a?ap? which is the word generally translated charity in the New Testament means affectionate regard. The distinction between charity and almsgiving is well laid down by St. Clement of Alexandria. “Charity,” says he, “leads to the sharing our good things with others; but this is not in itself charity, but only our outward sign of that feeling.” See 1 Cor. ix. 19, 20. Rom. xii. 10. “No national prejudices, no religious differences could hinder our Saviour from doing good. We should consider that men’s understandings naturally are not all of the same size and capacity, and that this difference is greatly increased by different education, different employments, different company, and the like. No man is infallible. We are liable to errors perhaps as much as others. The very best men may sometimes differ in opinion, as St. Paul ‘withstood St. Peter to the face;’ and if there was such a difference between two of the chiefest of the Apostles, well may there be between inferior mortals. About modes of faith there will always be dispute and difference; but in acts of mercy and kindness all mankind may and should agree.”—Newton. “In fact, all the religious persecutions in the world, all the penalties and inflictions upon those who differ from ourselves, however conscientiously, take their rise from an imperfect and erroneous notion of what really constitutes the glory of God, and the manner in which we best can assist its display and extension. The angels at the birth of Christ sang that the glory of God was in unison with ‘Peace on earth, and good will towards men.’—‘No!’ said the Schoolman, ‘the glory of God consists in thinking of the Deity as we think.’—‘No!’ said the Inquisitor, ‘the glory of God consists in worshiping as we prescribe.’—‘No!’ said the Covenanters, ‘the glory of God consists in exterminating those whom we call his enemies.’ Mistaken men! who thus propose to honour the God and Father of the universe, the merciful God, and the gracious Father of all his rational creatures! Instead of perusing with delight and conviction the plain declaration contained in our Sacred records, too many Christians have in almost every age passed over the characteristics of kind design throughout nature: they have mistaken or forgotten the clear delineations of Divine Mercy and Goodness in the Book of Grace, and have had recourse to the narrowed circle of their own prejudices.”—Maltby’s Sermons. It would be well if Rom. xiv. were more attentively studied and more universally practised among Christians. They have in consequence been sometimes called “Seekers.” Gough’s History of the Quakers. Vol. i. p. 139. Probably their resolute refusal to pay tithes and other dues brought on them some of these punishments. “Keep the Sabbath holy,” says Luther, “for its use both to body and soul; but if any where the day is made holy for the mere day’s sake; if any where any one sets up its observance upon a Jewish foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it, to do any thing that shall remove this encroachment on the Christian spirit and liberty.” This is language which may be easily misunderstood and perverted from Luther’s meaning; but it was uttered by him from a jealousy of Sabbatical superstition. Matt. v. “There is an unreasonable, uncharitable, and superstitious notion that a soldier, so far as his profession is concerned, is ‘of the world;’ and that a man who dies in the field of battle is necessarily less prepared for his change than one who dies in his bed. These feelings, which have sadly tended to degrade and impoverish the mind of modern Europe . . . to make armies what they are told they must be; and therefore to make them dangerous by depriving them of any high restraining principles, have been greatly encouraged by the tone which religious men of our day have adopted from the Quakers.” Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ. Moral education, in spite of all the labours of direct instruction, is really acquired in hours of recreation. Sports and amusements are, and must be the means by which the mind is insensibly trained: ‘Men are but children of a larger growth;’ they will have their pleasures; and unless care be taken, the sermon of the church or chapel will be neutralized by the association of the tavern and the raceground. There must be safety valves for the mind, i.e. there must be means for its pleasurable, profitable, and healthful exertion; those means it is in our power to render safe and innocent; in too many instances they have been rendered dangerous and guilty.” Dr. Taylor. