Unitarianism Defended
by John Hamilton Thom · English · Gutenberg #49930 · 1,930,587 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Unitarianism Defended
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Unitarianism Defended
Author: John Hamilton Thom
Henry Giles
James Martineau
Release date: September 10, 2015 [eBook #49930]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49930
Credits: Produced by Julia Miller, Elizabeth Oscanyan and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from scans of public domain material
produced by Microsoft for their Live Search Books site.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK UNITARIANISM DEFENDED ***
UNITARIANISM DEFENDED:
A SERIES OF LECTURES
BY
THREE PROTESTANT DISSENTING MINISTERS
OF LIVERPOOL:
IN REPLY TO
A COURSE OF LECTURES, ENTITLED “UNITARIANISM
CONFUTED,” BY THIRTEEN CLERGYMEN OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
--------------------------------------------------
Would to Heaven that Christians had their own ‘vail’ of orthodox words
taken away from their minds; that, limiting Orthodoxy to the acceptance
of the Christ as the SPIRIT (‘the Lord is that Spirit,’ says St. Paul),
_i.e._, the meaning, the end of all revelation, they would not allow a
new _letter_, consisting of abstract doctrines, to involve their minds
in a ‘vail’ which obstructs the view of the Gospel, even more than the
old letter, which kept the Jews in “bondage.”—_Heresy and Orthodoxy by
Rev. J. Blanco White_, p. 53, 2nd edition.
--------------------------------------------------
LIVERPOOL:
WILLMER AND SMITH, 32, CHURCH STREET.
LONDON:
JOHN GREEN, 121, NEWGATE STREET.
-----
1839.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON:
PRINTED BY RICHARD KINDER,
GREEN ARBOUR COURT, OLD BAILEY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PREFACE.
In this Preface, and in all the other contents of this volume, we have
occupied the position of an assailed party, lending our best
consideration to whatever a leagued body of resolute and unsparing
adversaries could say against us. We have stood upon the defensive, not
lamenting that such an occasion had occurred of exposing our views of
Christianity to so severe a scrutiny, and of displaying to the world
whether our position was tenable. We did not provoke this Controversy.
It was of our opponents’ choosing. They entered into combination, and
arranged their method of attack, and invited the public attentively to
look on while they performed upon us the work of destruction. With
respectful attention, as men whose system of Christianity was about to
be subjected to a powerful analysis by those who believed the main
ingredients to be poisonous,—but with quiet hearts, as men who had no
interest in this world but to discover Truth,—we have interfered no
further than was necessary to make this examination, by carefulness,
impartiality, and accuracy, productive of a true result. We have struck
out whatever was untrue, and we have supplied whatever was wanting, to
exhibit a full statement of the respective Evidences of Unitarianism and
of Trinitarianism. Lecture qualifies lecture; and Preface corrects
Preface. We are satisfied to have thus placed, side by side, the
contrasted views of Man and God, and to await the issues.
To return upon the “thirteen Clergymen of the Church of England” the
words of their General Preface, (p. xi.) “_it is no uncommon practice in
modern criticism to neglect the statements_” of an opponent’s case, as
if they never had been made, and the corrections passed upon one’s own
as if they never had been experienced. It is the policy of the “thirteen
Clergymen” to _reiterate_, nothing daunted, arguments, our careful
replies to which are not even noticed, and misrepresentations whose
injustice had solemnly been protested against. By these resolute
repetitions some are seduced to believe, and attention is withdrawn from
the overthrow of an error or a calumny by the hardihood with which it
rises from its fall, and reasserts itself. Strike them down;—they get
up, and coolly offer themselves to be struck down again. Great ought to
be the power of Truth; for great is the vitality and the power of
effrontery in a popular error. It is only in the long combat of years
and generations that the _Real_ manifests at last its imperishable
quality. The “General Preface” quietly gathers up all the “_disjecta
membra_” of error and misstatement, and without a word of answer to our
analysis of their character, presents them again to have sentence and
execution passed upon them. It is a careful redintegration of the broken
particles, which in our simplicity we had hoped would not so readily
reunite. We are obliged, therefore, by way at once of Preface and of
Protest, to repeat our solemn contradiction of some most strenuous
misrepresentations, and to attempt again the exposure of some fallacies
most tenacious of life.
I. It was distinctly stated by us in the course of this Controversy,
that not upon any grounds of _literary evidence_ did we discredit those
prefaces which relate to the miraculous (or as, in insult to the purest
and holiest human feelings, our opponents are not ashamed to call it,
the _immaculate_) conception; and that our estimate of them was formed
solely upon grounds of inherent incredibility, and of proved
inconsistencies both with themselves and with the general statements of
the New Testament. Yet in total disregard of this our denial, the
Preface (p. xiii.) reasserts the charge, as if it never had been
contradicted. We also distinctly stated that the miraculous conception
_in no way interfered with Unitarianism_,—that many Humanitarians
believed in it; yet it is _the policy_ of Trinitarianism to _repeat_,
that we pervert these portions of Scripture, for the sake of evading a
fact fatal to our system. Unitarianism is so little concerned to evade
the fact of a miraculous conception, that many Unitarians themselves
adopt it. It is the “tactics” of the “thirteen Clergymen,” their system
“of holy war,” (_see Preface to Mr. Ould’s Lecture_) to ignore whatever
we may say on our own behalf, either in way of correction or of defence,
and to reassert the false statement.
II. The “Unitarian Creed” is described by our reverend opponents as “_a
mere code of unbelief_” (p. xiv.) it being the policy of the “thirteen
Clergymen,” not only to pay no regard to our most solemn assertion of
our faith in Christianity, as God’s full and perfect revelation to man,
but also to assume to themselves the functions of infallible judges of
what is Christianity, and what is not; and so, again to return upon them
their own language, to “deify their own fallible” (p. xii.)
interpretations and inferences. Yet they can impose upon the simplicity
of the world, by charging others with the “pride of reason.” Infallible
themselves, to differ from their infallibility can of course be nothing
else than the _pride_ of reason.
III. It is stated (p. xv.), that we “utterly deny” “the eternity of
punishments,” without adding _what we have added_, that the moral
consequences of actions _are eternal_, and that in its influence on
character and progress, the retribution of every evil thought or deed
_is everlasting_. What we _do_ deny, as the blackest misrepresentation
that can be conceived of the God of Providence, whose glory it is to
lead his children to Himself, is the horribly distinct statement of
their own “General Preface”—“_that the sufferings of the lost are not
intended for their amendment, but as a satisfaction to divine justice,
when the hour of pardon shall have passed away_.” (p. xv.) Is this the
Religion, and this the God, of Love? These are the men who make the
Unbelief of which they afterwards so blindly and bitterly complain. If
such was Christianity, unbelief would be a virtue, a prompting of
devotion, a protest on behalf of God.
IV. Our doubt as to the existence of, or necessity for, an external
Devil, permitted by God to ruin the souls of men, has been converted to
two uses in this Preface;—first, as manifesting that we are ourselves
under the power of the subtlest device of Satan, who has concealed from
us his existence, that he might lead us captive at his will; and,
secondly, that though denying the existence of Satan, we are yet
ourselves the emissaries of Satan; for that as the Devil tempted Eve,
and our Lord himself, by perversions of the Word of God, so
Unitarianism, by its interpretations, is his present instrument,—in
fact, Satan himself tempting the world by the word of God, as of old he
tempted Eve and Christ. (pp. xv. xvi.) We leave this matter to the
judgment of men whose sense of propriety and decency has not been
borrowed exclusively from the influences of a dogmatic Theology.
V. It is said of us (p. xvi.), contrary to our own most distinct
averment in this very Controversy, that “according to the theologians of
this unhappy school, it seems to be almost a fundamental rule, that no
doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in
its origin, of which all the parts are not level to human understanding:
and that whatever the Scriptures teach concerning the counsels of
Jehovah, and the plan of his salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and
attenuated, in such a manner, by the transforming power of art and
argument, as to correspond with the poor and narrow capacities of our
intelligence.”
Where are the simplicity, the sincerity, the love of Truth, which alone
can make Controversy fruitful of good results, when such a
representation of the spirit of our Theology _can_ be given by “thirteen
Clergymen” _after_ we had published the following words in our fifth
Lecture (p. 9), for their special instruction:—“Let me guard myself from
the imputation of rejecting this doctrine _because it is mysterious_; or
of supporting a system which insists on banishing all mysteries from
religion. On any such system I should look with unqualified aversion, as
excluding from faith one of its primary elements; as obliterating the
distinction between logic and devotion, and tending only to produce an
irreverent and narrow-minded dogmatism. ‘Religion without mystery’ is a
combination of terms, than which the Athanasian Creed contains nothing
more contradictory; and the sentiment of which it is the motto, I take
to be a fatal caricature of rationalism, tending to bring all piety into
contempt. Until we touch upon the mysterious, we are not in contact with
religion; nor are any objects reverently regarded by us, except such as,
from their nature or their vastness, are felt to transcend our
comprehension.” Nay, it is not a little remarkable, that the very
illustration employed by the “thirteen Clergymen” to exhibit our
absurdity in rejecting the incomprehensible, had been previously
employed by ourselves to exhibit the necessity of admitting the
incomprehensible:—
_Trinitarian Preface_, p. xviii. _Unitarian Lecture_, No. V. p. 9.
“Much of the great mystery of “The sense of what we do not know
godliness, God manifest in the is as essential to our religion,
flesh, with all the firmament of as the impression of what we do
saving truth and love, whereof know; the thought of the
it is the radiant centre, must boundless, the incomprehensible,
remain inexplicable to our must blend in our mind with the
present capacities. But to argue perception of the clear and true;
from thence, that this mystery the little knowledge we have must
is a cunningly-devised fable, is be clung to, as the margin of an
as illogical as it would be to invisible immensity; _and all our
maintain _that there is no positive ideas be regarded as the
bottom to the sea, because we mere float to show the surface of
have no plumb-line with which it the infinite deep_.”
may be fathomed_.”
This is bold misrepresentation; a consistent hardihood in the “tactics
of holy war.” To persevere, against all remonstrance, in the repetition
of a misstatement injurious to an opponent, and to do this so coolly as
to use almost his own words in imputing to him the very opposite of what
he has said, is at least a convenient, if not an honourable nor yet a
formidable policy.
In the same spirit of neither honourable nor yet formidable policy, is
the attempt (p. xvii.) to identify Mahometanism and Unitarianism, by the
help of a literary forgery, which even if it was authentic, would prove
nothing except that the early Unitarians of England, in the reign of
Charles the Second, amid the corruptions of Christianity, rejoiced in
the testimony borne by Mahometanism to the great doctrine of revealed
religion, the Unity of God. It is said that there is, among the MSS. in
the Lambeth Library, a “Socinian Epistle (to this effect) to Ameth Ben
Ameth, Ambassador from the Emperor of Morocco to Charles II.” Leslie, in
the Preface to his “Socinian Controversy Discussed,” was the first who
made use of this supposed letter, and not without the suspicion, that he
had first forged it himself.[1] “I will here,” says Leslie, “present the
reader with a rarity, which I take to be so, because of the difficulty I
had to obtain it.” “It is in my mind,” says Mr. Aspland, “decisive of
the question, that immediately after Leslie had published the Epistle,
Emlyn, who answered the tract to which it was prefixed, stated it as his
belief, upon inquiry, that no such epistle had ever been presented by
any one ‘deputed’ from the Unitarians, and insinuated that no credit was
to be given to a document published by Leslie, unless vouched by some
other authority than his own; and that Leslie, in replying to this
answer, though he dwells, for pages, upon the passages before and after
this, relating to the epistle, says not a syllable about his ‘rarity’ or
in defence of his veracity.” “Leslie,” continues Mr. Aspland, “is
convicted (by Emlyn) of quoting passages from Archbishop Tillotson’s
Sermons, which had been published in the name of their eminent author,
as if they were the work of an avowed ‘Socinian.’ And if you will
consult his reply, you will find this theological braggart completely
humbled, and reduced to the necessity of using the wretched plea, that
he had omitted the name of the ‘great Prelate,’ out of _tenderness_.—Is
it uncharitable to suspect, under all these circumstances, that he who
was proved to have resorted to one trick, might have had recourse to
another?”
“As to your ‘rarity,’” says Emlyn in his reply to Leslie, “of the
address to the _Morocco_ ambassador, I see not what it amounts to, more
than a complaint of the corruption of the Christian faith, in the
article of one God, which the _Mahometans_ have kept, by consent of all
sides. Yet, forasmuch as I can learn nothing from any _Unitarians_ of
any such address from them, nor do you produce any subscribers’
names,[2] I conclude no such address was ever made, by any _deputed_
from them, whatever any single person might do. I suppose you conclude
from the matter of it, that it must be from some _Unitarian_, and
perhaps so; yet you may remember that so you concluded from the matter
of Dr. _Tillotson’s_ Sermons, that they were a _Socinian’s_.”[3]
For our own part, when we read this amusing attempt to identify us with
Mahometans, by the help of an unknown letter, bearing no subscription,
and addressed, by nobody knows whom, to the _Ambassador of Morocco_, in
the reign of Charles II., we were forcibly reminded of two passages in
Ecclesiastical History, in whose pages all tricks and absurdities can be
paralleled, and whose exhibition of gratuitous follies and distortions
has left the possibility of “nothing new under the sun,” of this
description, for our modern days. Hildebrand himself, yes, GREGORY THE
SEVENTH, like our poor selves, was suspected of a leaning to
“_Islamism_,” (_General Preface_, p. xvii.) because he wrote a letter,
not to the Ambassador, as in our case but, as became his greater
dignity, to the _Emperor_ of Morocco, thanking him for the liberation of
some Christian captives, and expressing his conviction, so much was
there of the spirit of God and goodness in this act, “that they both
worshipped the same spirit, though the modes of their adoration and
faith were different.” It also appears that the Emperor Manuel Comnenus
exposed himself to the same imputation of “_Islamism_,” because he
wished to correct an error in the ritual of the Greek Church, which by a
laughable misunderstanding of an Arabic word, signifying _eternal_,
“contained a standing anathema against the God of Mahomet,” as being
“_solid_ and _spherical_.”
“Solventur risu tabulæ; tu missus abibis.”
We confess our unmixed astonishment at finding the “thirteen Clergymen”
avowing the most undisguised Tritheism. We do not recollect in modern
times so bold and unwary an admission of Polytheism as the following:
“Our inability, therefore, to explain the Triunity of his Essence, can
be no reason for rejecting the revelation of it contained in his Word;
even if we were deprived of those shadows and resemblances of this
divine truth, which may be seen in the one nature of man, communicating
itself to many individuals of the species. _There is one human nature,
but many human persons._” (p. xix.) Is this then the _Unity_ of God
which the “thirteen” maintain, viz., such a unity as subsists between
three individual men? Is it their meaning that the Divine Nature is a
Species containing under it three Individuals, as human nature is a
species containing under it as many individuals as there are men? Do
they mean to contend, with some of the Fathers, that three men are only
“_abusively_” called _three_, being in reality only _one_? What mercy
would Dr. Whately have for such unskilful controversialists? Is this
however the deliberate view of the whole thirteen, or is it only the
rashness of one of them?—for it is very important to have so definite a
statement of what is meant by the Trinity in Unity.
VI. It is most incorrectly stated (_Preface_, p. xx.) that “Dr.
Priestley, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Belsham, not to mention earlier writers,
have laboured hard to show that the Fathers of the first three centuries
were Unitarians, _and believers in the simple humanity of Jesus
Christ_.” Such a labour was never undertaken by these writers, nor by
any one else. It is capable of proof that the Fathers of the three first
centuries were _not_ Trinitarian in the Athanasian sense; but that they
were believers in the simple _humanity_ of the Christ, no one maintains,
from the time that Platonism first began to transform Christianity into
harmony with its own peculiar ideas. That Unitarians have supported this
view by “hardy misquotations,” is, to say the least of it, an unwise
provocation from men who have in the course of this Controversy been
convicted of the most careless misquotations both in their own case
(_see especially preface to the Seventh Unitarian Lecture_), and in that
of their favourite Champion (_see the Appendix to the Sixth Unitarian
Lecture_). That the substantial statements of Unitarians as to the
Unitarianism of the primitive Church have been overturned by Bull, &c.,
(_Trinitarian preface_, p. xxi.) is a hardy assertion in the face of the
following quotations from Bull himself: “In the FIRST and BEST ages, the
Churches of Christ directed all their prayers ACCORDING TO THE
SCRIPTURES, TO GOD ONLY, _through_ the alone mediation of Jesus
Christ.”—_Answer to a Query of the Bishop of Meaux_, p. 295.
“The Father is rightly styled THE WHOLE, as he is the fountain of
divinity: For the divinity which is in the _Son_ and in the _Holy
Ghost_, is the _Father’s_, because it is DERIVED FROM THE
FATHER.”—_Defence_, sect. ii. 8.
For another quotation from Bishop Bull, see also preface, p. vi., to the
Seventh Unitarian Lecture.
VII. The “thirteen Clergymen,” finding that Mr. Belsham’s “Improved
Version” was not a STANDARD with us, and knowing perhaps that in our
rejection of it as such we have been borne out by the Unitarian
Association at its recent general meeting in London, yet determined to
find a standard for us somewhere, have (p. xxvi.) put into our mouths,
with marvellous naïveté, an appeal to Mr. Belsham’s Translation of St.
Paul’s Epistles. We have already given up the Mr. Belsham of the
Improved Version, and they, for their own easy purposes, represent us as
making an appeal to the Mr. Belsham of “the Epistles.” We will yield to
our reverend opponents whatever consolation they may be able to derive
from their _imaginary_ triumph, in case we made this _imaginary_ appeal.
The Trinitarians cannot divest their minds of the idea that we must have
an Authority _somewhere_. They cannot understand what is meant by
deferring to principles alone; by having no external judge of
Controversies, no shorter road to conclusions, than to submit every
question to the fullest light that Knowledge and Inquiry have provided,
or may yet provide. The Cæsar to whom we appeal from Mr. Belsham is not
some other Mr. Belsham, or the same man in a different book, but the
great principles of Criticism and of Interpretation, as recognized by
competent judges of all parties.
VIII. For the faith of the Church of England, the “thirteen Clergymen”
declare, that “it is alike their privilege and obligation to contend in
that spirit of charity which becomes a believer in Jesus.” (_Preface_,
p. xxviii.) We shall not open former wounds, but look simply to some of
their last manifestations of “Charity” in their General Preface.
1. They say of us (p. xxiii.), that “Unitarians have borne some such
proportion to the Christian Church, as monsters bear to the species of
which they are unhappy distortions.”
2. They “_decline to receive us as brethren, and to give us the right
hand of fellowship_” partly because our doctrinal views of Christianity
are different from their own, and partly because, as they aver, we
maintain our views in _dishonesty_, using language _hypocritically_. We
“cannot be Christian brethren,” say they, “for we cannot tread the same
road, even for an instant. They use the _language_ of Christianity,
without believing its _mysteries_. How, then, can we bid them God speed,
while they are influenced by this spirit of unfairness? ‘The words of
their mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in their heart: their
words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords.’” (pp. xxiv. xxv.)
