\n{39e} 2 Cor. v. 19.\n\n{39f} 1 Tim. ii. 5.\n\n{40} Athanasian Creed.\n\n{41} John v. 30.\n\n{42} The following are extracts from the \u201cBook of Common Prayer\nreformed,\u201d professing to have been a selection made by \u201cthe late Rev.\nTheophilus Lindsey for the use of the congregation in Essex Street\u201d\u2014and\nas a liturgy is generally allowed to be a fair exponent of the doctrines\nof those who use it\u2014perhaps we may assume that the violent and\nreprehensible expressions made use of by some few persons of this\npersuasion, are not such as would be acknowledged by the congregations of\nUnitarians in general.\n\nForm of baptism. \u201cI baptize thee into (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2) the name of the Father and\nof the Son and of the Holy Spirit.\u201d\n\n\u201cAlmighty and ever blessed God, by whose providence the different\ngenerations of mankind are raised up to know thee and to enjoy thy favour\nfor ever; grant that this child now dedicated to thee as the disciple of\nthy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, may be endued with heavenly virtues . . .\nand that we may daily proceed in all virtue and goodness of living, till\nwe come to that eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our\nLord.\u201d\n\nOrder for the administration of the Lord\u2019s Supper. Confession, the same\nas in the liturgy of the English church as far as \u201cwe do heartily repent\nand are heartily sorry for these our misdoings, the remembrance of which\nis grievous unto us. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most\nmerciful Father; forgive us all that is past: and grant that we may ever\nhereafter serve and please thee in newness of life to the honour and\nglory of thy name.\u201d The absolution is the same with the trifling change\nof _us_ for _you_. The sentences following are the same till \u201cHear also\nwhat St. John saith,\u201d where the text 1 John i. 8, 9, is substituted.\n\nPrayer before the minister receives the communion. \u201cAlmighty God, our\nheavenly Father, by whose gracious assistance and for our benefit, thy\nbeloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ, was obedient even to the death upon\nthe cross; who did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to\ncontinue, a perpetual memorial of his death until his coming again; hear\nus, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we may receive this bread\nand wine in grateful remembrance of his death and sufferings, and of thy\ngreat mercy to mankind in sending him, thy chosen messenger, to turn us\nfrom darkness to light, from vice to virtue, from ignorance and error to\nthe knowledge of thee, the only true God, whom to know is life\neverlasting.\u201d\n\nForm of administration. \u201cTake and eat this bread in remembrance of\nChrist\u201d\u2014\u201cTake and drink this wine in remembrance of Christ.\u201d\n\nIn the daily service many prayers are omitted, so as to make the service\nmuch shorter. The exhortation and confession are the same; for the\nabsolution is substituted \u201cAlmighty God, unto whom all hearts are open,\nall desires known and from whom no secrets are hid; purify the thoughts\nof our hearts that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy\nholy name through Christ our Lord.\u201d\u2014It would be useless to multiply\nextracts\u2014enough has been given to show the doctrine of the Unitarian\ncongregations who use this liturgy.\n\n{47} Priestly\u2019s \u201cDiscourses on Various Subjects,\u201d p. 419. See also p.\n14, &c. and Prefatory Discourse, p. 93.\n\n{48} Channing\u2019s Discourse on preaching Christ.\n\n{49} Channing\u2019s Works. On the great purpose of Christianity.\n\n{50a} Channing\u2019s Character of Christ.\n\n{50b} Channing\u2019s Sunday School.\n\n{50c} Channing\u2019s Charge at the Ordination of Rev. R. C. Waterston.\n\n{51a} Channing On Infidelity.\n\n{51b} Channing\u2019s System of Exclusion.\n\n{52} John Wesley was born in 1703.\n\n{54} \u201cI rode over to a neighbouring town,\u201d says Wesley, \u201cto wait upon a\njustice of peace, a man of candour and understanding; before whom I was\ninformed their angry neighbours had carried a whole waggon load of these\nnew heretics.\u201d But when he asked, \u201cwhat they had done,\u201d there was a deep\nsilence, for that was a point their conductor had forgot. At length one\nsaid, \u201cWhy they pretend to be better than other people, and besides they\npray from morning till night.\u201d Mr. S--- asked, \u201cBut have they done\nnothing besides?\u201d \u201cYes, Sir,\u201d said an old man, \u201can\u2019t please your worship\nthey have _convarted_ my wife; till she went among them she had such a\ntongue, and now she is as quiet as a lamb.