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. (1 Tim. iv. 4.) Extend this maxim, apply it to the several means of enjoyment, either supposed or real, that the world presents to us. Those pleasures from which we cannot unreservedly arise, and thank our Maker; those pursuits which mar our devotions, and render us unwilling or afraid to come before Him, cannot be innocent. It would be no easy matter to lay down, as applicable to all, a rule as to how far conformity with the world is admissible, and where the Christian must stop: for as the habits and tempers and propensities of men differ, so also do their temptations and their danger. Thus through the rule by which one would stand securely, another would as certainly fall. Lectures on the Church Catechism. See 1 Tim. iv. 4. “A reverend Doctor in Cambridge was troubled at his small living at Hoggenton (Oakington) with a peremptory Anabaptist, who plainly told him, ‘It goes against my conscience to pay you tithes except you can show me a place of Scripture whereby they are due unto you.’ The Dr. returned, ‘Why should it not go as much against my conscience that you should enjoy your nine parts for which you can show no place in Scripture?’ To whom the other rejoined, ‘But I have for my land deeds and evidences from my fathers, who purchased and were peaceably possessed thereof by the laws of the land.’ ‘The same is my title,’ said the Doctor, ‘tithes being confirmed unto me by many statutes of the land, time out of mind.’” Fuller’s Church History, Book II. John iii. 16. 2 Cor. v. 19. 1 Tim. ii. 4. 1 John iv. 9, 10. Rom. ii. 15. John i. 9. See also 1 John ii. 1, 2. 2 Heb. ii. 9. Luke xii. 48. Mosh. Ecc. Hist. Cent. xvi. Sect. iii. Ib. Some of the passages of this Catechism are quoted by Mosheim, which differ very little from the doctrine of the primitive church: all that can be noticed is, that they omit a distinct recognition of the divinity of Christ. “Fausti Socini Senensis Opera omnia,” vol. i. p. 561. These works form a part of the “Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum qui Unitarii appellantur.” Irenopoli post anno dom. 1656. It is remarkable that persona should so often be confounded with individual. Persona in its original sense was the mask of the actor, through which the sound came. The same actor might wear many personÆ. If Socinus had recollected this, he might have spared himself the trouble of controverting a notion never maintained by the orthodox, i.e. that the Deity was individually divided. Vide Appendix. Small Books &c. No. VII. p. 21, &c. p??? ??a? ?e??s?a? ??? e??. John. x. 30. John xiv. 9, 10. 2 Cor. v. 19. 1 Tim. ii. 5. Athanasian Creed. John v. 30. The following are extracts from the “Book of Common Prayer reformed,” professing to have been a selection made by “the late Rev. Theophilus Lindsey for the use of the congregation in Essex Street”—and as a liturgy is generally allowed to be a fair exponent of the doctrines of those who use it—perhaps we may assume that the violent and reprehensible expressions made use of by some few persons of this persuasion, are not such as would be acknowledged by the congregations of Unitarians in general.
Form of baptism. “I baptize thee into (e??) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
“Almighty and ever blessed God, by whose providence the different generations of mankind are raised up to know thee and to enjoy thy favour for ever; grant that this child now dedicated to thee as the disciple of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, may be endued with heavenly virtues . . . and that we may daily proceed in all virtue and goodness of living, till we come to that eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our Lord.”
Order for the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Confession, the same as in the liturgy of the English church as far as “we do heartily repent and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings, the remembrance of which is grievous unto us. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; forgive us all that is past: and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life to the honour and glory of thy name.” The absolution is the same with the trifling change of us for you. The sentences following are the same till “Hear also what St. John saith,” where the text 1 John i. 8, 9, is substituted.
Prayer before the minister receives the communion. “Almighty God, our heavenly Father, by whose gracious assistance and for our benefit, thy beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ, was obedient even to the death upon the cross; who did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memorial of his death until his coming again; hear us, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we may receive this bread and wine in grateful remembrance of his death and sufferings, and of thy great mercy to mankind in sending him, thy chosen messenger, to turn us from darkness to light, from vice to virtue, from ignorance and error to the knowledge of thee, the only true God, whom to know is life everlasting.”
Form of administration. “Take and eat this bread in remembrance of Christ”—“Take and drink this wine in remembrance of Christ.”