3. We are charged with deliberately opposing our own minds to the mind
of God. “That such unwearied hostility,” say they, “is waged by
Unitarians _against the mind of God_, as expressed in his word, all
their publications unequivocally and mournfully attest.” (p. xxv.)
4. They describe us as “blasphemers against the Son of Man,” and they
close this peculiar exhibition of “Charity” by offering up for us the
following prayer:—
“_O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou
hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should
be converted, and live, have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and
Heretics, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and
contempt of thy word_,” &c. (p. xxix.)
If such is their “Charity,” may we be permitted to ask, what form would
their _uncharitableness_ take?
Such is the “General Preface,” which the “thirteen Clergymen” are
deliberately of opinion that the issues of this Controversy, and our
mutual relations to each other, justified them in writing. We confess
that we had prepared ourselves for a careful attempt, on their part, at
repairing whatever further inquiry, and, we may say without presumption,
the close scrutiny of an opponent, had shown to be weak or imperfect in
their previous labours,—a last effort to present again the edifice of
their faith in what they deemed its most favourable lights, accompanied
by a corresponding attempt to shake the foundations of Unitarian
Christianity. They have thought themselves, however, sufficiently strong
already to be able to throw away this last opportunity. They deem the
work already done, and that they have earned the right, without further
addition or defence, to entitle their Lectures “_Unitarianism
Confuted_.”
By their own act they entered with us into this Controversy; they
repeatedly recognized us during its continuance as the persons whom they
were opposing, and whose Theology they had undertaken to refute;—yet our
careful and respectful examination of _their_ views, and statement of
our own, have not been able to win from them one word either of notice
or reply. However low their opinion may be of us, as of antagonists
beneath their consideration, yet surely in an attack on Unitarianism in
Liverpool, we are the persons whose views and influence they had most
occasion to correct; and if no more respectful feeling, mere expediency,
a regard for their own designs against Unitarianism, would seem to
require some examination of the arguments and doctrines of those who are
its Ministers and interpreters in the place where this attempt at its
overthrow has been made.
In abandoning this last occasion of a careful and elaborately
strengthened restatement of their case, we confess they have
disappointed us. Nor do we believe that even that part of the public
which has most sympathies with them, and would most rejoice in their
success, will contemplate the omission without surprise.
The origin and history of this Controversy is sufficiently detailed in
the annexed Correspondence. It will there be seen how our desire for a
really close and decisive examination of the several points at issue
between us has been evaded: our reverend opponents would not admit of
any controversy of which declamation was not to be the instrument.
We have already stated at the opening of this Controversy, that we did
not enter into this discussion for the sake of a Sectarian triumph, but
in the more Christian hope of exposing and checking the Sectarian
Spirit. To exalt the _spiritual_ character of Faith above the verbal and
metaphysical,—to unite mankind through their common love and acceptance
of Christ’s goodness and of Christ’s God,—to make his Church one by
their participation of one spirit, even the spirit of the life of
Jesus,—has been our highest aim, not only on this particular occasion,
but throughout all our Ministry. We acknowledge it to be an aim that,
indirectly at least, is destructive of “Orthodoxy,” that is, of “the
supposed attainableness of Salvation only by one particular set of
Opinions,” for if the love of Christ’s God, and the prayerful seeking
after Christ’s goodness are sufficient to place us on the way of
everlasting Safety, then the question is virtually decided, for no man
will follow Orthodoxy _gratuitously_. It is necessary to set it forth as
the _only_ escape from Hell,—else no man would burden himself with it.
And thus Orthodoxy is condemned to be damnatory. Intolerance is the very
condition of its existence. Cursing is its breath of life. Let it
acknowledge that the pure heart, and the pure life, and the spirit of
faith in God, may save a soul from death, _and Orthodoxy will have
dissolved itself_, for nothing but the last necessity, the
attainableness of safety by no other means, could justify its existence.
A damnatory creed must be an _essential_ of Salvation;—else it is the
greatest impiety possible to conceive. Was it, then, the intention of
Jesus to establish a certain _Creed_ breathing curses against all who do
not _think_[4] alike,—however they may love and live? Alas! why, then,
was not that merciful being as distinct as the Athanasian Creed? If
Jesus had been charged with the delivery of an exclusive Creed, as the
_only_ instrument of Salvation, would he have veiled it from the eyes of
those he came to save? Need we pursue the argument further? Orthodoxy is
_not Christianity_;—yet that in Orthodox bosoms the Spirit of Christ may
dwell, we are not the persons to deny.
What interest or value can these disputations have for beings whose main
business in this world is, in the prospect of a coming world, to conform
their souls to the image of the heavenly model, to Jesus the pattern of
citizenship in the new Heavens and the new Earth wherein dwelleth
righteousness! “Whilst we are wrangling here in the dark,” says Baxter,
“_we are dying_, and passing to the world that will decide all our
Controversies, and the safest passage thither is by peaceable holiness.”
Whilst we are struggling for points, of which we know little or nothing,
hearts are dead or perishing. Whilst we are battling for our conceits,
we are all of us unsound within, not right with God, and falling away
from the true service of our great master. Whilst proclaiming in
Sectarian eagerness, “Lo, Christ is here,” and “Lo, Christ is _not_
there,”—none of us are sitting at his feet, and submitting our souls and
passions to his yoke. Whilst we are falling out by the way, in vain his
heavenly invitation is addressed to our unquiet hearts—“Come unto me all
ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my
yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye
shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light.”
Footnote 1:
See “A Plea for Unitarian Dissenters,” pp. 88-9, published in 1813, by
the Rev. Robert Aspland, from whom we take the exposure of this
forgery now brought forth again; for in Trinitarian Controversy
falsehood seems immortal, and there is no work for us modern
advocates, except to “slay the slain.”
Footnote 2:
“There is internal evidence of its being written in the way of banter.
No subscription appears to it, and no person is named as concerned in
it, but a Monsieur Verze, a Frenchman, who might be employed as an
_agent_, and yet not be a ‘Socinian’ agent.”—ASPLAND.
Footnote 3:
Plea for Unitarian Dissenters, p. 137.
“My Lords, if your Lordships attended to the manner in which that
quotation is introduced into Leslie, you might see that it bore
internal evidence of being something of the nature of a _jeu
d’esprit_.... My Lords, this Leslie was a general maligner.... I
really think that this is raking into a dunghill to produce this
address to the Ambassador of the Emperor of Morocco.”—_The
Attorney-General before_ THE HOUSE OF LORDS _in the Lady Hewley
Appeal_, June 28th, 1839.
Footnote 4:
“He therefore that will be saved, must thus _think_ of the
Trinity.”—_Athanasian Creed._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS.
GENERAL PREFACE.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE.
_LECTURE I._
THE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.
_BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._
“Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man,
and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man
perfect in Christ Jesus.”—_Colossians_ i. 27, 28.
“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in
privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that
they might bring us into bondage; to whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you.”—_Galatians_ ii. 4, 5.
_LECTURE II._
THE BIBLE: WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT.
_BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._
“And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of
grace and truth.”—_John_ i. 14.
_LECTURE III._
CHRISTIANITY NOT THE PROPERTY OF CRITICS AND SCHOLARS; BUT THE GIFT OF
GOD TO ALL MEN.
_BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._
“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined
in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ.”—2 _Cor._ iv. 6.
_LECTURE IV._
“THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST
JESUS.”
_BY REV. HENRY GILES._
“There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus.”—1 _Tim._ ii. 5.
_LECTURE V._
THE PROPOSITION “THAT CHRIST IS GOD,” PROVED TO BE FALSE FROM THE JEWISH
AND THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.
_BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth
(as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one
God, _the Father_, of whom all are things, and we in him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”—1 _Cor._
viii. 5, 6.
_LECTURE VI._
THE SCHEME OF VICARIOUS REDEMPTION INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF, AND THE
CHRISTIAN IDEA OF SALVATION.
_BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._
“Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”—_Acts_ iv.
12.
_LECTURE VII._
THE UNSCRIPTURAL ORIGIN AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF
THE TRINITY.
_BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._
“The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”—_John_ xiv. 10.
_LECTURE VIII._
MAN, THE IMAGE OF GOD.
_BY REV. HENRY GILES._
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God.”—1 _Cor._ xi. 7.
“And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my
father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I
will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him,—Father, I have
sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be
called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.”—_Luke_ xv.
17-19.
_LECTURE IX._
THE COMFORTER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHO DWELLETH IN US, AND
TEACHETH ALL THINGS.
_BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._
“If ye love me, keep my commandments: and I will pray the Father, and he
shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for
ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for
he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you
comfortless; I will come to you.”—_John_ xiv. 15-18.
_LECTURE X._
CREEDS THE FOES OF HEAVENLY FAITH; THE ALLIES OF WORLDLY POLICY.
_BY REV. HENRY GILES._
“Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”—_Rom._ xiv. 5.
_LECTURE XI._
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MORAL EVIL.
_BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._
“Woe unto them that say, ... let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel
draw nigh and come, that we may know it; woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for
darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.”—_Isaiah_
v. 18-20.
_LECTURE XII._
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF RETRIBUTION HEREAFTER.
_BY REV. HENRY GILES._
“And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And
he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death. Then said the Lord,
Thou hast pity on the gourd for which thou hast not laboured, neither
madest it grow; which came up in a night and perished in a night. And
should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than
six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right
hand and their left hand?”—_Jonah_ iv. 9, 10, 11.
_LECTURE XIII._
CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT PRIEST, AND WITHOUT RITUAL.
_BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._
“To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but
chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up
a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”—1 _Pet._ ii. 4, 5.
_INDEX OF TEXTS._
EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO IN LECTURES II. V. VI. XI. XIII.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRESPONDENCE
ON THE
TRINITARIAN AND UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY
AT
LIVERPOOL.
---------------------
_To all who call themselves Unitarians in the town
and neighbourhood of Liverpool._
“And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into
his lodging to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God,
PERSUADING THEM CONCERNING JESUS, both out of the law of Moses and
out of the prophets, from morning till evening.”—Acts xxviii. 23.
Men and Brethren,—I am aware that the term “Religious Controversy,” is a
phrase peculiarly revolting to many minds; that it presents to them
nothing in its aspect but that which has been sarcastically called the
“_Acetum Theologicum_,” a something bitter and distasteful, of more than
common offensiveness and asperity. It is for this reason that, in
proposing a course of lectures on the subjects in controversy between
the Church of England and those who call themselves UNITARIANS, and who,
by that very term, seem to impute to the great majority of professing
Christians, of almost all denominations, a polytheistic creed, and in
requesting your attendance on these lectures, and inviting your most
solemn attention to those subjects, I wish, antecedently, to remove from
myself every suspicion of unkindness towards you, and to take away any
supposition of unchristian asperity in my feelings, or of a desire to
inflict upon the humblest individual amongst you unnecessary pain. That
no mere political difference of opinion, much less that any apprehension
of danger to the Established Church, have originated this movement, will
be sufficiently evident from the fact, that while we are surrounded by
many other classes of dissenters, equally opposed to the principle of
our establishment, and much more likely to draw away the members of our
flocks to their communion, I and my reverend brethren, who were
associated with me, on the present occasion, have limited ourselves
exclusively to an inquiry into, and an endeavour to expose, the false
philosophy and dangerous unsoundness of the UNITARIAN SYSTEM.
Now, what is the cause of this distinction? It is simply this, that
while we believe the other dissenting bodies to have arranged an
ecclesiastical system, in our judgment not clearly Scriptural, and
deficient in those particulars which constitute the _perfection_, though
they may not affect the _essence_ of a church, we do at the same time
acknowledge that they generally hold, as articles of faith, those _great
fundamental Gospel truths_ which are the substance of the safety of
souls; truths which, while so held, give them a part in that gracious
covenant in Christ, _within which_ God has revealed a way of salvation
for all and _out of which_ he has not revealed a way of mercy to any.
These fundamental truths are the very doctrines which are controverted
between _us_ and _those_ whom we call in courtesy, but not as of right,
UNITARIANS: viz., the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atoning
sacrifice, the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, the fall of our
nature, and the gracious renovation of the human soul, through his
supernatural operation. Assured as I am that these truths (which,
without a desperate mutilation, or an awful tampering with the plain
language of the Word of God, it seems impossible to exclude from that
divine record) are of the essence of our souls’ safety, I ask you, men
and brethren, I put it to your consciences, is it not of the nature of
the tenderest charity, of the purest love, of the most affectionate
sympathy with those in the extreme of peril, and that an _eternal
peril_, to supplicate to these doctrines the attention of such as have
not yet received them, to pray them to come and “search with us the
Scriptures, whether these things be so?”—Acts xvii. 11. Shall he who,
unwittingly, totters blindfold on the edge of a precipice, deem it a
rude or an uncharitable violence which would snatch him with a strong
and a venturous hand, or even it may be with a painful grasp, from the
fearful ruin over which he impends? Is it not to your own judgment a
strong antecedent ground of presumption, that you are alarmingly and
perilously mistaken in this matter, when you see such numbers of
highly-gifted and intellectual men, men of study—of general information
and of prayer,—holy men, men who “count not their lives dear unto them,”
so that they may honour God and preach this gospel, and that not in one
particular place, but over the whole surface of the church; who yet
account these truths, which you reject, as the essential truths of
salvation; truths built, you will remember, in their minds, not on the
traditions or authority of men, but on the lively oracles of God?
Seeing, then, men and brethren,
1. That the points of difference between us are of the _very highest
possible importance_, and not matters of mere theoretical speculation,
as some of your writers have striven vainly to make appear; that, in
short, if Unitarians be sound interpreters of Holy Scripture, we
Trinitarians are guilty of the most heinous of all sins—_idolatry_; and
if, on the other hand, ours be the creed of the apostles, saints, and
martyrs, Unitarians are sunk in _the most blasphemous and deadly error_,
and are wholly unworthy of being considered _Christians_, in any proper
sense of the word. And seeing,
2. That considerable numbers, it is apprehended, especially among the
middling and lower classes, who outwardly profess Unitarian principles,
are in total ignorance of the unscriptural nature and dangerous
character of those principles. And seeing,
3. That the controversial discussion of disputed points was
unquestionably the practice of the apostolic and primitive, as well as
of all other ages of religious revival, and is calculated as a means,
under the good blessing of Almighty God, to “open men’s eyes, and to
turn them from darkness to light;”—We invite and beseech you, by the
mercies of God in Christ, to come and give us at least a patient
hearing, while we endeavour to “persuade you concerning Jesus,” and “by
all means to win some of you.” It is impossible that we can have any
base or worldly motive in thus addressing you—any other motive, indeed,
besides that which is here avouched, viz., _our solemn impression of the
value of souls, and of the peril to which the false philosophy of
Unitarianism exposes them_.
Surely it is a sweet and a pleasant thing,—a thing not to divide and
sever, but to unite and to gather into the bonds of dearest
affection—thus to tell and to hear together of the great things which
our God has done for our souls; of His love to us, when He, “Who thought
it not robbery to be equal with God, did take upon him the form of a
servant, and, being found in fashion as a man, did humble himself, and
become obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.”—Phil. ii. 6-8.
It is the intention of my reverend brethren and myself to meet together
on the morning of Tuesday, the 5th of February, (the day immediately
preceding the commencement of the course,) for the purpose of solemn
humiliation before God, and earnest prayer for the blessing of our
Heavenly Father, upon the work in which we are about to engage, that we
may be enabled to exhibit and preserve “the mind of Christ,” while
employed in “contending for the faith,” and that we may have great
success in our endeavours to be instrumental in enlightening the eyes
which we believe to have been blinded by “the god of this world,” and
causing “the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF
GOD, to shine unto them.”—2 Cor. iv. 4.
And now, men and brethren, humbly and affectionately praying your
serious attention to these things, I commend you to the protection and
blessing of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I remain your
friend and servant in the gospel, for the Lord’s sake,
FIELDING OULD,
Christ Church, Jan. 21, 1839. Minister of Christ Church.
---------------------
_To the Rev. Fielding Ould, and the other Clergymen about to lecture
on the Unitarian Controversy in Christ Church._
Reverend Sirs,—A paper has been put into our hands, and an advertisement
has appeared in the public journals, containing a “Syllabus of a Course
of Lectures on the Controversy between the Protestant Churches and the
(so called) Unitarians,” &c. As individual inquirers after truth, and
disciples of Jesus, we deliberately hold the characteristic doctrines of
Unitarian Christianity; and, as ministers among a class of Protestants,
who, binding themselves and their pastors by no human creed or
interpretation, encourage us to seek for ourselves and expound for them
the uncorrupted Gospel, we publicly preach the faith which we privately
hold. We feel, therefore, a natural interest in the determination of
yourself and brother clergymen to call attention to the Unitarian
Controversy, and a desire that the occasion may be made conducive to the
promotion of candid research, the diminution of sectarian prejudice, and
the diffusion of the true faith, and the spirit of our great Master.
We are not of opinion that a miscellaneous audience, assembled in a
place of worship, constitutes the best tribunal to which to submit
abstruse theological questions, respecting the canon, the text, the
translation of Scripture—questions which cannot be answered by any
“defective scholarship.” You however, who hold that mistakes upon these
points may forfeit salvation, have consistently appealed to such
tribunal; and nothing is left to us but to hope that its decision may be
formed after just attention to the evidence. This end can be attained
only by popular advocacy on neither side, or popular advocacy on both;
and, as you have preferred the latter, we shall esteem it a duty to
co-operate with you, and contribute our portion of truth and argument
towards the correction of public sentiment on the great questions at
issue between us. Deeply aware of our human liability to form and to
convey false impressions of views and systems from which we dissent, we
shall be anxious to pay a calm and respectful attention to your defence
of the doctrines of your church. We will give notice of your lectures,
as they succeed each other, to our congregations, and exhort them to
hear you in the spirit of Christian justice and affection; presuming
that, in a like spirit, you will recommend your hearers to listen to
such reply as we may think it right to offer. We are not conscious of
any fear, any interest, any attachment to system, which should interfere
with the sincere fulfilment of _our_ part in such an understanding; and,
for the performance of _yours_, we rely on your avowed zeal for that
Protestantism which boldly confides the interpretation of Scripture to
individual judgment, and to that sense of justice which, in Christian
minds, is the fruit of cultivation and sound knowledge. As you think it
the duty of Unitarians to judge of your doctrines, not from our
objections, but from your vindication, you cannot question the duty of
Trinitarians to take their impressions of our faith from us, rather than
from you.
We rejoice to hear that the Christ Church lectures will be published.
Should they issue from the press within a week after delivery, we should
desire to postpone our reply till we had enjoyed the opportunity of
reading them, persuaded that thus we shall best preserve that calmness
and precision of statement, without which, controversial discussions
tend rather to the increase of prejudice than the ascertainment of
truth. Should the publication be deferred for a longer time, the
necessity of treating each subject, while its interest is fresh, will
oblige us to forego this advantage; and we shall, in such case, deliver,
each week, an evening lecture in answer to that preached in Christ
Church on the preceding Wednesday. Permit us to ask, how early an
appearance of your printed lectures may be expected; and whether you
will recommend your congregations to attend with candour to our replies.