\u201d \u201cCarry them back,\u201d replied\nthe justice, \u201cand let them convert all the scolds in the town.\u201d\u2014(Wesley\u2019s\nJournal.)\n\n{55} Watson\u2019s Life of Wesley, page 484.\n\n{56} Lackington.\n\n{59a} \u201cWho does as he would be done by, in buying or selling?\nparticularly selling horses? Write him a knave that does not, and the\nMethodist knave is the worst of all knaves.\u201d\u2014_Wesley\u2019s Large Minutes_, Q.\n13.\n\n{59b} Snuff-taking and drams are expressly forbidden.\n\n{59c} In May 1776, an order was made in the House of Lords, \u201cThat the\nCommissioners of His Majesty\u2019s Excise do write circular letters to all\nsuch persons whom they have reason to suspect to have plate, as also to\nthose who have not paid regularly the duty on the same.\u201d In consequence\nof this order the Accountant-general for household plate sent a copy of\nit to John Wesley. The answer was as follows:\n\n Sir,\n\n I have _two_ silver teaspoons in London and two at Bristol: this is\n all the plate which I have at present, and I shall not buy any more\n while so many round me want bread.\n\n I am Sir, your most humble servant,\n JOHN WESLEY.\n\n{61} \u201cI used my prayers,\u201d says the author of the \u2018Bank of Faith,\u2019 \u201c_as\ngunners do swivels_; _turning them every way_ as the cases required.\u201d\nWesley relates in his Journal that \u201cBy prayer he used to cure a violent\npain in his head,\u201d &c.\n\n{62} This writer, the celebrated Lackington the bookseller, relates the\nfollowing occurrence soon after he turned Methodist. \u201cOne Sunday morning\nat eight o\u2019clock, my mistress seeing her sons set off, and knowing they\nwere gone to a Methodist meeting, determined to prevent me from doing the\nsame, by locking the door; on which in a superstitious mood I opened the\nBible for direction what to do, and the first words I read were these,\n\u201cHe shall give his angels charge concerning thee, lest at any time thou\ndash thy foot against a stone.\u201d This was enough for me, so without a\nmoment\u2019s hesitation I ran up two pair of stairs to my own room, and out\nof the window I leapt to the great terror of my poor mistress. My feet\nand ancles were most intolerably bruised, so that I was obliged to be put\nto bed; and it was more than a month before I recovered the use of my\nlimbs. I was then ignorant enough to think that _the Lord had not used\nme very well_; and I resolved _not to put so much trust in him_ for the\nfuture. My rash adventure made a great noise in the town, and was talked\nof many miles round. Some few admired my prodigious strength of faith;\nbut the major part pitied me as a poor ignorant, deluded, and infatuated\nboy.\u201d\n\n{64a} Wesley\u2019s Works, vol. xii. p. 49. Some of Wesley\u2019s expressions,\nwhen confronted with each other, appear incompatible; in such cases the\nmain drift of the writer must always be considered; for it is much more\nusual to fail in expressing our meaning than to express contradictory\nopinions: since the latter implies a cerebral defect verging on insanity,\nthe former merely results from a faulty style. Scripture does not any\nwhere warrant us in saying \u201c_the moment_ a penitent sinner,\u201d &c.; but\nrequires from us a proof of this belief by actions conformable to it.\nGod has promised us immortality through his Son, only if we not merely\nbelieve, but \u201cdo that which is lawful and right.\u201d\n\n{64b} Wesley censured some of his preachers for pushing the doctrine of\nperfection too far.\n\n{65} Wesley\u2019s Works, vol. viii. p. 219. and vol. xi. p. 415.\n\n{66} So called from their habit of rebaptizing those who entered their\ncommunion. They were afterwards called _Antip\u00e6dobaptists_, from their\nobjection to _p\u00e6do_ or infant baptism; and finally, the English habit of\nabbreviation of words at all commonly used, contracted the word into\n_Baptist_.\n\n{67} Mosheim. Ecc. Hist. Cant. XVI. Sect, iii. Part 2.\n\n{68a} Milton belonged to the class of Anti-Trinitarian General Baptists.\n\n{68b} That the body of Jesus was not derived from the substance of the\nblessed Virgin, but created in her womb by an omnipotent act of the Holy\nSpirit.\n\n{68c} V. Mosheim\u2019s Ecc. Hist.\n\n{69} All who baptize infants may be termed p\u00e6do-baptists; the word is\nderived from the Greek \u03c0\u03ac\u03b9\u03c2 a child or infant, and \u03b2\u1f70\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9 to baptize.\n\n{70a} Yet the bishop ought to have known that baptism by immersion was\npractised in the church for many centuries, and the rubric of our common\nprayer leaves the option of immersion or aspersion.