In the daily service many prayers are omitted, so as to make the service much shorter. The exhortation and confession are the same; for the absolution is substituted “Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known and from whom no secrets are hid; purify the thoughts of our hearts that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name through Christ our Lord.”—It would be useless to multiply extracts—enough has been given to show the doctrine of the Unitarian congregations who use this liturgy. Priestly’s “Discourses on Various Subjects,” p. 419. See also p. 14, &c. and Prefatory Discourse, p. 93. Channing’s Discourse on preaching Christ. Channing’s Works. On the great purpose of Christianity. Channing’s Character of Christ. Channing’s Sunday School. Channing’s Charge at the Ordination of Rev. R. C. Waterston. Channing On Infidelity. Channing’s System of Exclusion. John Wesley was born in 1703. “I rode over to a neighbouring town,” says Wesley, “to wait upon a justice of peace, a man of candour and understanding; before whom I was informed their angry neighbours had carried a whole waggon load of these new heretics.” But when he asked, “what they had done,” there was a deep silence, for that was a point their conductor had forgot. At length one said, “Why they pretend to be better than other people, and besides they pray from morning till night.” Mr. S--- asked, “But have they done nothing besides?” “Yes, Sir,” said an old man, “an’t please your worship they have convarted my wife; till she went among them she had such a tongue, and now she is as quiet as a lamb.” “Carry them back,” replied the justice, “and let them convert all the scolds in the town.”—(Wesley’s Journal.) Watson’s Life of Wesley, page 484. Lackington. “Who does as he would be done by, in buying or selling? particularly selling horses? Write him a knave that does not, and the Methodist knave is the worst of all knaves.”—Wesley’s Large Minutes, Q. 13. Snuff-taking and drams are expressly forbidden. In May 1776, an order was made in the House of Lords, “That the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Excise do write circular letters to all such persons whom they have reason to suspect to have plate, as also to those who have not paid regularly the duty on the same.” In consequence of this order the Accountant-general for household plate sent a copy of it to John Wesley. The answer was as follows:
Sir,
I have two silver teaspoons in London and two at Bristol: this is all the plate which I have at present, and I shall not buy any more while so many round me want bread.
I am Sir, your most humble servant,
John Wesley.
“I used my prayers,” says the author of the ‘Bank of Faith,’ “as gunners do swivels; turning them every way as the cases required.” Wesley relates in his Journal that “By prayer he used to cure a violent pain in his head,” &c. This writer, the celebrated Lackington the bookseller, relates the following occurrence soon after he turned Methodist. “One Sunday morning at eight o’clock, my mistress seeing her sons set off, and knowing they were gone to a Methodist meeting, determined to prevent me from doing the same, by locking the door; on which in a superstitious mood I opened the Bible for direction what to do, and the first words I read were these, “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” This was enough for me, so without a moment’s hesitation I ran up two pair of stairs to my own room, and out of the window I leapt to the great terror of my poor mistress. My feet and ancles were most intolerably bruised, so that I was obliged to be put to bed; and it was more than a month before I recovered the use of my limbs. I was then ignorant enough to think that the Lord had not used me very well; and I resolved not to put so much trust in him for the future. My rash adventure made a great noise in the town, and was talked of many miles round. Some few admired my prodigious strength of faith; but the major part pitied me as a poor ignorant, deluded, and infatuated boy.” Wesley’s Works, vol. xii. p. 49. Some of Wesley’s expressions, when confronted with each other, appear incompatible; in such cases the main drift of the writer must always be considered; for it is much more usual to fail in expressing our meaning than to express contradictory opinions: since the latter implies a cerebral defect verging on insanity, the former merely results from a faulty style. Scripture does not any where warrant us in saying “the moment a penitent sinner,” &c.; but requires from us a proof of this belief by actions conformable to it. God has promised us immortality through his Son, only if we not merely believe, but “do that which is lawful and right.” Wesley censured some of his preachers for pushing the doctrine of perfection too far. Wesley’s Works, vol. viii. p. 219. and vol. xi. p. 415. So called from their habit of rebaptizing those who entered their communion. They were afterwards called AntipÆdobaptists, from their objection to pÆdo or infant baptism; and finally, the English habit of abbreviation of words at all commonly used, contracted the word into Baptist. Mosheim. Ecc. Hist. Cant. XVI. Sect, iii. Part 2. Milton belonged to the class of Anti-Trinitarian General Baptists. That the body of Jesus was not derived from the substance of the blessed Virgin, but created in her womb by an omnipotent act of the Holy Spirit. V. Mosheim’s Ecc. Hist. All who baptize infants may be termed pÆdo-baptists; the word is derived from the Greek p??? a child or infant, and ?pt? to baptize. Yet the bishop ought to have known that baptism by immersion was practised in the church for many centuries, and the rubric of our common prayer leaves the option of immersion or aspersion. Condor’s View. p. 380. Marriage is enumerated in one of the Moravian hymns amongst the services of danger, for which the United Brethren are “to hold themselves prepared.”
“You as yet single are but little tried,
Invited to the supper of the bride,
That like the former warrior each may stand
Ready for land, sea, marriage, at command.”
See Latrobe’s edition of Spangenburgh’s Exposition of Christian Doctrine. Litany of the New Church. Office of ordination, p. 151. Rom. xxi. 27. 1 Cor. i. 3. John i. 18. John vi. 46. Liturgy of the New Church Office of Baptism, p. 58.