We fear, however, that neither from the pulpit nor the press will your
statements and ours obtain access extensively to the same persons; your
discourses will, perhaps, obtain readers, too exclusively, among
Trinitarians; ours, certainly, among Unitarians. In order to place your
views and ours fairly side by side, allow us to propose the following
arrangements; that an epitome of each lecture, and another of the reply,
furnished by the respective authors, shall appear weekly in the columns
of one and the same newspaper; the newspaper being selected, and the
length of the communications prescribed, by previous agreement. Or
should you be willing, we should prefer making some public journal the
vehicle of a discussion altogether independent of the lectures,
conducted in the form of a weekly correspondence, and having for its
_matter_ such topics as the first letter of the series may open for
consideration. In this case you will perceive the propriety of conceding
to us the commencement of the correspondence, as you have pre-occupied
the pulpit controversy; have selected the points of comparison between
your idea of Christianity and ours; and introduced among them some
subjects to which we do not attach the greatest interest and importance.
On this priority, however, we do not insist. You will oblige us by
stating whether you assent to this proposal.
While we are willing to hope for a prevailing spirit of equity in this
controversy, we are grieved to have to complain of injustice, and of a
disregard to the true meaning of words, at its very opening. We must
protest against the exclusive usurpation of the title “Protestant
Churches,” by a class of religionists who practically disown the
principle of Protestantism: who only make the Church (or themselves),
instead of the Pope, the arbiter of truth; who hold error (that is, an
opinion different from their own,) to be fatal to salvation: and who
allow the right of individual judgment only with the penalty of
everlasting condemnation upon all whose individual judgment is not the
judgment of their Church. We take objection also to the spirit that
creeps out in the expression, “_(so called) Unitarians_,” maintaining
that the word does not “impute to others ‘a polytheistic creed;’” but
that as “Trinitarian” denotes one who worships the Godhead in _three_
“persons,” _Unitarian_ fitly describes one who worships the Godhead in
_one_ person. And, above all, we protest against the resolution of our
case into “dishonest or uncandid criticism;” that is the wilful
maintenance of error, knowing it to be such, the Charybdis which one of
your lecturers proposes for us, if we should be fortunate enough to
escape the Scylla of “defective scholarship.” We are deeply concerned
that so much of the “_acetum theologicum_” has mixed thus early in an
invitation, characterized by the chief inviter as “a sweet and pleasant
thing;” and this, too, after a public announcement of having purged the
mind of every feeling but the pure love of the pure truth.
And to you, reverend sir, in whose letter to the Unitarians of this town
and neighbourhood the announcement in question occurs, it is incumbent
on us to address a few remarks, with a special view to acquaint you with
the feelings awakened by your earnest invitation.
The anxiety which that letter manifests to convince us that, in seeking
our conversion, you are actuated by no “base and worldly motive,” is, we
can assure you, altogether superfluous. Of the purity and
disinterestedness of your intention we entertain no doubt; and we regard
it with such unaffected respect, as may be due to every suggestion of
conscience, however unwise and fanatical. If, with the ecclesiastics and
philosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, you esteemed
the denial of witchcraft as perilous a heresy as Atheism itself, we
should feel neither wonder nor anger at the zeal with which you might
become apostles of the doctrine of sorcery. Any one who can convince
himself that _his_ faith, _his_ hope, _his_ idea of the meaning of
Scripture, afford the only cure for the sins and sorrows and dangers of
the world, is certainly right in spending his resources and himself in
diffusing his own private views. But we are astonished that he can feel
himself so lifted up in superiority above other men, as to imagine that
Heaven depends on their assimilation to himself,—that, in
self-multiplication, in the universal reproduction of his own state of
mind, lies the solitary hope of human salvation. We think that, if we
were possessed by such a belief, our affections towards men would lose
all Christian meekness, our sympathies cease to be those of equal with
equal, the respectful mercy of a kindred sufferer; and that, however
much we might indulge a Pharisaic compassion for the heretic, we should
feel no more the Christian “honour” unto “all men.”
You ask us, reverend sir, whether it is not “a sweet and pleasant
thing,” “to tell and hear together of the great things which God has
done for our souls.” Doubtless, there are conditions under which such
communion may be most “sweet and pleasant.” When they who hold it _agree
in mind_ on the high subjects of their conference, it is “sweet and
pleasant” to speak mutually of “joys with which no stranger
intermeddleth,” and to knit together the human affections, with the
bands of that heavenly “charity,” which, springing from one faith and
one hope, is yet greater than them both. Nay, when good men _differ from
each other_, it is still “sweet and pleasant” to reason together, and
prove all things, and whatsoever things are pure, and true and lovely,
to think on these things, provided that both parties are conscious of
their liability to error, and are anxious to learn as well as to teach:
that each confides in the integrity, ingenuousness, and ability of the
other; that each applies himself with reasons to the understanding, not
with terrors to the will. But such conference is not “sweet and
pleasant” where, fallibility being confessed on one side, infallibility
is assumed on the other; where one has nothing to learn and everything
to teach; where the arguments of an equal are propounded as a message of
inspiration; where presumed error is treated as unpardonable guilt, and
on the fruits of laborious and truth-loving inquiry, terms of
reprobation and menaces of everlasting perdition are unscrupulously
poured.
You announce your intention to set apart, on our behalf, a day of
humiliation and prayer. To supplicate the Eternal Father, as you
propose, to turn the heart and faith of others into the likeness of your
own may appear to you fitting as an act of prayer; it seems to us
extraordinary as an act of humiliation. Permit us to say, that we could
join you in that day’s prayer, if, instead of assuming before God what
doctrines his Spirit should enforce, you would, with us, implore him to
have pity on the ignorance of us all: to take us all by the hand and
lead us into the truth and love, though it should be by ways most
heretical and strange; to wrest us from the dearest reliances and most
assured convictions of our hearts, if they hinder our approach to his
great realities. A blessed day would that be for the peace, brotherhood,
and piety of this Christian community, if the “humiliation” would lead
to a recognition of Christian equality, and the “prayer,” to a
recognition of that spiritual God whose love is moral in its character,
spiritual, not doctrinal in its conditions, and who accepts from all his
children the spirit and the truth of worship.
We fear that you will consider it as a mark of great obduracy, that we
are not more affected by that “purest love” for “those in the extreme of
peril,” which your letter expresses. Let us again assure you that we by
no means doubt the sincerity of that affection. However pure in its
source, it is ineffectual in its result, simply because no one can feel
his heart softened by a commiseration which he is wholly unconscious of
requiring. The pity that feels _with_ me is, of all things, the most
delicious to the heart; the pity that only feels _for_ me, is, perhaps,
of all things, the most insulting.
And, if the tenderness of your message does not subdue us, we trust its
terrors will prevail still less. We are not ignorant, indeed, that, in
dealing with weak minds whose solicitude for their personal security is
greater than their generous faith in truth and God, you enjoy an
advantage over us. We avow that we have no alarms whereby to urge men
into our Church; that we know of no “terrors of the Lord” by which to
“persuade men,” except against sin; nor do we esteem ourselves exclusive
administrators of any salvation, except that best salvation, which
consists in a free mind and emancipated heart; reverencing Christ as the
perfect image of the Father, listening to the accents of reason and
conscience, as to the breathings of God’s spirit, loving all men as his
children, and having hope in death, of a transference from this outer
court into the interior mansions of His house. For this reason, imbecile
souls, without Christian trust and courage, may think it _safer_, at all
events, to seek a place within your Church; but we wonder that you can
feel satisfied, retaining your Protestantism, to appeal thus to fear and
devout policy, rather than to conviction, and that you cannot discern
the mockery of first placing us on the brink of hell and lifting up the
veil, and then bidding us stand there, with cool and unembarrassed
judgment to inquire. Over converts, won by such means, you would surely
have as little reason to rejoice as had the priests of Rome to exult on
the recantation of Galileo. Our fellow worshippers have learned, we
trust, a nobler faith; and will listen to your arguments with more open
and tranquil mind than your invitation, had it attained its end of fear,
would have allowed. They will hold fast, till they see reason to abandon
it, their filial faith in a Divine Father, of whom Jesus, the merciful
and just, is _indeed_ the image; and who, _therefore_, can have neither
curse nor condemnation for “unwitting” error, no delight in
self-confident pretensions, no wrath and scorn for any “honest and good
heart,” which “brings forth its fruit with patience.”
To this God of truth and love, commending our high controversy, and all
whose welfare it concerns, we remain your fellow-labourers in the
Gospel,
JAMES MARTINEAU,
Minister of Paradise-street Chapel.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM,
Minister of Renshaw-street Chapel.
HENRY GILES,
Minister of the Ancient Chapel, Toxteth Park.
Liverpool, Jan. 26, 1839.
---------------------
_To the Reverend James Martineau, J. H. Thom, and Henry Giles._
Gentlemen,—As Christian courtesy seems to require a reply to your
address, published in the _Albion_ of this day, I hasten to furnish it,
though unwilling, for many reasons, to enter into a newspaper discussion
with you on the important subjects which just now engage our attention.
I shall, therefore, (without intending any disrespect,) pass by
unnoticed your critical remarks on certain portions of my recently
published invitation to the members of your body to attend and give a
patient hearing to the lectures about to be delivered at Christ Church,
and confine myself altogether to those points of inquiry to which it is
but reasonable that you should receive an answer. And,
1. You ask, whether I will recommend my congregation to attend (I
presume, in your respective chapels) to hear the replies which you
intend making to our proposed lectures. To this I am compelled to reply
in the _negative_. Were I to consent to this proposal, I should thereby
admit that we stood on the terms of a _religious equality_, which is,
_in limine_, denied. As men, citizens, and subjects, we are doubtless
equal, and will also stand on a footing of equality before the bar of
final judgment; I therefore use the term “_religious equality_” in order
to convey to you the distinction between our relative position as
members of the community and as religionists. Being unable (you will
excuse my necessary plainness of speech) to recognize you as
_Christians_, I cannot consent to meet you in a way which would imply
that we occupy the same _religious_ level. To _you_ there will be no
sacrifice of principle or compromise of feeling, in entering our
churches; to _us_, there would be such a surrender of _both_ in entering
yours, as would peremptorily prohibit any such engagement.
2. You next inquire how early an appearance of our printed lectures may
be expected. In answer to this I have only to say, that arrangements
have been made for publishing each lecture as soon after its delivery as
may be practicable. Within what time this practicability may be found to
coincide, it is of course impossible precisely to determine. It will be
obvious, that I cannot answer for my brethren upon this point; but shall
only observe for myself, that I should hope a week or ten days will be
sufficient for the necessary revisal of proofs, arrangement of
authorities, and other business connected with a careful and correct
publication.
3. Your third inquiry respects a proposal to have an epitome of each
lecture, and its reply, published weekly in the columns of some
previously selected newspaper. Not having as yet had the opportunity of
collecting the sentiments of my reverend brethren, I can only, as
before, give the view which suggests itself to my own mind. I am
inclined to think it would be unfair to the respectable bookseller, who
has undertaken to publish the course _at his own risk_, to expect him to
concur in a proposal which could not but materially injure his sale. As
it is our intention to publish each lecture separately, as well as the
whole collectively, at the close of their delivery, and that in the
cheapest possible form, with a view to the most extensive circulation, I
cannot but hope and believe that our united object will be equally, if
not better, answered, than by resorting to a process which should
necessarily so condense and curtail the matter as to present a very
meagre and insufficient exhibition of the arguments, reasonings,
references, and authorities, on which so much of the value of the
lectures will depend.
4. And, finally, as to your proposal of making some public journal the
vehicle of a discussion independent of the lectures, I regret that I
feel again obliged to decline pledging myself to concur in it. While I
reserve to myself the right of noticing and replying to any
communication which may appear, in a duly authenticated form, in any of
the public journals, I must at the same time express my conviction, that
a newspaper is not the most desirable medium for disquisition on the
deep and awful subjects which must pass under review in a controversy
like that in which we are about to engage. The ordinary class of
newspaper readers, including too frequently the ignorant scoffer, the
sceptical, and the profane, is not precisely that whose attention we
desire to solicit to our high inquiry into the laws of Scriptural
Exegesis, and our application of these laws to the elucidation of the
profound mysteries of the Book of Revelation. I feel no doubt that all
who feel interested on the subject, will contrive to hear or read what
we shall preach and publish; and will thus be furnished with more solid
and suitable materials for forming a correct judgment, than could be
afforded by the casual study of the ephemeral pages of the public press.
Having thus distinctly replied to the several points of your letter, on
which you may have reasonably expected to hear from me; and trusting
that you will not attribute to any want of respect to you the omission
of all notice of the remainder; and congratulating you with all
sincerity on your avowed intention of coming, with your respective
congregations, to hear the exposition which we are about to give of what
we believe to be _fatally false_ in your system, as contrasted with what
we think _savingly true_ in our own; and praying with all fervency, to
the great Head of the Church, to bless and prosper the effort about to
be made for the promotion of his glory, through the instruction of those
who are “ignorant and out of the way,”
I remain, Gentlemen,
Yours for the Lord’s sake,
January 28, 1839. FIELDING OULD.
---------------------
_To the Rev. James Martineau, J. H. Thom, and Henry Giles._
Gentlemen,--I owe it to you and to myself to state, that no offence was
intended, either by me, or, as I conscientiously believe, by my clerical
brethren, in the title of the subject to which my name stands affixed in
the Syllabus of the Lectures on the Unitarian Controversy. I am also
bound to acknowledge, that your letter, on the subject of the lecture,
is written in a style of calmness and courtesy, of which, I trust, you
will have no reason to complain of the absence in the statements which I
shall have to submit to your attention. Of course, this is not the time
for the vindication of the view which I adopt on the great question: I
content myself, therefore, with this public disclaimer of any desire to
substitute irritating language for sound argument.
I remain, Gentlemen,
Yours, with all due respect,
THOS. BYRTH.
---------------------
_To the Reverend Fielding Ould._
Rev. Sir,—We beg to offer you our thanks for your prompt and distinct
reply, in the _Liverpool Courier_ of yesterday, to the proposals
submitted to you in our letter of Monday. We are as little anxious as
yourself for the prolongation of this preliminary newspaper
correspondence; and however much we may regret the negative character of
your answers to our questions, we should have reserved all comment upon
them for notice elsewhere, if you did not appear to us to have left
still open to consideration the proposed discussion (independent of the
lectures) through the press. That the pulpit controversy should be on
_unequal terms_, is, we perceive, a matter of conscience with you; but
your objections to a newspaper controversy seem to arise, not from any
desire to withhold your readers from our writings, as you would your
hearers from our preaching, but from the unfitness of a political
journal to be the vehicle of religious argument. Permit us, then, to
say, that we have no preference for this particular _medium_ of
discussion; that we are wholly indifferent as to its _form_, provided
the substantial end be gained of _bringing your arguments and ours
before the attention of the same parties_, and that _any_ plan which you
may suggest, affording promise of the attainment of this end, whether it
be the _joint_ publication of the lectures in your church and those in
our chapels, or the appearance in the pages of a religious journal
(either already established, or called into existence for the occasion,
and limited to this single object), will receive our welcome acceptance.
Had we any desire to see a theological opponent in the wrong, we should
leave the case between us in its present position, and should not
persevere thus in opening the way towards a fair adjudication of it; but
our reverence for the religion of which you are a representative and
symbol before the world, transcends all paltry controversial feelings,
and we should see, with grave sorrow, the honour of Christianity
compromised by the rejection, on the part of its authorized ministers,
of the acknowledged principles of argumentative justice. You will not,
we trust, incur the reproach of inviting a discussion _with_ us, and
then changing it into an indictment _against_ us. _You_ have originated
the appeal to the great tribunal of public opinion in this Christian
community; _you_ are plaintiff in this controversy; you will not, we
feel assured, so trifle, in things most sacred, with the rules of
evidence, as to insist that your case shall be heard in one court, and
before one jury, while your defendant’s case is banished to another, and
the verdict pronounced without balancing the attestation and comparing
the pleadings. Should you, moreover, succeed in convincing your readers,
that this is a discussion not (as we submit) between church and church,
but (as you contend) between Christianity and No-Christianity, the
effect will be yet more to be deplored, for, in such case, Christianity
will appear to claim from its votaries the advantage of an exclusive
hearing for itself, and, while challenging, by the very act of
controversy, the appeal to argument, to leave, for those who are
stigmatized as unbelievers, the honour of demanding that open field
which, usually, truth is found to seek, and falsehood to avoid. We trust
that you will not thus inflict a wound on a religion which, in all its
forms, we deeply venerate.
You deny our _religious equality_ with _you_. Is it as a matter of
_opinion_, or as a matter of _certainty_, that such equality is denied?
If it is only as an opinion, then this will not absolve you from fair
and equal discussion on the grounds of such opinion. If it is with you
not an _opinion_, but a _certainty_, then, Sir, this is Popery. Popery
we can understand,—we know, at least, what it is,—but Protestantism
erecting itself into Romish infallibility, yet still claiming to be
Protestantism, is to us a sad and humiliating spectacle, showing what
deep roots Roman Catholicism has in the weaker parts of our common
nature.
We confess ourselves at a loss to comprehend your distinction between
_civil_ equality and _religious_ equality. We claim equally as
fellow-_men_, as partakers of a common _nature_; of that nature the
religious elements are to us incomparably dearer and more elevating than
the elements that make us merely citizens; and the equality that is
conceded in regard to all our lower attributes, but denied in regard to
those that are spiritual and immortal, is such an equality as you might
concede to the brutes, on the ground of their animal nature, without
injury to the maintenance of your religious superiority. What is meant
by our equality at the bar of final judgment, as citizens, but not as
religionists, we do not know; or, if we can detect a meaning in it, it
is one which we should have supposed belonged to our faith rather than
to yours.
In reference to your repugnance to enter our chapels we say no more,
reserving our right of future appeal in this matter to those members of
your church who may be unable to see the force of your distinction
between religious and social equality. But we are surprised that you
should conceive it so easy a thing for us to enter your churches: and
should suppose it “no sacrifice of principle and compromise of feeling”
in us to unite in a worship which you assure us, must constitute in our
eyes “the most heinous of all sins—Idolatry.” _Either_ you must have
known that we did _not_ consider your worship to be idolatry, _or_ have
regarded our resort to it as a most guilty “compromise of feeling;” to
which, nevertheless, you gave us a solemn invitation; adding now, on our
compliance, a congratulation no less singular.
We thought you had been aware, that, while our services must be, in a
religious view, _painfully deficient_ to you, those of your church are
_positively revolting_ to us. Still as our presence, on such passing
occasions as the present, does not, in our opinion, involve any
“sacrifice of principle,” we shall set the example to our friends of
attending; not making our desire that they should be just dependent on
the willingness of others to be so too. And we shall have this
satisfaction, that, whether you “win” them, or whether we retain them,
the result will be a faith held, not on the precarious tenure of
ignorance or submission, but in the security of intelligent conviction,
and the peace of a just and enlightened conscience.