\n\n{70b} Condor\u2019s View. p. 380.\n\n{75a} Marriage is enumerated in one of the Moravian hymns amongst the\nservices of danger, for which the United Brethren are \u201cto hold themselves\nprepared.\u201d\n\n \u201cYou as yet single are but little tried,\n Invited to the supper of the bride,\n That like the former warrior each may stand\n Ready for land, sea, marriage, at command.\u201d\n\n{75b} See Latrobe\u2019s edition of Spangenburgh\u2019s Exposition of Christian\nDoctrine.\n\n{79} Litany of the New Church. Office of ordination, p. 151.\n\n{80a} Rom. xxi. 27.\n\n{80b} 1 Cor. i. 3.\n\n{81a} John i. 18.\n\n{81b} John vi. 46.\n\n{82} Liturgy of the New Church Office of Baptism, p. 58.\n\n{84} \u201cJesus the Fountain of Life and Light,\u201d p. 12.\n\n{85} In some places it is not till the end of a fortnight.\n\n{87a} Examination of the opinions of the Plymouth Brethren.\n\n{87b} The following is a sample from one of their published works: \u201cThe\nfirst eclogue of Virgil has always appeared to me to express most\nfelicitously the pleasures of a _pastoral_ life as we too frequently see\nit in these days. With what force the following lines describe the\ngrateful feeling of a _young clergyman_, who is recounting the benefits\nconferred on him by his patron:\n\n O Melib\u0153e, Deus nobis h\u00e6c otia fecit.\n Namque erit ille mihi semper Deus\u2014\n Ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum\n Ludere, q\u00e6e vellem, calamo permisit agresti.\n\nMy patron shall always be a divinity to me, for he put me into this life\nof ease when he gave me this _gem_, _the prettiest living in England_.\nHe gave me this _easy duty_, so that I can let my flock wander\nwheresoever it may please them, as you see they do; while I myself do\njust what 1 like, and occasionally amuse myself with a _pianoforte_ by\nStoddart, that cost eighty-five guineas.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe (the congregational minister) is now, in his own opinion, the ONE MAN\nof the whole body of believers in all the services of the sanctuary. He\nutters all their sentiments of faith and doctrine, and offers up all\ntheir prayers! How can he justify the position he has assumed as _an\nusurper_? yea as a _grievous wolf_! in that he has swallowed up _all the\ngifts of the Holy Ghost_ in the _voracity of his selfishness_,\u201d &c. It\nis not thus that the \u201cunity of the church,\u201d which they profess to desire\nis likely to be cemented.\n\n{90} Bishop Jewel, in his \u201cDefence of his apology for the Church of\nEngland,\u201d says, that \u201cthe term _Calvinist_ was in the first instance\napplied to the Reformers and the English Protestants as a matter of\nreproach by the Church of Rome.\u201d\n\n{91} Whatever difference may have subsisted between Luther and Calvin on\nthe subject of Divine decrees, no language can be stronger than that in\nwhich Luther insists upon the moral impotence of man\u2019s depraved nature in\nopposition to the Pelagian doctrine of freewill.\n\n{93a} It is difficult to reconcile this doctrine with 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.\n1 Tim. ii. 6. 2 Pet. iii. 9. Rom. viii. 32. 1 Tim. iv. 10. &c.\n\n{93b} The best account of their system is to be found in \u201cThe Assembly\u2019s\nCatechism,\u201d which is taught their children. To this sect belongs more\nparticularly the doctrine of _Atonement_, or, \u201cthat Christ by his death\nmade satisfaction to the Divine justice for the _Elect_; appeasing the\nanger of the Divine Being, and effecting on his part a reconciliation.\u201d\nThat thus Christ had, as they term it, \u201cthe sin of the Elect laid upon\nhim.\u201d But some of their teachers do not hold this opinion, but consider\nChrist\u2019s death as simply a medium through which God has been pleased to\nexercise mercy towards the penitent. \u201cThe sacrifice of Christ,\u201d says Dr.\nMagee, \u201cwas never deemed by any (who did not wish to calumniate the\ndoctrine of atonement), to have made God placable: but merely viewed as\nthe means appointed by Divine wisdom by which to bestow forgiveness.\u201d To\nthis it may be further added, that the language used throughout the\nEpistles of St. Paul with regard to the redemption of man, is that of the\nthen familiar slave market. Man is \u201cbought with a price\u201d from his former\nmaster, Sin, for the service of God. The scholar who will consult Romans\nvi. will see immediately that all the metaphors used are those of\npurchase for military service; \u201cYour members,\u201d says he, ver. 13, \u201cshall\nnot be the arms (\u1f44\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1) of unrighteousness used for the service of sin;\nbut the arms (\u1f44\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1) of righteousness for God.