Page images
PDF
EPUB

was assailed with the charge of being no christian. He thus replies to his opponent.

"Can you justify your rashness in saying, that Unitarians are not christians, when, to be a christian, is to own the authority, and receive the doctrine of Christ according to their best judgment, which, one might think, a charity as little as yours might readily grant they do, who in their belief go against all temporal motives, and bear the heavy wrath of their persecutors? Do they not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The same God that the Apostles worshipped, who bowed their knees to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?

66

Nay, do they not worship the same God, that our Lord Christ himself, our great pattern, worshipped? And are they not christians in their worship, who worship as Christ himself did? I pray, who are christians, if not these? Did he not say, My God and your God; that is, you must have and own the same God with me; or, you and I have the same object of our faith and joy? Do you pretend to show, that even Jesus Christ worshipped a Son, or a Holy Ghost? Show it, and they will imitate him. In the mean time, if having just the same God and object of supreme worship, as the man Christ Jesus had, must make them not christians, they envy not any who claim the name of the only christians on the contrary ground."*

This is the reasoning of a man, who spoke from experience and feeling, as well as from Scripture,

* Emlyn's Works, Vol. II. p. 93.

conscience, nature, and common sense. It shows in a strong light the folly of denying the name of christian to those, who imitate the Saviour and Apostles in their faith and worship, and who do not hesitate to suffer any calamity for the sake of that very name, which the officious charity of their brethren would take from them.

In short, there seems to be something extremely positive and dogmatical in selecting any definite number of doctrines, and calling them the essence of christianity, and in passing on all persons not receiving them the censure of exclusion from the christian name and fellowship. It is hardly possible, for any one to do this, without assuming it as an immutable principle, that he stands on the unassailable eminence of truth. It is natural enough, that every person should think himself right, and all the rest of the world wrong; but it requires a great stretch of confidence in one's own opinions to induce him to set himself up as a universal judge, and to endeavour to wrest that liberty from another, which is inherent in his moral nature.

This, in protestant countries, is going much beyond popish infallibility. The Pope traces back his descent from the Apostles, and believes in the continually guiding influence of the Great Head of the Church, in preserving the true faith among men. According to the Catholic system, there is some reason for believing in the infallibility of men, who are thought to be divinely appointed, as depositaries of the true faith. Protestants have given up this no

tion, and now to act on it, is absurd.* Chillingworth has pertinently said; "Require of christians only to believe Christ, and to call no man master but him only; let those leave claiming infallibility, that have no title to it; and let them, that in their words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their actions." If we must have dictators in faith, let us go back to Popes and Councils. We shall then at least have the advantage of antiquity and numbers. But while we profess to walk in the light and liberty of conscience, and to call no man master but Christ, let us think, and reason, and judge for ourselves, and not dictate to others. Let us act the part of fallible, as well as rational and accountable beings.

It is a bold and unjustifiable assumption of authority in any one, to decide on the faith of another, or to declare whether this other believes enough to be called a christian. It is a case, which is exclusively concerned with the conscience and conviction of the individual. Whoever is confident, that he has made the best exertions of which he is capable, and examined with seriousness, sincerity, a firm reliance on di

* In reading some parts of your Reply, one is forcibly reminded of a Dedication to the Pope, prefixed to a satirical piece written by Sir Richard Steele. "The most sagacious persons," says the writer in addressing the Pope, "have not been able to discover any other difference between us, as to the main principle of all doctrine, government, worship, and discipline, but this one, that you cannot err in any thing you determine, and we never do. That is, in other words, you are INFALLIBLE, and we are ALWAYS IN THE RIGHT, We cannot but esteem the advantage to be exceedingly on our side in this case, because we have all the benefits of infallibility, without the absurdity of pretending to it, and without the uneasy task of maintaining a point so shock ing to the understanding of men."

vine aid, and a proper sense of the importance of the subject, and then confesses himself to be a christian; or, in other words, whoever is conscientious in holding what he believes to be a true christian faith,— every such person is entitled to the name, and it is equally an encroachment on the claims of christian liberty, and the rights of conscience, to attempt to take it from him. It is in violation of the laws of peace, without sanction in the instructions and example of Christ, and in no accordance with the spirit of the Gospel.

LETTER II.

On Charity, as explained in the Scriptures, and tised by the first Christians,

SIR,

prac

We come now to discuss a very important branch of christian faith and duty. We are to inquire into the nature and extent of that Charity, which the Saviour so repeatedly urged on his followers, and which the Apostles never ceased to inculcate. The common notions on this subject you think incorrect. There is a belief, you say, that "charity consists in entertaining a favourable opinion of others, however widely they may differ from us on the most essential

points; in supposing, that they have inquired after truth as candidly as we have done; and in taking for granted, that there is as much reason to hope they will finally be accepted of God, as that we ourselves shall be accepted." To this sense of the term you take great exceptions, and affirm, that "though current enough in common society, among a thousand other popular crudities, it is certainly not found in Scripture, and ought to receive no countenance from any accurate thinker." By this it seems, that the mass of mankind are mistaken respecting one of the fundamental principles of the christian religion.

I

We proceed to consider your mode of rectifying this mistake. Let us commence with your definition. "The word charity, as used in Scripture is equivalent to the word love. To exercise charity towards another, in the language of the Bible, is to love him. may, therefore, exercise the most perfect charity towards one, whose principles I reprobate, and whose conduct I abhor, and ought to abhor." Before I examine the merits of this definition, as founded on the language and spirit of Scripture, allow me to ask one or two questions. You make the term charity exactly synonymous with love. When you speak of loving a man, what is the specific tion? Is not this comprised in such of his moral qualities, as come within your notice, and gain your approbation? Take a man's principles and his conduct away, and what is left, which you can either love or hate? His principles are interwoven with all the moral elements of his nature, and his conduct

object of your affec

« PreviousContinue »