We remain, reverend Sir,
Yours, with Christian regard,
JAMES MARTINEAU.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
Liverpool, January 31st, 1839. HENRY GILES.
---------------------
_To the Trinitarians of this Town and Neighbourhood who may feel
interested in the approaching Unitarian Controversy._
Christian Brethren,—A letter of public invitation has been addressed to
the Unitarians of this town and neighbourhood, by the Rev. Fielding
Ould, on behalf of himself and twelve other gentlemen associated with
him, urging us, with the earnestness of Christian anxiety, to bend our
minds to their expositions of our errors and our dangers. We naturally
interpreted this to be an invitation to discuss the most momentous
questions as equal with equal. We thought, indeed, that we saw an
assumption of superiority, if not of infallibility, perhaps inseparable
from minds so trained: still we supposed, that this superiority was to
be maintained by argument and fair discussion: and this was all that we
desired. It never occurred to us, that the reverend gentleman might
possibly expect us to accept him as a divinely appointed judge of truth,
whose teachings were to be received in submission and silence; or that
he could suppose that convictions like ours, convictions that have
resisted all the persuasions of worldly ease and interest, that have
removed from us the charities and sympathies of men like him, and held
in simple fidelity to truth and God, could be so lightly shaken that
nothing more was required to blow them away than a course of _ex parte_
lectures without answer or discussion. If the object had been to confirm
Trinitarians in their views, this kind of proceeding we should have
understood; but surely something more was required when Unitarians were
publicly invited to the controversy. Much less could we anticipate that
the reverend gentleman, holding himself to be upon a “religious level”
far above us, to belong to a different order of spirits, could yet be so
far removed from the Christian and Apostolical spirit as to refuse to
bring his “light” into direct conflict with our “darkness.” With these
expectations of controversy, and having no bonds with anything but
truth, we unfeignedly rejoiced, that, for the first time in this
community, both sides of the great question were about to appear
together before the solemn tribunal of public attention.
In all these things we have been quickly undeceived. In our simplicity,
we believed that discussion was really invited and desired. We now find
that we were invited to hear, but not to argue; that to lecture us is of
the nature of “dearest affection;” but that to hear what we may have to
urge in reply would be to “recognize us” as “_Christians_,” to admit
that we stood on the terms of a _religious equality_, which is, _in
limine_, denied. We now find that all reciprocity is refused to us; that
it never was intended to treat us as equals; that the method of
discussing the Unitarian controversy, about to be adopted, is to hear
only the Trinitarian advocates—to call us around the Christ Church
pulpit to be taught to listen and believe. Clergymen may be so blinded
by ecclesiastical feelings as not to perceive the extreme offensiveness
of all that is assumed in this mode of treating their fellow-men; but we
turn to you, the freer laity of the Church, in generous confidence, that
such conduct will not be found to accord with your spirit of
justice—with the nobler ideas which _you_ have gathered, from the
intercourse of life, of equitable dealing between man and man.
We proposed to the clergymen about to lecture at Christ Church, that
since they had appealed to public opinion, through a popular advocacy,
the pleadings should be on both sides, and, as far as possible, before
the same parties. This is refused to us, because we are not Christians.
Is this in the spirit of the Saviour? It is also refused to us, because
it is asserted, that Trinitarians cannot enter our places of worship
without a sacrifice of principle, whilst we may enter theirs without
pain or compromise. Now the very opposite of this, though not the truth,
would have been nearer to it. In our worship there would be the
inoffensive absence of some views dear to you: in your worship there
would be the actual presence of some views most painful to us. In our
worship, you would hear addressed that Great Spirit whom you, too, adore
and seek: in your worship, we should hear addressed, as God, him whom we
revere and follow, as the image of God, the man Christ Jesus. In our
worship, you would find deficiencies only; in yours, we should find
what, to us, is positively objectionable, religion materialized and the
Deity distributed into persons. The Rev. Fielding Ould, in one of his
letters, represents us as looking upon you to be Polytheists, which we
do not; and, in another of his letters, tells us, that we may enter your
temples without pain or compromise of feeling. It will be evident to
you, Trinitarian laymen, that the Lecturers at Christ Church cannot
retire, upon such reasoning as this, from the full, public, and
impartial discussion which we propose to them, without making it
manifest to the public, that they are _determined_ upon doing so.
We proposed to them discussion through the press, as well as from the
pulpit: and this also is denied to us, on the ground, that newspapers
are read by the sceptical, the scoffing, and the profane. Now, not in
newspapers alone, _but in any journal whatever_, was the controversy
offered by us; yet we could not have anticipated the objection, when we
recollect the use made of the newspapers by the religious party to which
the reverend gentlemen belong. Again have we tendered discussion,
through the press, in any form whatever, with the single condition, that
the views of both parties shall be presented to the same readers—in the
hope, not as yet gratified, of an answer in a juster spirit.
Nothing now remains for us but to appeal from ecclesiastics to minds
more generally influenced, to minds that, taught in the great schools of
humanity, have learned mutual respect, and that have dropt, in the free
and noble intercourses of man with man, the monkish and cloistered
sentiment of spiritual as of civil superiority. To you, then, the
Trinitarian laity, we make our appeal; from the exclusiveness and
assumed infallibility of clergymen, to men who, from familiarity with
wider influences, have formed different conceptions of Christian
brotherhood and of Christian justice. We should not have held ourselves
authorized in thus addressing you had we supposed, that your cause or
yourselves, your ideas of justice, had been worthily supported by your
ecclesiastical representatives, who, we firmly believe you will agree
with us in feeling, have openly betrayed both you and it.
We appeal to you, not without confidence, to give us that equal audience
which your clergymen have refused; that those of you who, through
interest in the great question, are led to hear the Trinitarian
statements, will, in the love of the truth, and in the spirit of
equitable inquiry, hear also the Unitarian replies. We seek not to make
you Unitarians: that, at least, is not our chief desire and aim. But
would to God that we could do something to spread that true Christianity
which holds the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and deems
charity dearer and more heavenly than doctrinal faith! Would to God that
this controversy might have some effect, not in building up any one
creed, or swelling any one sect, but in destroying the delusive and
separating ideas that lie at the roots of creeds, and are the nourishers
of bigotry, uncharitableness, and heresies! We should deserve well of
this great community, if we could remove from it this cause of strife
and bitterness,—if we could exhibit the God of Jesus requiring from us,
not speculative opinions, but the heart, the temper, and the life of
Christ!—if we could expose the unchristian idea of men preparing
themselves for a moral heaven by a metaphysical creed, and unite those
who now consume their energies, their temper, and their time, in
contending for abstruse and uncertain dogmas in the deeds of mercy and
of brotherhood which flow out of our common Christianity, and which, in
the wide wastes of sin, of ignorance, and of misery, that surround us,
are the moral debts of man to man, and constitute the religion which,
before God, even our Father, is pure and undefiled.
Respectfully directing your attention to our advertisement of a syllabus
of Lectures on the Unitarian Controversy, presenting both sides of the
question—our portion of which will be delivered in Paradise Street
Chapel, on successive Tuesdays,
We are, Christian brethren,
Yours, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood,
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
Liverpool, Feb. 2, 1839. HENRY GILES.
JAMES MARTINEAU.
---------------------
TRINITARIAN LECTURE,
ON WEDNESDAY EVENINGS IN CHRIST CHURCH.
1839.—February 6.
1. Introductory. The practical importance of the
Controversy with Unitarians.
_Rev. F. Ould._
February 13.
2. The Integrity of the Canon of Holy Scripture
maintained against Unitarian Objections.
_Rev. Dr. Tattershall._
February 20.
3. The Unitarian Interpretation of the New Testament
based upon defective Scholarship, or on
dishonest or uncandid Criticism.
_Rev. T. Byrth._
February 27.
4. The proper Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
_Rev. J. Jones._
March 6.
5. The proper Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ proved
from Prophecies, Types, and Jewish Ordinances.
_Rev. J. H. Stewart._
March 13.
6. The proper Deity of our Lord the only ground of
Consistency in the Work of Redemption.
_Rev. H. M‘Neile._
March 20.
7. The Doctrine of the Trinity proved as a
consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus
Christ.
_Rev. D. James._
March 27.
8. The Atonement indispensable to the Necessities of
Fallen Man, and shown to stand or fall with the
Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
_Rev. R. P. Buddicom._
April 3.
9. The Deity, Personality, and Operations of the Holy
Ghost.
_Rev. J. E. Bates._
April 10.
10. The Sacraments practically rejected by
Unitarians.
_Rev. H. W. M‘Grath._
April 17.
11. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds explained and
defended.
_Rev. R. Davies._
April 24.
12. The Personality and Agency of Satan.
_Rev. H. Stowell._
May 1.
13. The Eternity of future Rewards and Punishments.
_Rev. W. Dalton._
--------------
UNITARIAN LECTURE,
ON TUESDAY EVENINGS IN PARADISE STREET CHAPEL.
1839.—February 12.
1. The practical importance of the Unitarian
Controversy.
_Rev. J. H. Thom._
February 19.
2. The Bible; what it is, and what it is not.
_Rev. J. Martineau._
February 26.
3. Christianity not the property of Critics and
Scholars, but the gift of God to all men.
_Rev. J. H. Thom._
March 5.
4. “There is one God, and one Mediator between God
and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”
_Rev. H. Giles._
March 12.
5. The proposition ‘That Christ is God,’ proved to be
false from the Jewish and the Christian
Scriptures.
_Rev. J. Martineau._
March 19.
6. The scheme of Vicarious Redemption inconsistent
with itself, and with the Christian idea of
Salvation.
_Rev. J. Martineau. _
March 26.
7. The unscriptural Origin and Ecclesiastical History
of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
_Rev. J. H. Thom._
April 2.
8. Man, the Image of God.
_Rev. H. Giles._
April 9.
9. The Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth, who
dwelleth in us, and teacheth all things.
_Rev. J. H. Thom._
April 16.
10. Christianity without Priest, and without Ritual.
_Rev. J. Martineau._
April 23.
11. Creeds the foes of Heavenly Faith; the allies of
worldly Policy.
_Rev. H. Giles._
April 30.
12. The Christian view of Moral Evil here.
_Rev. J. Martineau._
May 7.
13. The Christian view of Retribution hereafter.
_Rev. H. Giles._
---------------------
_To the (so-called) Unitarians of Liverpool._
Men and Brethren,—Before the commencement of the lectures, on which I
have taken the liberty of inviting your attendance, I am anxious
respectfully to address to you a few observations in reference to the
letters which have appeared in the public journals under the signature
of your ministers.
It would appear that these gentlemen have been desirous to produce upon
the public mind an unfavourable impression, _à priori_, of my reverend
brethren, and of myself in particular, because of our having declined,
on their proposal, to enter upon a course different from that which we
had originally contemplated. “You will not, we trust,” say Messrs.
Martineau, Thom, and Giles, “incur the reproach of inviting a discussion
_with us_, and then changing it into an indictment _against us_.” Now,
we never invited any discussion with these gentlemen; if we had, we
should have addressed ourselves to them personally. But, while we would
not, and do not, shrink from any discussion with them into which we can
consistently enter, we cannot allow ourselves to be diverted from the
pursuit of our original purpose, _viz._, to deliver a course of lectures
upon the various points of Unitarian doctrine, which we believe, and
think we can prove, to be not only _unscriptural_, but _fatal to the
souls_ of those who embrace them, and which cannot be maintained (as
appears from the published works of the most learned Unitarians) without
a virtual surrender of the inspiration of the Bible. Believing, as I do,
that your best interests for time and for eternity are involved in the
momentous questions at issue—questions affecting the very vitality of
true religion—I inserted a letter in the daily prints, expressed, as I
had hoped, in terms of courtesy and affection, inviting your presence
and soliciting your attention. I also caused a notice to be published of
our intention to print the lectures, separately and in a collective
form, for extensive and immediate circulation, so that the amplest
opportunity might be afforded for replying to our arguments on the part
of any who might feel disposed to the task. That is, we proposed to
employ the instrumentality of the _pulpit_ and the _press_, (an
instrumentality, be it observed, _equally at the service of those who
differed from us_,) in order to promote the best interests of a portion
of our countrymen, whom we believe to be “perishing for the lack of
knowledge.”
Where is there to be found here aught of _arrogance_, or
_uncharitableness_, or “_assumed infallibility_”? Where is there aught
of unfairness, or “any rejection on our parts of the acknowledged
principles of argumentative justice?” It is true we refuse to advise our
respective congregations to attend at Unitarian chapels, to hear such
answers as your ministers may think it right to offer in refutation of
our reasonings. Our principles and our consciences alike forbid our
concurrence in such a proposal. We cannot go ourselves, nor recommend
our people to go and have their ears wounded, their hearts pained, and
their Christian sensibilities shocked, by the iteration of such, in our
view, blasphemous statements, as we find spread in painful profusion
over the pages of Unitarian theology. And why, then, it is asked, do we
invite or expect your attendance upon what are called “the painfully
revolting” services of our church? For this reason, that, as appears
from the works of all their principal writers, Unitarians do not attach
the same importance to religious doctrines and opinion that we do. It
seems to be with them a matter of comparative indifference what dogmas a
man holds, provided he be _sincere_ in his profession; while with us
sincerity is no criterion of truth, being persuaded that as a man’s
_religious opinions_ are, so will his _conduct_ be in time, and his
_destiny_ through eternity. Being of opinion, then, that our people
would suffer by being brought into contact with error, in the same way
that the human body would be endangered by accepting an invitation to
feed at a table where poison was mingled with bread, we feel obliged to
decline recommending the proposed arrangement to their adoption. But,
feeling that there would be neither danger nor risk to those who are
represented as having a moral appetite for poison as well as bread, and
as looking upon all theological opinions if not as equally harmless in
their bearing on their eternal interests, we ventured to invite you to
come, that we might “persuade you concerning Jesus.” If there be any of
you whose conscience revolts against a participation in Trinitarian
worship, we invite not his attendance: we would be not intentionally
accessory to the wounding of the weakest conscience among you.
You will thus, men and brethren, perceive what was intended by the
assertion that our “_religious level_” was different. We meant not to
arrogate to ourselves any undue superiority, but simply to state a fact.
And while we think it both _unreasonable and unjust_ that we should be
expected to become the auditors of what we deem blasphemous error, or
pledge ourselves to the joint circulation of what we call truth and
falsehood, and thus be “partakers of other men’s sins,”—we cannot but be
of opinion that there is some ground for these charges in reference to
the conduct of those who, on this ground, attempt to prejudice the
public mind against us, as if we were declining a battle which we had
invited and provoked.
We are convinced that the attempt will not succeed. The public will have
eyes to see with sufficient clearness the real merits of the case, and
will condemn the efforts made to blind its vision, or at least incline
it to take a distorted view of our relative position.
Again repeating my invitation to all who can conscientiously accept it,
to attend our lectures, and leaving cheerfully to others the free use of
the only weapons we employ—the BIBLE—the PULPIT—and the Press—and
praying the Lord to guide all his inquiring people, by the teaching of
his Holy Spirit, into all truth, even the “truth as it is in Jesus,” I
remain, men and brethren, yours in the bonds of love,
Christ Church, Feb. 5, 1839. FIELDING OULD.
---------------------
_To the Rev. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and Henry Giles._
Gentlemen,—Having hitherto corresponded with you on my own individual
responsibility, I have to request that you will consider me as _alone_
answerable for what has hitherto appeared under my signature. I had this
morning, for the first time, the opportunity of personal conference with
my reverend brethren collectively at the expected meeting which took
place at my house. I have now to address you upon the result.
All that we had originally contemplated was, the delivery of a course of
lectures upon the principal doctrines in controversy between Unitarians
and ourselves. It now appears that my invitation to the Unitarian laity
to come and hear us, while we brought their avowed principles to the
test of the Word of God, has been taken advantage of by you, and led to
a series of proposals on your part, which I took upon myself to decline.
I have this day addressed a letter to the members of your body
generally, which I trust will have the effect of setting that part of
the subject in its proper point of view.
It is, however, indispensable to distinguish carefully between this
_particular invitation_ of yours, and _discussion_ generally. Your
letter to the Trinitarian laity invites discussion in any shape which
shall effectually bring the statements of both parties before the same
individuals. We are now prepared to gratify your desire, and WE ACCEPT
YOUR INVITATION. Our lectures, however, shall be first delivered; on
this we are determined. Then, in the name of all, and in dependence upon
our blessed Lord and Master, three of our body will be ready to meet you
three before a public audience in this town; all preliminaries to be, of
course, arranged by mutual conference. We propose, if you please, to
take the three great subjects into which the controversy obviously
divides itself, _viz._,
1. EVIDENCE of the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of those
parts of our authorized version of the Holy Scriptures which you deny.
2. TRANSLATION of those parts which you alter, and in our judgment
misrepresent.
3. THEOLOGY, involving those principles of vicarious sacrifice which we
deem vital, and which you discard.
Our proposal, then, is to meet you either _one day_ on each subject, as
you please; or _one week_ on each subject, as you please: the discussion
to be conducted in speeches of _one hour_ or _half an hour_ each, as you
please.
And now, trusting that this proposed arrangement may prove satisfactory
to _you_, and to all who take an interest in this controversy, and
fervently praying the great Head of the Church to overrule our purposes
to the advancement of His kingdom and the promotion of His glory,
I remain, Gentlemen,
Yours for the Lord’s sake,
February 5, 1839. FIELDING OULD.
---------------------
_To the Reverend Fielding Ould._
Reverend Sir,—It would have been gratifying to us to receive from you an
answer to our offer of a discussion, through the press, before being
called upon to consider a proposal, altogether new, for a platform
controversy.
You give us an invitation to _talk_, and call this an acceptance of our
offer to _write_. The two proposals are so distinct, that it is not easy
to see how the one could be transformed into the other; nor is the
mistake explained on turning to the words of our invitation, appealed to
by you, and contained in our letter to the Trinitarian laity. They are
these:—“We have tendered discussion _through the press_, in any form
whatever, with the single condition that the statements of both parties
shall be presented to the same _readers_.” You leave the impression,
that an oral debate is comprised within the terms of this offer; but, in
doing so, you widen its scope, by striking out the phrases which
restrict it to _printing and publication_, and describe it thus; “Your
letter to the Trinitarian laity invites discussion _in any shape_ which
shall effectually bring the statements of both parties before the same
_individuals_.” You will at once perceive the misrepresentation; will
acknowledge that the idea of settling historical and philological
controversies, by popular debate, has neither origin nor sanction from
us;—and will permit us to recal you to our first proposal of discussion
through the press,—a proposal to which, though now made for the third
time, we have yet received no answer.