\u201d And ver 23, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f40\u03c8\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f70\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b6\u03c9\u1f74, \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff7\n\u0399\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f20\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. i.e. The rations of sin are death, but the donative\nof God is eternal life, by means of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is\nimpossible to express more clearly that it was not the wrath of God which\nrequired to be appeased by the great sacrifice\u2014the slave was _bought by\nHim for Himself_\u2014the price was of course paid to another. Much\nmisunderstanding has arisen from the careless interpretation of these and\nthe like passages, whose phraseology has become obsolete along with the\npractice of buying and selling slaves, at least in this country.\n\n{95a} Matt. xvi. 27.\n\n{95b} Matt. xviii. 14.\n\n{96a} Vide Exod. xxxiii. 14, et seq.\n\n{96b} According to the Calvinistic doctrine above stated, character has\nno concern whatever with their call; ergo, if this is right, St. Paul is\nwrong, and mankind _are_ called with respect of persons.\n\n{96c} \u201cThis system (Calvinism) by setting aside the idea of a human\nwill, leaves the doctrine of Divine Will barren and unmeaning; the idea\nof a personal ruler disappears, and those most anxious to assert the\ngovernment of the Living God have been the great instruments in\npropagating the notion of an atheistical necessity.\u201d _Maurice\u2019s Kingdom\nof Christ_.\n\n{98a} Hopkins on the New Birth.\n\n{98b} 1 John iii. 7\u201310, see also v. 21 of the same chapter, where our\nconfidence towards God is shown to depend on the judgment of our own\nconsciousness of wrong or well doing. The whole chapter is well worth\nthe study of every Christian.\n\n{102} I take this from books, not having personal acquaintance with the\nPresbyterians of Ireland: and such is the confusion generally made by\nauthors between Arianism, Socinianism, and Unitarianism, that it is\ndifficult to know which is meant. As a large proportion of the modern\nPresbyterians have embraced Unitarian doctrines, it seems improbable that\nthe Irish should have adopted those of Arius, though my author uses the\nterm Arian as applied to the doctrine of the seceders.\n\n{106} See \u201cThe Use and Abuse of Creeds and Confession of Faith,\u201d by the\nRev. Charles James Carlile, Dublin, 1836. \u201cThe Irish Church and\nIreland,\u201d p. 66\u201368, and \u201cA Narrative of the Proceedings of the Associate\nSynod in Ireland and Scotland in the affair of the Royal Bounty,\u201d by\nJames Bryce. Belfast, 1816.\n\n{122a} Although the excellent Bishop Heber\u2019s mind was deeply imbued with\ndevotional feelings, he considered a moderate participation in what are\nusually called worldly amusements, to be allowable and blameless. \u201cHe\nthought,\u201d says his biographer, \u201cthat the strictness which made no\ndistinction between things blameable only in their abuse, and the\npractices which were really immoral, was prejudicial to the interests of\ntrue religion; and on this point his opinion remained unchanged to the\nlast. His own life indeed was a proof that amusement so participated in,\nmay be perfectly harmless, and no way interfere with any religious or\nmoral duty.\u201d\n\n{122b} \u201cRowland Hill, in his theological opinions, leaned towards\nCalvinism, but what is called Hyper-calvinism, he could not endure. In a\nsystem of doctrine he was follower of no man, but drew his sermons fresh\nfrom a prayerful reading of the Bible. He was for drawing together all\nthe people of God wherever they could meet, and was willing to join in a\nuniversal communion with Christians of every name. When, on one\noccasion, he had preached in a chapel, where none but baptized adults\n(i.e. baptized after attaining years of discretion), were admitted to the\nsacrament, he wished to have communicated with them, but was told\nrespectfully, \u2018You cannot sit down at _our_ table.\u2019 He calmly replied,\n\u2018I thought it was the Lord\u2019s table.\u2019\u201d Sidney\u2019s Life of R. Hill, p. 422,\n3rd Edit.\n\n{124} Simeon\u2019s Works, Vol. III. p. 101, &c.\n\n{126} Simeon\u2019s Works, Vol. III. p. 333.\n\n{131a} Exod. xxxii. 4.\n\n{131b} Vide Colossians ii. 18, 19.\n\n{135a} 2 Cor. v. 15. 1 Tim. ii. 6.\n\n{135b} 2 Pet. iii. 9.\n\n{135c} Rom. ii. 6\u201311.\n\n{136} Rom. xiv. 5.\n\n\n\n\n
","title":"Christian Sects in the Nineteenth Century","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":29467}