Meanwhile, we will not delay the reply which is due to this new
suggestion of a platform controversy. We decline it altogether; and for
this answer you must have been prepared, by the sentiment we expressed
in an early stage of this correspondence: “We are not of opinion that a
miscellaneous audience, assembled in a place of worship, constitutes the
best tribunal to which to submit abstruse theological questions
respecting the canon, the text, the translation of Scripture,—questions
which cannot be answered by any defective scholarship.” To assemble a
similar audience in an amphitheatre, where the sanctities of worship are
not present to calm and solemnize the mind, is evidently not to improve
the tribunal. The scholar knows that such exhibitions are a mockery of
critical theology: the devout, that they are an injury to personal
religion. We are surprised that any serious and cultivated man can think
so lightly of the vast contents of the questions on which we differ, as
to be able to dispense with calm reflection on the evidence adduced, and
to answer off-hand all possible arguments against him, within the range
of biblical and ecclesiastical literature. We are not accustomed to
treat your system with such contempt, however trivial an achievement it
may seem to you to subvert ours. In reverence for truth, in a spirit of
caution inseparable from our desire to discharge our trust with
circumspect fidelity, and from a belief that, to think deeply, is the
needful pre-requisite to speaking boldly, we offered you the most
responsible method of discussion, in which we might present to each
other, and fix ineffaceably before the world, the fruits of thought and
study. To this offer we adhere; but cannot join you, on an occasion thus
solemn, in an appeal to the least temperate of all tribunals. We
recollect that one of the clergymen associated with you refused an oral
discussion of the Roman Catholic controversy. We approved of his
decision; and, in like circumstances, adopt it.
Will you allow us to correct a mistake which appears in your enumeration
of the three topics most fit for discussion? We do not, as Unitarians,
deny the genuineness, or alter the translation, of any part of the
authorized version of the holy Scriptures. The Unitarians have neither
canon nor version of their own, different from those recognized by other
churches. As biblical critics, we do indeed, neither more nor less than
others, exercise the best judgment we can on texts of doubtful
authority, (as did Bishop Marsh, in rejecting the “heavenly witnesses,”
1 John v. 7,) and on the accuracy of translations (as did Archbishop
Newcome, when he published his version of the New Testament); but no
opinions on these matters belong to us _as a class_, or are needful to
the defence of our theology. If you allude to the Improved Version, we
would state, that it contains the private criticism of one or two
individuals; that it has never been used in our churches, nor even much
referred to in our studies, and is utterly devoid of all authority with
us; and that, for ourselves, we greatly prefer, for general fidelity as
well as beauty, the authorized translation, which we always employ.
In your letter to the Unitarians, published in the _Courier_ of
Wednesday, you state that you never invited discussion with us (the
ministers) personally. We never imagined or affirmed that you did. But
surely you invited discussion with the class of persons called
Unitarians; and as a class has no voice except through its
representatives, and no discussion can take place without two parties,
you cannot think that we are departing from our proper sphere in
answering to your call. Did you not invite us (the Unitarians) to you,
“to tell and hear together the great things which God has done for our
souls?” And did this mean that all the “_telling_” was to be on one
side, and all the “_hearing_” on the other? Did you not press upon our
admiration the primitive practice of “controversial discussion of
disputed points?” And did this mean that there was to be neither
“_controversy_,” “_discussion_,” nor “_dispute_,” but _authoritative
teaching_ on one side, and _obedient listening_ on the other? In one of
two relations you must conceive yourself to stand to us;—that of a
superior, who _instructs_ with superhuman authority, or that of an
equal, who “_discusses_” with human and fallible reasonings. Between
these two conditions, there is _no third_; nor can you, with justice,
take sometimes the one and sometimes the other, according as the
occasion may require the language of dignity or that of meekness. We
certainly addressed you as an equal, and did not pay you the disrespect
of imagining that your invitation to “discussion” meant nothing at all.
We are sorry that you ascribe to us any intention to divert you from
your contemplated course of lectures. Be assured nothing could be
further from our design. We simply desired that, having _invited us_,
you should have _recognized us when we presented ourselves_, as parties
in the “discussion.”
We remain, reverend Sir,
Yours, with Christian regard,
HENRY GILES.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
Liverpool, February 7th. JAMES MARTINEAU.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—I think it due to the cause of truth, as well as to the
interest awakened in the public mind by this controversy, to address to
you a few observations on your last letter, as published in the
_Mercury_ of Friday. Though still strongly of opinion that the columns
of a newspaper present a most undesirable medium of communication upon
subjects such as those we are now engaged in discussing, I am unwilling
in the absence of any other accessible instrumentality, to lose the
opportunity it affords of impressing upon the attention of all
reflecting men the actual position which we relatively occupy.
1.—Being aware of the sincere anxiety which you have already manifested
for “discussion in any shape which should bring the statements on both
sides before the same parties,” it is not without considerable surprise
that I perceive that you “decline altogether” my proposal of a “platform
controversy.” Now, while you say I invited you to “_talk_,” and I answer
I invited you to _argue_, I cannot but think it will appear evident to
most, that by the subsequent publication, in an authentic form, of our
oral debate, you would have gained all that you could have desired in
the assistance of the press, while a select auditory, equally composed
of the respective friends of both parties, would have been able to judge
of your ability, not intellectually, but morally, to meet the case we
could have made out against your system. I cannot but hope that a secret
consciousness of the weakness of your cause has prompted your
determination, and am of opinion that while a discerning public will
approve the discretion of your resolve, they will not be slow to
appreciate its motive, or the precise measure of your zeal for a candid
impartial hearing.
But the “settling of historical and philological controversies by
popular debate has neither origin nor sanction from you.” Perhaps not:
but you cannot say that such a course is altogether without precedent.
You have doubtless heard of the protracted debate upon these same
controversies which were held in the north of Ireland a few years ago
between Mr. Bagot and Mr. Porter. May I ask whether it was the _result_
of that discussion that induced you to withhold your sanction from all
future controversies so conducted? Mr. Porter did not consider it
inconsistent with the principles of Unitarianism to debate his creed
before “a miscellaneous audience.” Are you wiser than he in your
generation? Again:—the proposed tribunal is not the best “to which to
submit abstruse theological questions respecting the _canon_, the
_text_, the translation of scripture.” But do you not apprise us a
little lower down, that you, as Unitarians, do _not deny the
genuineness, or alter the translation of any_ part of the authorized
version of the holy scriptures? Why, then, there is no ground for the
above apprehension. As these are not points which the tribunal will have
to try, why question its competence on their account? You are surprised
that I would “dispense with calm reflection on the evidence adduced.” I
am, in my turn, surprised that you should suppose I have any such
intention. When the “evidence adduced” has been taken down and
published, what is there to prevent its being “calmly” weighed and
estimated at its proper value? And then it is hard “to answer off-hand
all possible arguments” advanced. So it is; but not harder for _you_
than for _us_. Here at least we should stand on a footing of _perfect
equality_. It was hardly to be expected that _you_ should object to
this.
2.—I now come to the _mistake_ into which you say I have fallen, and
which you offer, obligingly, to correct. “We do not, as Unitarians, deny
the _genuineness_ or _alter the translation_ of any part of the
authorized version of the holy scriptures. The Unitarians have neither
canon nor version of their own different from those recognized by other
churches.” If this be true I certainly have been mistaken; but have the
satisfaction of knowing that this mistake has been shared by a host of
abler critics and more learned scholars than I can pretend to be. I had
always thought that I read of the liberties taken with the received text
by the Priestleys and Belshams—the Wakefields and Channings, when they
were of opinion that they spoke too strongly the language of
Trinitarians. I had also understood that the Bruces, the Drummonds, and
the Armstrongs of Ireland had performed achievements in the same line,
at which many not a little wondered. I had further imagined that the
unanswered—because unanswerable—volumes of Archbishop Magee presented
evidence on this behalf, with which few were unacquainted. Now, if you
mean to say that you, the ministers and representatives of Liverpool
Unitarianism have never “questioned the genuineness, nor altered the
translation of any part of the authorized version,” I can understand the
assertion, and willingly take your own word for its truth. But if you
mean to affirm that this has not been done, and to a very prodigious
extent, by Unitarians, both domestic and foreign, you will excuse me if
I positively deny the allegation, as being totally without foundation,
and I refer in proof to the notorious lucubrations of the above-named
doctors of Unitarian divinity, as well as to the severe exposures of
their semi-infidel tampering with the Bible which they have called
forth.
But while you do not “deny the genuineness or alter the translation of
any part,” perhaps you question the _inspiration_ of certain portions of
the sacred volume. You will remember that this was _one_ of the branches
of _evidence_ that we proposed to discuss with you, and that not the
least in importance. Why are you silent on this head? Is it not of any
moment, think ye, to admit the _genuineness_ and confess the
_authenticity_ of a book or a chapter or a verse of scripture, if you
withhold your conviction of its _inspiration_? Is it not a fact that you
might hold the _genuineness_ of the two first chapters of St. Matthew
and St. Luke, and feel no disposition to alter the _translation_ of a
word, and, at the same time, boldly deny that they were “given by
inspiration of God?” If I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right.
If not, then the public will decide upon the candour and fairness of
your profession to remove the necessity of any controversy with you on
the score of EVIDENCE, because of your admission of the _genuineness_
and your satisfaction with the _accuracy_ of the authorized version,
while by an expressive but momentous silence, you acknowledge that the
_greatest of testimonial questions_ is by you disputed, and you at the
same time refuse to come forward boldly, and debate it fairly before the
church.
Again—“Unitarians have neither canon nor version of their own different
from those recognised by,” &c. You anticipate here a reference to “the
improved version,” and tell us that “it contains only the private
criticism of one or two individuals—that it has never been used in your
churches, and is utterly devoid of all authority with you.” Will you
excuse me for expressing my doubts of the accuracy of this statement,
for these reasons: —1. That work was the joint production of some of the
ablest men and best scholars that the Unitarian sect has ever been able
to boast of; and that the shades of Belsham, Lindsey, Jebb, Priestley,
Wakefield, &c.,[5] might well be astonished to hear their learned
labours so contemptuously spoken of by three modern disciples of their
school. 2. That, in the year 1819, (the date of the edition which I
possess,) the improved version had gone through no fewer than _five
editions_—a tolerable criterion of the extent of its circulation in
little more than twenty years. How many it may have passed through
since, I have been as yet unable to ascertain. 3. That so far from its
being “devoid of all authority,” it professes, in the title page, to
have been “published by the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian
Knowledge and the practice of virtue by the distribution of Books.” That
it may “never have been used in your churches” I can well believe, as it
is probable that the feelings of your people would have revolted too
strongly against its introduction, to make the experiment advisable: the
food which it furnishes may have proved too coarse even for the
digestive organs of popular Unitarianism itself. It is also possible
that the modern professors of your theology may be somewhat ashamed of
this awful specimen of “rational and liberal criticism,” and may
secretly wish that it had never seen the light. But the _existence_ of
it, at least, cannot be denied; and there it stands, a painful memorial
and a living witness, of what is “in the heart” of a system that exalts
_reason_ into a dominion over _revelation_, and that, unwarned by the
solemn admonitions contained in the book itself against the presumptuous
additions or detractions of human pride or folly, has dared
sacrilegiously to lay its unhallowed hands on the sacred ark, and to
attempt the mutilation and misrepresentation of the great magna charta
of the spiritual liberties of man.
3.—At the close of your letter, you say, “Surely you invited discussion,
with the class of persons called Unitarians.” I again repeat I did not.
I determined to have a course of lectures delivered in my church on the
points at issue between us and the professors of what we call your
“heresy.” And I invited the persons whom I was and am sincerely anxious
to benefit, to come and hear our well considered convictions of their
errors and their consequent danger, as well as our faithful exhibitions
of what we think “a more excellent way.” It will not be denied that a
clergyman of any denomination, in a free country, and more especially a
clergyman of the national church, has a right to preach, or authorize
others to preach, in his pulpit, according to his own discretion, and
invite whom he pleases to come and hear, without its being understood
that he challenges either the parties so invited, or their
representatives, to enter with him the lists of controversial
discussion. I absolutely protest against any such understanding. I did
not seek to _compel_ the attendance of any of your body, nor yet to deny
to you or them, in reply, the use of the same weapons that I had
employed in the attack. I _did_ mean that those who pleased should come
and hear us “_tell_” them a gospel which they were not _told_ by those
upon whom we looked as “blind leaders of the blind;” and that they
should be prepared to “learn” whatever should commend itself to their
consciences, under our teaching, as the truth of God. We did not, and do
not, expect to be able to bring demonstration home to the hearts of any
by the strength of our arguments, or by the force of our appeals; but we
anticipated that, in answer to our earnest prayers, the power of the
Holy Ghost would accompany our teaching of His truth, and make it
effectual to the conversion of souls “from darkness to light.” We
propose to stand before the congregations that might assemble, neither
as “superiors to instruct with superhuman authority,” nor as “equals to
discuss (if you mean by that _dispute_) with human and fallible
reasonings;” but simply as “ambassadors for Christ, as though God did
beseech them by us, that we might pray them in Christ’s stead—be ye
reconciled to God.”[6] This is the middle position in which we stand,
the _mean_ between your _two extremes_; and by God’s blessing, we will
continue to occupy it, until we shall have delivered our consciences,
and discharged our duty to a numerous, respectable, but, in our
judgment, blinded and deluded class of our fellow-countrymen.
And now, gentlemen, having taken such notice of certain allegations in
your letter as it seemed impossible to pass by, and with the full
purpose of continuing in the course on which I have entered, until,
through the blessing of God, the grand object which I have proposed to
myself shall have been accomplished,
I remain, yours, for the truth’s sake,
FIELDING OULD.
February 11, 1839.
-----
Footnote 5:
See “Improved Version,” note on 1 John, i. 1.
Footnote 6:
2 Cor. v. 20.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—You state, in your letter of the 7th ult., that “your
proposal of discussion through the press, though made for the third
time, has as yet received no answer.” It was thought by ourselves and
our clerical brethren, that as our lectures were to be printed and
published, every facility was afforded you of replying to them through
the same channel, and that thus the whole subject would be fairly
brought before the public.
In addition to this, we have offered to meet you in oral discussion; you
decline the proposal.
Anxiously desirous to bring the whole matter before this great
community, so as to prove that we not only entertain no apprehensions as
to the result, but are convinced that, by such an exposition, great good
will be effected, we, the undersigned, on our own responsibility, ACCEPT
YOUR TERMS of discussing the momentous question between us, in the form
of a correspondence in some public journal or periodical, altogether
independent of the lectures.
We remain, Gentlemen,
Yours, for the sake of the Gospel,
THOMAS BYRTH.
FIELDING OULD.
Liverpool, February 11. HUGH M‘NEILE.
---------------------
_To the Rev. Fielding Ould._
Rev. Sir,—The tone of your last letter makes us rejoice that, by the
acceptance on your parts of discussion through the press, this
correspondence may now be brought to a close.
Let us, Rev. Sir, place before you your own language, and ask, in solemn
sadness, are the feelings it betrays worthy of the occasion, or deserved
by us, or edifying to the public mind? These are your words:—“I cannot
but hope that a secret consciousness of the weakness of your cause has
prompted your determination, and am of opinion, that while a discerning
public will approve the discretion of your resolve, they will not be
slow to appreciate its motive, or the precise measure of your zeal for a
candid and impartial hearing.” Sir, it is not a little mournful to find
a Christian Minister expressing his hope that other men are
hypocrites,—that they are secretly conscious of the weakness of the
cause which they publicly defend. To _hope_ that we secretly know our
errors, whilst publicly preaching them as truth, is, indeed, strange
preference of faith before works. Let us assure you, Sir, that if we
could think of you as this language shows you think of us, we should
decline all discussion with you,—we should regard you as an opponent too
discreditable to be identified with a great question, or to be
considered as an honourable representative of your own party.
We apprehend, Rev. Sir, that nobody but yourself would think of
attributing to conscious weakness our preference of the most perfect and
searching method of discussion, to the most flimsy, insufficient, and
unscholarlike that could by possibility be selected. Had we wished to
catch the ear of a popular assembly, or to turn away attention from weak
points by oratorical artifices, we should have proposed this platform
controversy, instead of, as we did, carefully and purposely wording our
invitation and our enumeration of the modes in which the controversy
might be conducted, so as to exclude the idea of oral discussion.
We observe with sorrow, and with diminished hope of benefit from
controversy, that you can so sink the interests of truth in personal
championship, as to meet our solemn unwillingness to entrust the gravest
questions to extempore dexterity and accidental recollection, with the
reply that in this respect we should be at least _equally_ situated.
Doubtless, Sir, if a display of personal prowess was our object, this
would be conclusive; but TRUTH is our object, and we dare not offer it
such worthless advocacy.
With respect to the instance alluded to by us, of a decision similar to
our own, our impression had been that reasons also similar to our own
were given at the time; and we can only regret, since this impression
seems to be false, that we quoted the case.
With regard to the “Improved Version,” we shall only say here, that it
has been raised to an importance in this discussion which is entirely
factitious. The differences between us must be settled upon principles
of interpretation and criticism recognized by all scholars; and if these
principles can be shown, in any respects, to condemn the “Improved
Version,” in those respects we shall be the first to abandon it, feeling
ourselves to be in nothing bound by it. When we said that, as
_Unitarians_, we had no canon or version of our own, we meant that we
are quite willing to accept the text as fixed by scholars, most of them
Trinitarians, on critical principles. We most cheerfully recognize the
fundamental principles of Scriptural inquiry, so clearly and soundly
stated yesterday evening by Dr. Tattershall; and although agreeing with
many of your ablest scholars, in thinking the received translation to
require corrections, and not approving of the morality of taking up a
position in defence of truth unnecessarily unfavourable; yet, were our
only object to display the ampler and superior Scriptural evidence for
Unitarianism than for Trinitarianism, the received translation would be
quite sufficient for our purpose.
Again reminding you that the word “discussion” was introduced into your
original invitation, which contained also reference to the controversial
practice of primitive times, and set forth the advantages of “hearing”
and “telling” together,
We remain,
Your fellow-labourers and fellow-Christians,
JAMES MARTINEAU.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
Feb. 14, 1839. HENRY GILES.
---------------------
_To the Revs. Thomas Byrth, Fielding Ould, and Hugh M‘Neile._
Gentlemen,—Your willingness to discuss the Unitarian and Trinitarian
controversy in the most satisfactory mode, has given us sincere
pleasure; and if we have seemed to press this matter upon your
acceptance, we assure you it was with the single desire that the
statements of both views, in their most accurate and perfect forms,
might be presented to the same minds through an unbiassing medium; an
object which could be obtained neither by the unequal distribution of
separate lectures, nor by means so necessarily imperfect as oral
discussion.
We shall be happy to arrange with you, at the earliest possible period,
the manner and conditions of our proposed discussion.
We shall be ready to conform ourselves to your wishes upon the subject;
but we would suggest the desirableness of the discussion being entered
on at once—partly because attention to it might now be secured, and
partly because in the seriousness and number of our mutual engagements,
this controversy should not be allowed to interfere with our other
duties and responsibilities longer than is necessary.
We are, Gentlemen,
Yours, with respect,
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
JAMES MARTINEAU.
Feb. 14, 1839. HENRY GILES.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—I cannot permit our correspondence to terminate without a few
remarks on your letter, as published in the _Mercury_ of Friday last.
1. I regret that the “tone” of my last address should have given you any
offence, while I am wholly unconscious of any intention unnecessarily to
wound the feelings of those who, I am free to admit, have hitherto
written at least courteously, if not very candidly, upon the subjects
which have been recently submitted to the attention of the public. Allow
me distinctly to disclaim any attempt to charge you with _hypocrisy_, or
make it appear that you “secretly know as errors what you publicly
preach as truths.” I took occasion merely to express my surprise that
persons who seemed so anxious for an impartial hearing of their defence,
should “altogether decline” a proposal by which, as it appeared, and
still appears to me, that object might have been so satisfactorily
attained; and in the exercise of a charity that “hopeth all things,” I
sought to attribute your refusal to a latent and half-formed conviction
within you, that your principles, in whatsoever sincerity entertained
and professed, might not bear the light of such an investigation as that
to which they would have been subjected in a public _vivá voce_
discussion. Where is there any charge of hypocrisy here? May not a man
be perfectly sincere in the maintenance of an opinion, which he would
nevertheless be very unwilling to defend in oral debate, from a proper
apprehension of the force of argument with which it might be
encountered, and a secret consciousness of his own slender materials for
its support? Be assured it is not necessary for us to brand you with
_hypocrisy_, in order to convict you of _heresy_. We are willing to give
you every credit for honesty of intention and integrity of purpose,
while we cannot but suspect that you are fully aware of the difficulty
of maintaining the principles of Unitarianism on the ground of an
unmutilated and “unimproved” Bible.
Were I equally disposed with you to take offence, I too might inquire,
“in solemn sadness, whether it be deserved by us, or edifying to the
public mind,” that you should more than insinuate, though of course in
very polished phrases, that “we have proposed a platform controversy, in
order to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to turn away attention
from weak points by oratorical artifices.” Is this your opinion of us?
If we thought so, “we should decline all discussion with you as
opponents too discreditable to be identified with a great question, or
to be considered as honourable representatives of your own party.” But
_we_ are not offended. We look upon your language as simply intended to
convey an admission that your system is unpopular; one that, from its
cold, and cheerless, and unimpassioned character, would seek in vain to
enlist on its behalf any measure of popular sympathy, or conciliate any
favour unless from those whom it had imbued with its own proud spirit,
and accustomed to the low temperature of its own frigid zone.
2. But, gentlemen, while I cheerfully receive the admonition on the
“tone” of my address which your letter _does_ contain, I have to
complain respecting the answer to a very simple question I had proposed,
which your letter _does not_ contain. As I am unwilling to incur the
hazard of again offending, I will forbear from more than hinting at the
semblance of rhetorical dexterity that appears in your perhaps
undesigned turning away of attention from the PRINCIPAL POINT which I
had submitted for your consideration, in order to fasten upon me a
groundless charge, and so challenge public sympathy in your favour, as
men branded with the character of hypocrites, and secretly cognizant of
errors which were openly preached as truths. We proposed to discuss with
you “the evidence of the genuineness, authenticity, and _inspiration_ of
the holy scriptures.” You replied that you do not “deny the
_genuineness_” and seek not “to alter the _translation_ of any part of
the authorized version,” which you prefer to the abandoned version of
Mr. Belsham and his associates. You were silent, however, about the
INSPIRATION. I ventured to inquire whether I was mistaken in supposing
you denied _the plenary inspiration_ of the authorized version? My words
were, “If I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right.” In your
letter now before me there is not a word upon the subject; no answer to
my all-important inquiry. There is a little further disparagement of the
“improved version,” which, we are told, has been raised into a
“factitious importance in this controversy;” you will be the first to
“abandon it,” if it should be condemned by the ordinary principles of
critical interpretation—so far so good. But what of the INSPIRATION? Are
you either afraid or ashamed to speak out what you think on this
subject? I would not that you should be offended at the “tone” of my
interrogations; but again I must ask, what are your opinions upon the
_quality_ and _extent_ of scripture inspiration? The public are
anxiously expecting an answer to this solemn query, and our present
correspondence cannot close until it is answered. The way will then be
clear for our approaching discussion through the press; we shall then
understand each other, and shall have reconnoitred and appreciated the
character of the field upon which we are to take up our respective
positions. You say that “_truth_ is your object,” and not “personal
championship.” Well, then, let us have _the truth_ upon Unitarian views
of SCRIPTURAL INSPIRATION. All other argument can be only an unmeaning
play of words until this point is settled.
We are rejoiced to learn that you are satisfied with “the authorized
version,” and “the received translation,” for the purposes of our
present inquiry; and when you shall satisfy us that you admit the full
inspiration of _all and every part_ of that volume, we shall be in a
condition to inquire whether it presents “ampler and superior Scriptural
evidence for Unitarianism than for Trinitarianism.” We remember that Mr.
Belsham, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce’s Treatise, has said, speaking
of the texts usually quoted by Trinitarians in proof of the proper deity
of Christ, that “Unitarians pledge themselves to show that they are
_all_ either _interpolated_, _corrupted_, or _misunderstood_.”—Review,
pp. 270, 272. They engage to get clearly rid of them altogether. _You_,
it would appear, have given up the _interpolations_ and _corruptions_;
the _misunderstandings_, we presume, still remain chargeable against us;
but whether on the ground of _ignorance_, or of mistaken confidence in
the _inspiration_ of the texts in question, we have yet to be informed.
You will pardon my anxiety for an answer upon this head, bearing in mind
that we regard it as opening wide a door for the introduction of
_infidelity_, so to give up _any portion_ of the sacred volume as being
not of inspired authority, as to render it doubtful whether _any
portion_ does possess that authority, and thus entirely neutralize the
effect of God’s message of mercy to the minds and hearts of men.
I remain, Gentlemen,
Yours, for the sake of the Gospel,
February 18, 1839. FIELDING OULD.
---------------------
_To the Rev. Fielding Ould._
Reverend Sir,—You proposed (in your letter of the 5th February) a
certain series of subjects as proper topics for the discussion between
us, and submitted the list to our notice for acceptance or rejection.
From this enumeration we struck out two particulars, _viz._, the
_authenticity_ of certain parts of the New Testament writings, on the
ground that we did not deny your postulates under that head; and the
_translation_ of certain other parts of the Scriptures, on the grounds
that, with yourself, we prefer, on the whole, the authorized version to
all others; that we would not be responsible for any new rendering
proposed in the Improved Version; and that, as we have nothing so absurd
as a _system of translation_ capable of _systematic_ treatment, any
special instances, in which we may think the common translation
inaccurate, had better be discussed in connection with the theological
doctrines affected by the texts in question.
These subjects being excluded from the list, the rest, comprising the
question of _inspiration_, and the _doctrines of your theology_, of
course stand over for discussion. We said nothing of these, because we
had no exception to take against them. As our _notice_ of the others was
to effect their removal, our “silence” about these was to _secure their
admission_.
The plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, or, if you really prefer it,
(as your phraseology seems to imply,) “the plenary inspiration of the
_authorized version_” remains then as an essential part of our
approaching controversy. Why you should complain that we do not step
aside with you individually, to render you an account of our belief in
this matter, we cannot divine, unless you think that, by tempting us
into your confessional by appeals to our conscience, you could impose
upon the “heretics” your penance at discretion. If it should be, that
this subject is likely to be committed to your hands in this
controversy, and you are merely anxious to know betimes what precisely
are the positions which you may be called upon to meet, a private
communication of your wish would be sufficient. The second lecture of
our series will be speedily published, and will furnish the information
which you desire.
We are sorry that you discover any want of “candour” in our last letter;
and surprised that, this being the case, you can esteem it “courteous.”
We regard a violation of “candour” as the greatest outrage upon
“courtesy;” and despise, above all things, the hollow and superficial
manners, which are empty of all guileless affections and Christian
sentiments. In saying that you charged us with hypocrisy, we committed
no breach of candour, but only the mistake, which we are now happy to
correct, of supposing that your language faithfully represented your
meaning. That you did not think of the _word_ “hypocrite” when you wrote
to us, we cheerfully believe; but that you thought of us as doing that
which makes a hypocrite, your own explanation renders more evident than
it was before. You attribute to us “a latent and half-formed
conviction,” that “our principles might not bear the light of
investigation,” and “a consciousness” of “the difficulty of maintaining
them.” Now there can be no “difficulty,” where the tribunal is wisely
chosen, in maintaining any set of opinions, except from the superior
force of the antagonist considerations; there can be no “consciousness”
of such “difficulty,” except from consciousness of this opposing
superiority;—to be conscious of a preponderant evidence in favour of any
system, is at heart to believe it; and he who believes one system, and
publicly upholds another, is, as we interpret the word, _a hypocrite_.
We perceive, however, that you made this charge without precisely
meaning it; and we think no more of it.
We disclaim any intention of hinting that you “proposed a platform
controversy, in order to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to
turn away attention from weak points by oratorical artifices.” We simply
affirmed, that oral discussion would have afforded a better refuge for
our imputed “weakness” than the press. But surely it does not follow
that, because the consciously weak might prefer such a method, therefore
all who prefer it must be consciously weak. It would, indeed, be a
strange mistake of all the symptoms by which the characters of men can
be known, if we attributed to you any suspicion that you could be
mistaken. You are quite aware that your earnestness appears to us
perfectly sincere, and even to transgress the bounds of a modest
confidence.
We remain, Reverend Sir,
Yours, with Christian regard,
HENRY GILES.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
February 21, 1839. JAMES MARTINEAU.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—Before we proceed with our proposed discussion, it is
necessary to determine, with a little more of accuracy than has been
hitherto stated, what our controversy is to be about.
We thought that you, in common with Unitarians generally, acknowledged
the Scriptures of the New Testament, as contained in what is commonly
called “The Unitarian or Improved Version,” to be inspired of God, and
consequently of infallible truth.
This however you, as individuals, have disclaimed; and, therefore, we
are compelled to ask _what you do_ acknowledge INSPIRED REVELATION?
Is our discussion to be,
1. Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of truth? Or,
2. Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is it?
We affirm the inspiration by God of the Holy Scriptures, as contained in
our authorized canon, and are willing to refer every question for
decision to their ascertained meaning.
Do you agree in this?
Our standard being known, it is a matter of obvious fairness that we
should ask to have yours stated.
Either you admit the divine inspiration, and consequent infallible
truth, of the Bible, or you do not.
Or, you so admit a part, and reject a part. You will be so good as to
state clearly how this matter stands.
Are you believers in a WRITTEN and INFALLIBLY-ACCURATE REVELATION from
God to man?
If so, _what is_ that Revelation?
If you admit only _parts_ of our Bible as inspired, you will oblige us
by stating _what parts_.
The character of the discussion must obviously depend upon this: is it
to be a discussion upon EVIDENCE or upon INTERPRETATION? It would be
manifestly a waste of time in us to enter upon the interpretation of
what you might afterwards get rid of, (so far, at least, as you are
concerned,) by declaring it only the opinion of a _fallible man_.
We remain, Gentlemen,
Yours, for the sake of truth,
HUGH M‘NEILE,
FIELDING OULD,
March 4th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH.
---------------------
_To the Revs. H. M‘Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._
Gentlemen,—You ask us, Is our discussion to be,
1. “Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of TRUTH?” Or,
2. “Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is
it?”
We answer, distinctly, that our controversy is upon the meaning,
ascertained by INTERPRETATION, of the _Hebrew_ and _Greek_ Scriptures.
Should any questions of criticism arise respecting what is the text to
be interpreted, these must, of course, be argued separately, upon purely
_critical_ grounds.
We conceive that the real controversy between us respects the nature of
Christianity itself;—you holding the Revelation to consist in doctrines
deducible from the written words; we holding the Revelation to be
expressed in the character and person of Jesus Christ, and to be
conveyed to us through a faithful and authentic record. Which of these
two ideas is Scriptural?—that is our controversy.
Of course, “the standard” by which we must test “the truth” of these
ideas is the New Testament, and the Hebrew Scriptures, so far as they
throw light on its contents. Whichever view of Christianity is supported
by the _meaning_ of this standard, is the true one. The method of
ascertaining the meaning of any writings is the same, whether those
writings are of natural or supernatural origin; so that the process of
interpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the theory of
verbal inspiration. The admission of an “infallible truth” in the Bible
(which, however, is known with _certainty_ only to God; for you, after
admitting it, are disputing with heretics of your own communion what it
is), cannot alter, in any respect, the true grounds of our controversy.
It is a controversy of interpretation, and no theory of verbal
inspiration can make it anything else.
This theory, however, we conceive to be altogether fallacious, both in
its principles and its results; and if you wish to make it the subject
of our controversy, we have no objection. We leave it to your choice,
whether we are to discuss the theory of verbal inspiration, or whether
we are to discuss the meaning of the original Scriptures, as ascertained
by the acknowledged principles of interpretation.
We confess to not a little surprise that three clergymen, coming forward
to discuss Unitarianism, should be found to express themselves so
inaccurately, or from such defective information, as to speak of “the
Unitarian or Improved Version,” and to represent the work, thus falsely
described, as acknowledged by Unitarians generally to contain the New
Testament as inspired by God. The theory of verbal inspiration, which we
deny altogether, we are not likely to claim in favour of a Unitarian
translator. We have repeatedly stated, that the “Improved Version,” is
not the “Unitarian Version;” nor is it “commonly” so “called.” And now
we say, once more, that our controversy is not about the Improved
Version, but about the Greek Testament.
When you accepted our invitation, with its terms, it was understood that
all the preliminaries of our controversy were to be arranged by mutual
agreement. You were aware, and we have in our letters distinctly stated,
that the theory of verbal inspiration stood as a part of that
controversy; you knew, also, that in a few days a distinct statement of
our opinions upon the nature of the Bible, in the form of a printed
lecture, would be before the public. We therefore look upon your letter,
in the _Courier_ of Wednesday last, as altogether unnecessary; and we
answer, thus publicly, what ought to have been matter of private
communication, only because we are resolved not to allow any
informalities, on your parts, to prevent our coming to a public
discussion of our respective views of Christianity.
We are, Gentlemen,
Yours respectfully,
JAMES MARTINEAU.
JOHN H. THOM.
March 11, 1839. HENRY GILES.
---------------------
_To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._
Gentlemen,—In our last letter we gave up the “Improved Version,” so far
as you, _as individuals_, are concerned, because, _as individuals_, you
disclaimed it. We are surprised, therefore, that you should revert to
it, and the more so, because you have now ventured to say, not only that
_you_ disclaim it, but also, in the face of known facts, that it is not
“the Unitarian version,” nor is it “commonly so called.” When you
disclaimed it _for yourselves_, we did not demur. But when you go on to
disclaim it _for the Unitarian body_, (for which, by the way, you have
no authority,) we strenuously deny your assertion, and call in evidence
the language of all the best writers upon the controversy.
You have misstated our question. We did _not_ ask, “Is our discussion to
be upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of _Scripture_?”
We did ask, “Is it to be upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged
standard of _truth_?” We receive the Scripture as a _standard of truth_.
The substitution of the one word for the other, in this question, has
mystified your whole letter.
We collect, however, from your letter, and from Mr. Martineau’s sermon,
to which you refer us, (and which we consequently conclude contains the
sentiments of you all,)
1. That you do not believe in a _written and infallibly-accurate
Revelation_ from God to man.
2. That Paul the apostle may have “_reasoned inaccurately_,” and
“_speculated falsely_.”[7]
3. And that, consequently, you feel yourselves at liberty to judge his
statements (and all the statements of Scripture) as you do those of any
other books.
You seem to think that this is of little consequence, and say that “the
process of interpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the
theory of verbal inspiration.”
We reply that such a process can lead to nothing but waste of time. For
when we shall have proved some great truth, or condemned some fatal
error, upon the authority of Paul, or some other inspired writer, you
have kept an open door for yourselves to escape from the whole force of
our demonstration, by saying that, in the words on which we rely, the
sacred writers “_reasoned inaccurately_,” or “_speculated
falsely_,”—while, if any passages in those writers _seem_ to favour your
views, you have adroitly retained the privilege of ascribing to them a
sort of inspiration.[8]
No, gentlemen, we are not to be deceived so, into an attempt to fix the
chameleon’s colour. If the apostles may “reason inaccurately,” and
“speculate falsely;” if the inspiration under which they wrote did not
infallibly preserve them from error, then there is no standard of truth
upon earth. Of what avail is it, then, to refer to the _Greek_
Testament, or the _Hebrew_ Scriptures? The Scripture, instead of being
(what David called it, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost) “a
lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path,” degenerates into a
mixture of light and darkness, which we dare not implicitly follow, but
of which we must judge by some superior light in ourselves.
We observe, further, that, according to the light that is in you,
historical proof of miracles having been wrought in attestation of what
the writers of Scripture say, would NOT be proof against inaccuracy in
their reasonings, or falsehood in their speculations.
This notable conclusion you come to, by elevating nature into the
miraculous, and thus depressing the miraculous into the natural; since
you say that the whole force of the impression made by proofs from
miracles arises from a “SUPPOSED _contrast_” between miracle and
nature.[9]
You have thus advanced a step beyond common Deism, and rendered
yourselves inaccessible even by miracles. This is conclusive, and
demands the serious attention of all who have hitherto been disposed to
receive instruction from you. We confess that we can go no further! for,
if there be only a _supposed contrast_ between miracles and nature, we
cannot prove the attesting interposition of God on behalf of the
statements of Scripture, and must give up as worthless the appeal which
Jesus makes to his miracles, in answer to the inquiry of John’s
disciples: “_Go_,” said he, “_and show John again those things which ye
do see and hear; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the
poor have the Gospel preached to them_.”—Luke vii, 22. Upon your
principles, gentlemen, this appeal is worthless; for even if the
wonderful things here stated be established as historical facts, still
they contain no proof, because between these wonders and the course of
nature there is only “a _supposed_ contrast.”
Thus then, by your avowal, that even miracles cannot prove inspiration,
you are left in undisputed possession of the field of infidelity. We
have no common property of reason with you, and without determining
whether men who reject the evidence of miracles are of an order of
beings above or below ourselves, we feel that discussion with them is
impracticable.
While, therefore, we shall continue to use all lawful methods of
argument and persuasion, in the hope of being useful to those who,
though called Unitarians, are not so entirely separated from our common
humanity as you seem to be, we have no hesitation in saying that, with
regard to _yourselves_ as individuals, there appears to be a more
insurmountable obstacle in the way of discussion than would be offered
by ignorance of one another’s language; because the want of a common
medium of language could be supplied by an interpreter, but the want of
a common medium of reason cannot be supplied at all.
We remain, Gentlemen, yours respectfully,
HUGH M‘NEILE.
FIELDING OULD.
March 18th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH.
-----
Footnote 7:
_To grant that Paul reasons, and be startled at the idea that he may
reason incorrectly—to admit that he speculates, and yet be shocked at
the surmise that he may speculate falsely_,—to praise his skill in
illustration, yet shrink in horror when something less apposite is
pointed out,—_is an obvious inconsistency_. The human understanding
cannot perform its functions without taking its share of the chances
of error; nor can a critic of its productions have any perception of
their truth and excellence, without conceding the possibility of
fallacies and faults. We must give up our admiration of the apostles
as men, if we are to listen to them always as oracles of
God.—_Martineau’s Sermon_, pp. 34, 35.
Footnote 8:
I believe St. Matthew to have been _inspired_; but I do not believe
him to have been _infallible_.—_Sermon_, p. 27.
Footnote 9:
All peculiar _consecration_ of miracle is obtained by a precisely
proportioned _desecration_ of nature; it is out of a supposed contrast
between the two, that the whole force of the impression
arises.—_Sermon_, p. 24.
---------------------
_To the Revs. H. M‘Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._
Gentlemen,—We regret the misstatement of your question, which appeared
at the commencement of our letter of the 13th instant. We regret still
more that it did not occur to you to attribute it to its real cause,—the
carelessness of a printer or transcriber. In the autograph manuscript
which remains in our hands, your question is correctly stated thus—“Is
our discussion to be upon a mutually-acknowledged standard _of truth_?”
How the word “truth” became changed into “scripture,” we cannot tell;
and not having read our letter after it was in print, we were unaware of
the mistake until you pointed it out. Whatever “mystification” it
introduced, you will consider as now removed.
Your letter announces your retirement from the promised controversy.
Knowing that in taking this step you could not put yourselves in the
right, it is only natural perhaps that you should resolve to set your
opponents in the wrong, and to cover your own retreat by throwing scorn
on their religious character. Theology appears in this instance to have
borrowed a hint from the “laws of honour;” and as in the world a
“passage of arms” is sometimes evaded, under the pretence that the
antagonist is too little _of a gentleman_, so in the church a polemical
collision may be declined, because the opponent is _too little of a
believer_.
You refuse to fulfil your pledge to the public and ourselves on two
grounds:—
I. Because we do not acknowledge the plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures.
II. Because we think it impossible to infer from miracles the mental
infallibility of the performer. It is of no use, you say, to argue about
divine truth with those who do not believe in “a written and infallibly
accurate revelation from God to man.”
We will concede, for the moment, and under protest, your narrow meaning
of the words “inspiration” and “revelation;” and without disturbing your
usage of them, we submit that the reasons advanced by you afford not
even a plausible pretext for having violated your pledge. First, as to
the plea that we are put out of the controversy by our unexpected denial
of the intellectual infallibility of the sacred writers; and that to
argue about the meaning of the Bible is a waste of time, till its verbal
inspiration is established. We reply,—
I. That it was you yourselves who started this very question of
inspiration for argument between us. In his letter of February 18th, Mr.
Ould gives this account of our projected controversy: “We proposed to
discuss with you the EVIDENCE of the genuineness, authenticity, and
INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES;” he taunts us with _reluctance_ to
take up this “greatest of testimonial questions,” with “refusing to come
forward boldly, and _debate it fairly before the church_.”[10] We _have_
come forward boldly, and this is now the alleged reason why there is to
be _no debate at all before the church_. Moreover, at the time when you
said “we accept your terms,” you regarded us as holding the very
opinions which are now made the excuse for a retreat; in your first
lecture they are made a chief ground of indictment against us, and pages
are crowded with citations from Unitarian writers, expressing those same
sentiments, which, when avowed by your own opponents, are to make them
unfit to be addressed, and to exempt you from the duty of reply. Of the
spirit of this proceeding, observers of honourable mind must judge;
they, as well as you, are well aware, that to pronounce men unworthy of
attack, is itself an attack of the last degree of bitterness.
II. Your refusal to settle with us the meaning of Scripture till the
plenary inspiration is acknowledged, is in plain contradiction to your
own principles. You fix the imputation of _deception_ on our statement,
that “the process of interpretation may go on undisturbed by any
reference to the theory of verbal inspiration.” Yet is this only a
repetition of what Mr. Byrth himself says, “In whatever light the
Christian Scriptures are regarded, whether as the result of plenary
inspiration, as we Trinitarians believe, or as the uninspired
productions of the first teachers of Christianity, or even as the
forgeries of imposture, _the meaning_ of their contents is a _question
apart from all others_.”[11]
Dr. Tattershall, in common with all sound divines, makes it the _first
step_ of scriptural inquiry to “examine the contents” of the books under
the guidance of the following principle: that “any message coming from
God must be consistent with the character of the same holy being, as
exhibited in his works,” and must have “consistency with itself:”[12]
and he justly states, that whether we ought to take the _last step_, of
admitting the divine authority of the doctrines, must still be
contingent on those doctrines, “being themselves wise and
holy,”—“lessons worthy of God.”[13] These principles are violated,
unless our investigation into your doctrines is taken in the following
order:—
I. Are your doctrines _true to the sense of Scripture_? If _not_, the
controversy ends here; if they _are_, then,
II. Are they _self-consistent; reconcilable with the teachings of God’s
works, pure and holy_? If _not_, the controversy ends _here_; if they
_are_, then,
III. Do they come to us clothed with divine authority, and conveyed in
the language of plenary inspiration?
Your system, then, must establish its _existence in the Bible_ (which is
a matter of interpretation), and its _credibility in itself_ (which we
presume there must be _some criterion_ to determine), _before_ the
question of inspiration is capable of being discussed. We deny both
these preliminaries; protesting that we cannot find your system in the
Scriptures; and that if we could, it appears to us so far from
“self-consistent,” “wise and holy,” and “worthy of God,” as exceedingly
to embarrass the claims to divine authority, of any writings which
contain it. It was then in implicit obedience to your own rules that we
proposed to let the question of interpretation take the lead; and no
less so, that we presume to form a judgment respecting the internal
character of doctrines professing to be scriptural. Permit us to ask
how, but by some “light in ourselves,” we are to determine whether
doctrines are “wise and holy,” “self-consistent,” and “worthy of God?”
Secondly. You plead that we have forfeited our claim on the fulfilment
of your engagement, by a statement of opinion in our second lecture, to
this effect: that miracles do not enable us to infer the intellectual
infallibility of the performer. This, it seems, is an unexpected heresy,
and cancels all promises. You appear to be affected by the Popish
tendencies of the age; and to have adopted the notion, that no faith is
to be kept with heretics. On this point we remark as follows:—
1st. We are astonished at your assertion, that this idea about miracles
deprives us of any “common medium of reason” with you. Did you not
“propose to discuss with us” the “evidence of the plenary inspiration of
the holy Scriptures,” under the persuasion that we should take the
negative side? In such discussion, would you not have argued from the
miracles to the inspiration? And how did you suppose that we should
reply? You were well aware that we should _admit_ the miracles; and
equally well aware that we should _deny_ the plenary inspiration of
those that wrought them. It cannot be supposed that, at this point, you
would have had no more to say; but you would have proceeded, as many
able writers have already done, to seek some “common medium of
reason,”—some considerations, that is, having force with both parties;
by which you might hope to fasten the disputed connection between your
premises and your conclusion.
2nd. We are still more astonished to hear that this sentiment puts us “a
step beyond common Deism,” “in undisputed possession of the field of
infidelity,” and even in “separation from our common humanity;” seeing
that the opinion has been held by
BISHOP SHERLOCK:—Who says, “Miracles cannot prove _the truth_ of any
doctrine; and men do not speak accurately when they say the doctrines
are proved by the miracles; for, in truth, there is _no connection_
between miracles and doctrines.”[14]
JOHN LOCKE:—“Even in those books which have the greatest proof of
Revelation from God, and the attestation of miracles to confirm their
being so, _the miracles are to be judged by the doctrine, not the
doctrine by the miracles_.”[15]
DR. SAMUEL CLARKE:—“We can hardly affirm, with any certainty, that any
particular effect, how great or miraculous soever it may seem to us, is
beyond the power of all created beings (whom he explains further to be,
‘subordinate intelligences, _good_ or _evil_ angels,’) in the universe
to produce.” He believes the Devil to “be able, by reason of his
invisibility, to work _true and real miracles_;” and “whether such
(_i.e._ miraculous) interposition be the immediate work of God, or of
some good or evil angel, can hardly be discovered merely by the work
itself.”
He accordingly lays down _the conditions under which_ the miracles will
prove the doctrine.[16]
BISHOP FLEETWOOD:—“Spirits may perform most strange and astonishing
things,—may convey men through the air, or throw a mountain two miles at
a cast.”[17]
The notions expressed by the last two writers, respecting the superhuman
agency of good and evil spirits, evidently destroy, no less than the
more philosophical principle of Sherlock and Locke, all power of
reasoning from miracles, as such, to the divine authority and
inspiration of the performers. You cannot be ignorant of the fact, that
these notions prevailed among all the Fathers of both the Greek and
Latin churches; that they were almost universal among Christians till
very recent times; and that your own church lodges with the Bishop of
the Diocese a discretionary power to license clergymen to cast out
devils.[18]
Nor need we remind you that, by yet another process of thought, the
Society of Friends assigns to miracles the rank which you think so
profane. “We know,” says Barclay on this subject, “that the devil can
form a sound of words, and convey it to the outward ear; that he can
easily deceive the outward senses, by making things appear which are
not. Yea, do we not see that the Jugglers and Mountebanks can do as much
as all that, by their legerdemain? God forbid then that the saint’s
faith should be founded on so fallacious a foundation as man’s outward
and fallible senses.”[19] And he urges, “that there must be other ways
of ascertaining divine truth; for as to miracles, John the Baptist and
divers of the Prophets wrought none that we hear of, and yet were both
immediately and extraordinarily sent.”[20] By different modes of
thinking, all these (Christians?) have arrived at the sentiment in
question, so that we occupy “the field of infidelity,” without being
“separated from” at least a goodly portion of “our humanity.” That this
sentiment should be of so deep a dye of Deism is the more remarkable,
because it is advanced and vindicated as a _scriptural sentiment_,—a
plea which, however foolish, can be shown to be so, only by discussing
_the interpretation_ of the New Testament. You have proposed no
explanation of the state of the Apostles’ minds before the day of
Pentecost. On that day they either did, or they did not, become more
enlightened than before. If they did not, the gift of the Holy Spirit
conferred no illumination; if they did, they were deficient in light
before; and the miraculous powers they had possessed and exercised did
not imply infallibility. We thought, indeed, that the comparative
narrowness of their views before this period had been universally
admitted. With respect to the appeal which in the presence of the
Baptist’s disciples our Lord makes to his miraculous acts, you are quite
aware that we do _not_ regard it as “worthless,” though you say we
“_must_” do so. These acts (the _climax_ of which, however, was no
miracle at all,—“the poor have the Gospel preached to them,”) fully
answered _the purpose for which they were appealed to_, viz., to
determine whether Jesus was “He that should come,” or whether John was
“to look for another;” for as Bishop Sherlock remarks though miracles
may not (he says “_cannot_) prove the _truth_ of any doctrine,” they
“prove _the commission_ of the person who does them to proceed from
God.”[21] We repeat, then, that we have started no topic which you did
not invite; we have taken up no method of discussion which your own
rules did not prescribe; we have advanced no idea for which your own
Church should be unprepared. You have quitted this controversy without
any justification from the unexpected nature of _our sentiments_, and we
are persuaded that you can plead no discourtesy in our proposals
respecting the _mechanical arrangements_. On this point we think it
right to state thus publicly the overtures which we made to you, through
the excellent clergyman who communicated with us as your representative.
An objection having been urged by Mr. Ould to discussion through the
newspapers, on the ground that they are read by “the ignorant scoffer,
the sceptical, the profane,” we proposed the following plan:—That for
twelve or any limited number of weeks, a joint weekly pamphlet of
thirty-two pages should be published, each party furnishing sixteen
pages; that the first number of the series should contain a positive
statement, _from each party_, of its fundamental principles in religion,
of that which it undertook to assail, and that which it undertook to
defend; and that within the limits of this programme, the replies in the
subsequent numbers should confine themselves. Thus each party would have
chosen its own ground, at first; and both would have disappeared from
the public view together, at last. This proposal was rejected without
any reason being assigned, except that there were “too many difficulties
in the way;” and though all preliminaries were to be settled “by
previous agreement,” we were told that in the following _Courier_ we
should find a letter addressed to us, which we might answer in whatever
way we thought proper. The public who have watched the proceedings in
this matter will bear witness, with our consciences, that we were _not
the first_ to enter this controversy; that we have _not been the first_
to leave it; and that, in its progress, we have departed from no pledge,
and been guilty of no evasion.
And now, Gentlemen, accept from us in conclusion, our solemn protest
against the language of unmeasured insult, in which, under the cover of
sanctity, the associated clergymen whom you represent, have thought
proper to speak of our religion; against the accusations personally
addressed to us, in the presence of 3,000 people, by the Lecturers in
Christ Church, of “mean subterfuges,” “of sneering,” of “savage grins,”
of “damnable blasphemy,” of “the greatest imaginable guilt,” of “doing
despite to the Spirit of Grace,” of “the most odious of crimes against
the Majesty of Heaven,” and in common with all Unitarians of forming our
belief, from “the blindness of graceless hearts,” too bad “to have been
touched by any spirit of God,” and against the visible glee, fierce as
Tertullian’s, with which “the faithful” are reminded that ere long, _we
must and shall_ bow our proud knees, whether we like it or not, to the
object of their peculiar worship;—so that they are sure of their triumph
in heaven, however questionable it may be on earth. You began the
controversy by ascribing to us one shade of “infidelity;” you end it by
ascribing to us a blacker. Beneath “the lowest deep,” there is it seems
“a lower still.” We have sat quietly under all this, bearing the rude
friction upon everything that is most dear to us, assured that if
anything in heaven or earth be certain, it is this;—that no spirit of
God ever spake thus, or thus administered the poison of human passions,
falsely labelled as the medicine of a divine love. What is the
difference between your religion and ours, that this high tone (than
which, to a pure moral taste, nothing surely can be _lower_) should be
assumed against us? We believe, no less than you, in an infallible
Revelation (though had we the misfortune to doubt it, we might be, in
the sight of God, neither worse nor better than yourselves); you in a
Revelation of an unintelligible Creed to the understanding; we in a
Revelation of moral perfection, and the spirit of duty to the heart; you
in a Revelation of the metaphysics of Deity; we in a Revelation of the
character and providence of the Infinite Father; you in a Redemption
which saves the few, and leaves with Hell the triumph after all; we in a
Redemption which shall restore to all at length the image and the
immortality of God: we _do_ reserve, as you suggest, “_a sort of
inspiration_” for the founders of Christianity, “a sort” as much higher
than your cold, dogmatical, scientific inspiration, as the intuitions of
conscience are higher than the predications of logic, and the free
spirit of God, than the petty precision of men. We believe in a
spiritual and moral Revelation, most awakening, most sanctifying, most
holy; which _words_, being the signs of hard and definite ideas, could
never express, and which is therefore pourtrayed in a mind divinely
finished for the purpose, acting awhile on Earth and publicly
transferred to Heaven. All men may see that such a Revelation
corresponds well with the medium which conveys it; but a set of
scholastic propositions, like Articles and Creeds, might as well have
been written on the sky; and many a bitter doubt and bitterer
controversy might have been spared.
We believe, Gentlemen, that the minds of serious and considerate persons
are weary of the aggressions of Churches upon the private and secret
faith of the individual heart; that they will not long be forced to live
on the dry husks of Creeds which have lost the kernel of true life; nor
accept mere puzzles as divine mysteries. It is at the peril of all
religion that its illimitable truths are embalmed in definite formulas,
and the abyss of God confidently measured by thrusting out the foot-rule
of ecclesiastical wisdom. The things most holy cannot without injury be
thus turned from the contemplation of the affections, to the small
criticism of the intellect; and the acute and polished dividing-knife of
dialectics, when applied to cut theology into propositions, is apt to
leave scarce a shred of faith.
That all professing ministers of the Gospel may speedily turn from their
divisions of belief to a hearty union of spirit, is the desire and
prayer of
Us, who in this temper, and in better times, might have been
owned as
Your fellow-labourers,
JAMES MARTINEAU.
JOHN HAMILTON THOM.
March 25th, 1839. HENRY GILES.
-----
Footnote 10:
Rev. F. Ould’s Letter of February 11.
Footnote 11:
Rev. T. Byrth’s Lecture, Part I. p. 114.
Footnote 12:
Rev. Dr. Tattershall’s Lecture on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 69.
Footnote 13:
“Whatever lessons of instruction or doctrines they teach us, _these
doctrines being themselves wise and holy_, must have been delivered
under a divine sanction, and therefore possess divine authority.
“If he (that is, the person who performs miracles) also teaches
lessons,—_lessons worthy of God_,—these lessons undoubtedly come to us
clothed with divine authority.”—_Dr. Tattershall’s Lecture_, pp. 70,
71.
Footnote 14:
Sherlock’s Discourses, No. 10, Hughes’s edition, Vol. I. p. 197, and
No. 15, Vol. I. p. 278.
Footnote 15:
Lord King’s Life of Locke, p. 125.
Footnote 16:
Sermons at the Boyle Lecture, Prop. xiv.
Footnote 17:
Essay on Miracles, p. 99, _seq._, as quoted by Farmer in his
Dissertation on Miracles, chap. i. § 3.
Footnote 18:
“No minister or ministers shall, _without the licence and direction of
the Bishop of the Diocese_, first obtained and had under his hand and
seal, ... attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever, either of possession
or obsession, by fasting and prayer, to cast out any devil or devils,
under pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage, and deposition
from the ministry.”—_Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical_, lxxii.
Footnote 19:
Apology for the True Christian Divinity, Prop. ii, pp. 35, 36.
Footnote 20:
Ibid. Prop. x. p. 296.
Footnote 21:
Discourses, No. 10, Hughes’s edition, vol. i. p. 197.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE
PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE
OF THE
UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.
An attempt has been made, in a preface to the Lecture to which the
following pages are a reply, to break the force, by anticipation, of the
statements they contain. The Answerer, however, evidently did not hear
the statements; and the preface proceeds upon some rumour of what was
said. If Clergymen are conscientiously prevented from going to hear
Unitarians, they ought also to be conscientiously prevented from
answering what they did not hear. I am represented as saying that
Trinitarians do not gather, but _lecture_: I said Trinitarianism does
not gather, but _scatters_. I am represented as arguing the tendency of
Trinitarianism to Popery from the recent movement of the Oxford Tract
divines in that direction: I argued the tendency of Trinitarianism to
Popery _from its fundamental principles_, and I referred to the Oxford
movement as one of the visible manifestations of the demonstrated
tendency.
I shall notice the instances in which the Preface proceeds upon anything
like a true apprehension of what was said—
1. Page vii. viii.—“When men tell us that Jesus did not weep over
_errors of opinion_, we maintain that it was the ‘error of opinion’
which led them to reject him as the Messiah over which he lamented.”
Now, 1. Is the unbelief of the Jews in the Christ, when he was
exhibiting his divine credentials in his Character and in his Miracles
before their eyes and to their hearts, in any respect similar to our
unbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity, which we, accepting both the
Scriptures and Christ, declare we cannot find to be authorized by
either? And 2. Is it not evident that Jesus attributed the unbelief of
the Jews to _Moral_ Causes, and that therefore, and _only_ therefore, he
condemned it? “This is the Condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men loved darkness rather than light, _because their deeds
were evil_.” John iii. 19.
2. Page viii.—“But these principles involve a violation of unity.” And
what if they do? Did not our Saviour emphatically declare, “Think not
that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a
sword.” 1. Christ is here not describing the final purpose of his
Mission nor the natural operation of his Spirit, but the immediate
opposition and contention which his religion would excite both in Jew
and Gentile before it rooted out the old Faiths: And 2. The Christ is
not here alluding to differences between _Christians themselves_,
between those who did accept him; but to the necessary conflict of the
Spirit of Jesus with the Antagonist spirits of Judaism and Heathenism.
This also is the great subject of the Book of Revelations.
3. Page xi.—“But it is a priestly spirit which says, ‘you must
believe.’” This ought to be reckoned with the instances in which the
answer proceeds upon an incorrect rumour of what was said; which was to
this effect,—“that it is the priestly spirit, whose constant cry is,
unless you believe _this doctrine_, and unless you believe _that
doctrine_, you cannot be saved.” Belief in Jesus, entire spiritual Trust
in him, as, for all providential purposes, one with God, we have
explicitly stated as our view of the essentials of Christianity.
Page xxi.—We do not know how far the Author extends his approval of “the
tactics of holy war.” For ourselves we disapprove of all such tactics,
especially the tactics of substituting a mere illustration or practical
verification of an argument, for the argument itself, and then dealing
with the illustration as if there was no general principle behind it, as
if the illustration was represented as _the grounds_ of the principle,
when it is only represented as one of its outward operations. And yet
this “argumentum a particulari ad universale,” is one which the author
employs in his description of Unitarianism in almost every page of his
Lecture.
J. H. T.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE
PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE
OF THE
UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.
---------------------
COLOSSIANS I. 27, 28.—_Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach,
warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we
may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus._
GALATIANS II. 4, 5.—_And that because of false brethren unawares brought
in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in
Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage; to whom we
gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of
the gospel might continue with you._
Were some stranger to our religion inquiring what it is to be a
Christian, there are two quarters from which he might derive his ideas
of that character. He might draw near to him who is the only perfect
expression of Christianity, and when he had sat at the feet of Jesus,
listening with hushed heart, and then arisen and joined himself to the
meek Prophet of Mercy on his way of Love, he might receive from Christ
his impressions of Christianity and catch from the living Master the
type of a disciple: or he might turn for information to the Christians
of the day, selecting for examination the largest and most prominent
classes, and so gather from the common specimen his impressions of their
temper, their spirit, and their faith. Each of these modes of inquiry
would produce a result of Truth; but the one would be a Truth of
reality, and the other only a Truth of description; the one would
present to us what we were seeking, the true idea of a Christian; the
other would show with what degree of faithfulness Christians had
preserved the spirit of the original, or whether in the copy, in the
distant reflection, the features had been faded, marred, distorted; the
one would furnish us with the great Master’s idea of a Disciple, the
other would exhibit the Disciple as a representative of the Master, and
assuming to be his Image to the world; in a word, the one would be
Christ’s idea of a Christian; the other would be only a Christian’s idea
of Christ. Oh, thanks be to God for the _written_ Gospel, for the
Epistles written on men’s hearts, the living transcripts, give us no
worthy ideas of Christ; and were it not for those silent witnesses which
speak from a passionless page, and cannot be made to wear the garb of
party, which reflect Christ’s realities, and not man’s ideas, the Image
of Jesus had long since been irrecoverably lost!
Let us then for a moment place ourselves beside Jesus, and learn from
the Christ what it is to be a Christian. I hear him inviting the weary
and the heavy laden to come and find rest unto their souls. I listen for
that doctrine of rest, the faith that gives the sin-bound peace. I hear
him speak of God, and they are indeed healing words of peace, intended
to quell a superstition and a controversy: “God is a spirit: the hour
cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.”[22] I
hear him speak of Duty: “The Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: This is the first
Commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. This do and thou shalt live.” I hear him speak of
Heaven: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of
Heaven. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed
are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” “The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation, neither shall they say lo here, or lo there, for behold the
kingdom of God is within you.”[23] I hear him speak of Sin, melted, and
transformed into penitence: “To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth
little. Thy faith hath saved thee. Go in peace. Sin no more, lest a
worse thing come upon thee.” I hear him speak of DISCIPLESHIP: “He that
hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he
that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and
will manifest myself to him.”[24] “Herein is my Father glorified, that
ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. If ye keep my
commandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s
commandments, and abide in His love. Ye are my friends if ye do
whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the
servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth: but I have called you friends:
for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto
you.” “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have
love one to another.”[25]
We turn now from the words to the life of the great Teacher, in the
endeavour to get a more definite idea of Duty, Discipleship, and Faith.
The character of Jesus is the best, fullest, and truest interpretation
of the words of Jesus. His life is his own translation of his own
precepts into the language of action. We surely cannot be far from the
true sources of Christianity when we first drink his words into our
hearts, and then follow him with reverent steps and with gazing eyes, to
watch his own illustrations of those words, to behold the spirit
breathing in the life, and from the fulness of his character to learn
the fulness of his precepts. Surely Christ embodied and impersonated his
own teachings. Surely the life of Christ is undoubted Christianity.
Surely his character is Christian Duty; and his destiny Christian Faith.
Surely he knew and exhibited the practical tendencies of his own
doctrines; and surely to set him up at the fountain-head of our moral
being, as God’s image to the conscience, and to strive in all things to
be like unto him, “whom we preach, warning every man and teaching every
man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ
Jesus,”—cannot be to preach “another gospel,” or to mistake fatally the
essentials of Discipleship. “If a man love me, he will keep my words,
and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our
abode with him.”[26] The definition of a Christian, when deduced from
the words and the life of the Christ himself, thus comes out to be—one
who TRUSTS himself in all things to that God of whom Jesus was the
image; and who CONFORMS himself in all things to that will of God of
which Jesus was the perfect expression. “This is life eternal that they
might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent.”[27]
Turn we now to a different quarter for an answer to our inquiry what it
is to be a Christian; from the one Master to the multitude of
professors; from the original image, distinct and bright, to the
transmitted reflections, all claiming to be genuine copies; from the
single voice, sweet and clear, to the confusion of jarring tongues; from
the pure fountain to the impure streams; from Christ to Christians. I am
entirely guiltless of the intention of satire, but it is quite
impossible to avoid the appearance of it in any attempt to give the
features of Christianity as they appear in the Christians of the day, in
those, that is, who claim to be Christians exclusively; for the tamest
truth of description excites ideas of the true Christ, so contrasted,
that it has without intention all the effect of sarcasm. Surely a
stranger to the only true source of our religion, examining its actual
forms as they exist in the world, and selecting its characteristics from
that which is largest and most prominent, would not be guilty of
misrepresentation, if he described a Christian as one who was shut up
within the narrowest circle of religious ideas; who identified himself
and his opinions with absolute Truth; who idolized himself and his sect
as the only friends of God; who was so unconscious of a liability to
err, that he breathed, unknowingly, an atmosphere of infallibility, and
insulted the Rights of other men, not more fallible than himself,
without perceiving the invasion;—one so used to arrogate to himself and
to his own party, all excellence and all truth, that he starts in
surprise, innocent of what can be meant, when he is told that he is
pressing on the liberties of other minds, who, with as deep an interest
as he can have in their own salvation, have searched into these things
and read differently the mind of God;—as one who regards a few
metaphysical propositions, confessedly unintelligible, as the only hope
of human salvation, and who, in the confidence of this faith, speaks to
his fellow men as if he had secret council with God; assumes to be on “a
religious level” nearer to the spirit of the Most High, who, on that
more elevated standing, drops more readily into his heart communications
from Heaven;—and who, when he pays any regard to other men at all, looks
down upon them from an eminence; assumes as proved their ignorance,
their errors, and their sins; insults their opinions; treats with no
brotherly respect the convictions of Truth and the dictates of
Conscience which to them are Voices from the living God; denies that
they have equal zeal for truth, or equal ability to discover it; scoffs
at the idea of religious equality, and looks amazed when others tell
him, though it be in apostolic words, that they will not “give place by
subjection, no, not for an hour;” and finally adds mockery to insult and
wrong, by telling the men whom he so treats, that all this is Christian
affection, and an interest in their souls.
It is painful to put last in order, not the true, but the untrue idea of
a Christian, and therefore to set us right, I will present the original
picture again in apostolic words. “Hereby we do know that we know him if
we keep his commandments.” “Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the
love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.” “If ye know
that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is
_born_ of him.” “Let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is
righteous, even as he is righteous.”[28]
There is still another way of bringing into comparison the spirit of
Christ and the character of that Christianity which assumes to itself to
be the only fruit of his spirit. We can compare the existing state of
the Christian world with the expectations of Jesus, with that state of
things to which he looked forward as the Reign of his spirit, the
Kingdom of the true Gospel upon earth. If the Christianity that prevails
has not realized the expectations of Christ, then its practical tendency
is evidently not in the direction of the true Gospel; it is, to the
extent of the failure, a departure from the power and character of the
original spirit. Christ could not be mistaken about the proper
operations of his own spirit; and the system whose operations do not
fulfil his promises cannot contain a full and perfect ministration of
his spirit. And this argument will amount to something like a
demonstration, if we can show, first, that this system which has failed
to realize the expectations of Jesus as to the condition of his Church,
has, for large tracts both of time and space, been the prevailing
influence of the Christian world, with nothing to obstruct it, so that
it has had full and free scope to work its own works, and to manifest
its own spirit; and secondly, if we can point to _the something_ in that
system, which manifestly has caused it to be destructive of those hopes,
and to work counter to this expectation of Christ.
There is no sublimer idea of Christianity than its delightful vision of
a UNIVERSAL CHURCH; the kingdom of the Gospel becoming a kingdom of
Heaven on earth; uniting the nations by a spiritual bond; in every heart
among the families of men kindling the same solemn ideas, and opening
the same living springs; subduing the differences of class and country
by the affinities of worship, by kindred images of Hope, of Duty, and of
God, becoming a meeting place for the thoughts of men; including every
form and variety of mind within that spiritual faith which leads onwards
to the infinite, yet presents distinct ideas to the heart of childhood,
and feeds the sources of an infant’s prayer; assembling in their
countless homes the Brotherhood of man around the spiritual altar of one
Father and one God, whose presence is a Temple wherein all are gathered,
and whose Spirit, dwelling in each heart, meets and returns the seekings
of all his children.
Such was the Christian vision of the CHURCH UNIVERSAL, of the union of
all good men in the worship of one God under the leadership of his
Image, growing up into him in all things, which is the head, even
Christ.
Such was the sublime idea that filled the mind of Jesus when he looked
forward in heavenly faith to the reign of his spirit, the kingdom of his
Gospel in the world. “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold;
them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold and one shepherd.”[29] “Neither pray I for these alone, but for
them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all
may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also
may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
Such also was the magnificent and healing view that filled the hearts of
the Apostles when they protested against burdens being laid upon
Christ’s freemen; rebuked the first manifestations of a sectarian
Christianity; and would acknowledge no distinctions between those who
were walking in the steps of the same master, and moulding their souls
into the same similitude of Christ. “There is one body, and one spirit,
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in you all. But unto every one is given grace, according to the
measure of the gift of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto
the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: from whom the whole
body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every
part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in
love.”[30] “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit. And
there are differences of administration, but the same Lord. And there
are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all
in all.” “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the
members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.
For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink
into one spirit.” “That there should be no schism in the body; but that
the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one
member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be
honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ
and members in particular.”[31]
Such is the Christian and Apostolic view of the Church of Christ on
earth. Turn we now to the actual Church. Is it a realization of this
divine image of the mind of Jesus? Is there in it a unity of spirit in
the bond of peace? Do the branches abide in the Vine? Do the scattered
and warring members make one spirit in one body? Alas! could there be a
sadder mockery, than to pretend to seek in our prevalent Christianity
any features corresponding to this divine conception?
Trinitarian Christianity is founded upon a principle directly opposed to
the realization of this prospect and vision of Jesus. It declares that
there shall be no unity but a doctrinal unity. It rejects that moral and
spiritual union which is the bond of peace, and which, as subsisting
among his followers, Christ looked forward to as the great proof to the
world that God had sent him;—and it declares that there shall be no
bonds but the bonds of Creeds. It breaks up the Christian world into
distinct and mutually repulsive parties; each claiming—not to be
disciples of the life of Christ—not to be one with him as he was one
with God, in will, aspiration, and purpose of soul, but—to be in
possession of the exact doctrinal ideas which constitute a saving faith,
of a certain intellectual process of belief, through which alone God
conducts the sinner into Heaven, and without which no soul, whatever may
be its spiritual oneness with Jesus and his Father, can be saved. Now it
is clear that a system such as this, requiring not a unity of spirit,
but a unity of opinion, cannot be that primitive Gospel, which,
according to the expectation of the Saviour, was to gather all the
believers under Heaven into a universal Church. Trinitarianism, as a
system, does not, and cannot, work out these fruits of the spirit of
Christ. It does not gather, but scatters; it does not collect into one;
but disunites, severs, and casts out. It disowns all harmony but the
harmony of metaphysical conceptions. It has no wider way of salvation,
no broader bond of peace, no more open road to Heaven, than a
coincidence of ideas, on the essence of the Deity, the mysterious modes
of the divine existence; a person in whom there are two natures; and
then, again, a nature in which there are three persons; and this as
preparatory to a moral process, in which a penalty is paid by
substitution for a guilt incurred by substitution. I ask not now whether
these ideas are true; whether they are realities of God’s mind; but I
ask, Have they ever been, or can they ever be, bonds of union for a
Church Universal? Are these the grand affinities towards which all
hearts shall be drawn; and which, breaking down our minor distinctions
into less than nothing, shall bind together the families of man in the
fellowship of one spirit? You all know, every man knows, that a
uniformity of opinion is an impossibility; that God has nowhere provided
the means for producing it; that nowhere does it exist; no—not in that
closely-fenced and strictly-articled Church, whose bosom at this very
hour is rent by heresies, even as, throughout all her history, they
shattered the unity and split the bosom even of infallible Rome; and
seeing, therefore, that there is no such doctrinal unity on earth, if
Jesus understood his own gospel, this cannot be the oneness with his
Father and himself, to which he looked forward as the Reign of his
Spirit in the world. And yet the Trinitarian Church of England, one of
whose Ministers when, on a late occasion, denouncing Unitarian heresies,
took the opportunity to give the relief of expression to his horror of
other heresies in the bosom of his own communion, and openly denounced
as heretics ordained clergymen and dignitaries of his own Church,—this
Church of England, notwithstanding all this, still claims to be the
great bulwark, among Protestants, of the unity of the Faith, the
dignified rebuker of schisms and sects; and still offers to the harassed
and distracted, to the rent and divided body of Christ, a creed—and what
a creed!—as the only bond of agreement and of peace.
Either, then, Christ miscalculated the workings of his own spirit, when
he contemplated a Universal Church as its natural fruit; or
Trinitarianism, when it destroys the spiritual union of the Church, a
moral oneness with Jesus and with his Father, by its demand for a
doctrinal conformity, is, to the extent of this operation, an
Antichrist, a departure from the healing and uniting spirit of the true
Gospel. Let me, for the sake of distinctness, put you in possession of
the exact difference between the fundamental principles of Unitarian and
Trinitarian Christianity. To a Unitarian the essentials of Christianity
are; that a man takes into his heart the moral image of Jesus, and loves
it supremely, and trusts it absolutely as his example of perfection, and
his leader up to God. If I was asked to define a Christian, I would say
that he was one who took Jesus Christ as he is presented in the gospels,
as his best idea of Duty, and his best programme of Heaven; the very
ideal of the religious spirit and life; the perfect image of God; and
the perfect model for man. These are a Unitarian’s essentials of
Christianity. To a Trinitarian the essentials of a Christian are these:
not that he receive Jesus as his image of God, his model of Duty, and
his type of Heaven,—but that he receive a certain metaphysical Creed,
certain doctrinal ideas, which “except he keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” Now, a union of all
_hearts_, under the leadership of one Christ, and in the love and
reverence of one moral Spirit, is a possible thing; but a union of all
_minds_ in the reception of certain metaphysical ideas which the minds
of Milton, of Newton, and of Locke, could not find, either in Reason or
in Scripture, is not a possible thing: and therefore my first assertion
of the “practical importance” of the Unitarian Controversy is to this
effect:—that Trinitarianism, by its fundamental principle of a doctrinal
conformity, a principle not known to the true gospel, is the originating
cause of all religious disunion and strife; the creator of all schisms,
sects, and heresies; the great and effectual antagonist of any
realization of that sublimest and most heavenly conception of the
Saviour—a Universal Church, cherishing the same Hopes, studying the same
Models, trusting to the same Image of God to guide us to His presence,—a
union of all hearts, seeking to be one, even as God and Christ were one,
in the fellowship of the same spirit. This is my heaviest indictment
against the practice of Trinitarianism, that it destroys Christ’s
delightful image of his Spirit’s Reign on earth, and creates in its
place—what shall I say?—the strife and disunion, the fears of the weak
and the arrogance of the coarse; the wranglings of creeds and the
absence of love; the heat of controversy and the chill of religion,
through the midst of which we are now passing.[32]
Trinitarianism has long been the prevailing influence of the Christian
world; it holds all the religious power of these countries in its own
hands; there is nothing external to prevent its carrying into existence
its own ideas; and if in the day of its power it has not wrought the
works and realized the hopes of Christ, it must be because it has worked
in another spirit, and preached another gospel; adding to the primitive
“glad tidings” of “repentance and remission of sins,” other conditions
which are not glad tidings, and which are not Christ’s. Now not only can
we point to the actual failure in proof of the absence of the true
spirit, _but we can lay our finger upon the element of mischief_, and
demonstrate it to be the parent of the evils we deplore, the frustrator
of the hope of Christ. Trinitarianism, by demanding a doctrinal
assimilation, an intellectual instead of a spiritual union, and
wielding, as it does, the prevailing influences of religion, has, in the
day of its power, forcibly prevented the formation of that universal
Church which Christ contemplated. And until it drops from its essentials
the doctrinal oneness, and substitutes in its place a spiritual oneness
derived from obedience to God as he is manifested in Jesus, it cannot
gather into one fold, and constitute the kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Now let us suppose, for a moment, that this doctrinal conformity is
required by Christianity, and that not TRUST in Christ, but belief of
Creeds, constitutes acceptance of the gospel. Then comes the question,
and a most perplexing one it would be, how can any one be sure that the
creed he trusts to contains exactly the ideas to which God has annexed
safety? Supposing creeds to be the essentials of Christianity, then how
can any Christian be sure that he has got the true creed? I can easily
conceive with what fear, with what apprehensions of mind, with what a
paralyzed intellect, and unconfiding heart, sinking the love of truth in
selfish terrors, a man trembling under the conviction that his
everlasting safety depended upon his reception of a doctrine, would come
to the examination of the Scriptures; I can well conceive how his
judgment would be gradually bereft of all calm and trustful
independence; how his fears and passions would slavishly draw him over
to whatever party predominat
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/49930