“Jesus the Fountain of Life and Light,” p. 12. In some places it is not till the end of a fortnight. Examination of the opinions of the Plymouth Brethren. The following is a sample from one of their published works: “The first eclogue of Virgil has always appeared to me to express most felicitously the pleasures of a pastoral life as we too frequently see it in these days. With what force the following lines describe the grateful feeling of a young clergyman, who is recounting the benefits conferred on him by his patron:
O Meliboee, Deus nobis hÆc otia fecit.
Namque erit ille mihi semper Deus—
Ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum
Ludere, qÆe vellem, calamo permisit agresti.
My patron shall always be a divinity to me, for he put me into this life of ease when he gave me this gem, the prettiest living in England. He gave me this easy duty, so that I can let my flock wander wheresoever it may please them, as you see they do; while I myself do just what 1 like, and occasionally amuse myself with a pianoforte by Stoddart, that cost eighty-five guineas.”
“He (the congregational minister) is now, in his own opinion, the one man of the whole body of believers in all the services of the sanctuary. He utters all their sentiments of faith and doctrine, and offers up all their prayers! How can he justify the position he has assumed as an usurper? yea as a grievous wolf! in that he has swallowed up all the gifts of the Holy Ghost in the voracity of his selfishness,” &c. It is not thus that the “unity of the church,” which they profess to desire is likely to be cemented. Bishop Jewel, in his “Defence of his apology for the Church of England,” says, that “the term Calvinist was in the first instance applied to the Reformers and the English Protestants as a matter of reproach by the Church of Rome.” Whatever difference may have subsisted between Luther and Calvin on the subject of Divine decrees, no language can be stronger than that in which Luther insists upon the moral impotence of man’s depraved nature in opposition to the Pelagian doctrine of freewill. It is difficult to reconcile this doctrine with 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. 1 Tim. ii. 6. 2 Pet. iii. 9. Rom. viii. 32. 1 Tim. iv. 10. &c. The best account of their system is to be found in “The Assembly’s Catechism,” which is taught their children. To this sect belongs more particularly the doctrine of Atonement, or, “that Christ by his death made satisfaction to the Divine justice for the Elect; appeasing the anger of the Divine Being, and effecting on his part a reconciliation.” That thus Christ had, as they term it, “the sin of the Elect laid upon him.” But some of their teachers do not hold this opinion, but consider Christ’s death as simply a medium through which God has been pleased to exercise mercy towards the penitent. “The sacrifice of Christ,” says Dr. Magee, “was never deemed by any (who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement), to have made God placable: but merely viewed as the means appointed by Divine wisdom by which to bestow forgiveness.” To this it may be further added, that the language used throughout the Epistles of St. Paul with regard to the redemption of man, is that of the then familiar slave market. Man is “bought with a price” from his former master, Sin, for the service of God. The scholar who will consult Romans vi. will see immediately that all the metaphors used are those of purchase for military service; “Your members,” says he, ver. 13, “shall not be the arms (?p?a) of unrighteousness used for the service of sin; but the arms (?p?a) of righteousness for God.” And ver 23, t? ??? ?????a t?? ?a?t?a?, ???at??? t? d? ?a??sa t?? ?e??, ???, a?????? ?? ???t? ??s?? t? ????? ???. i.e. The rations of sin are death, but the donative of God is eternal life, by means of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is impossible to express more clearly that it was not the wrath of God which required to be appeased by the great sacrifice—the slave was bought by Him for Himself—the price was of course paid to another. Much misunderstanding has arisen from the careless interpretation of these and the like passages, whose phraseology has become obsolete along with the practice of buying and selling slaves, at least in this country. Matt. xvi. 27. Matt. xviii. 14. Vide Exod. xxxiii. 14, et seq. According to the Calvinistic doctrine above stated, character has no concern whatever with their call; ergo, if this is right, St. Paul is wrong, and mankind are called with respect of persons. “This system (Calvinism) by setting aside the idea of a human will, leaves the doctrine of Divine Will barren and unmeaning; the idea of a personal ruler disappears, and those most anxious to assert the government of the Living God have been the great instruments in propagating the notion of an atheistical necessity.” Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ. Hopkins on the New Birth. 1 John iii. 7–10, see also v. 21 of the same chapter, where our confidence towards God is shown to depend on the judgment of our own consciousness of wrong or well doing. The whole chapter is well worth the study of every Christian. I take this from books, not having personal acquaintance with the Presbyterians of Ireland: and such is the confusion generally made by authors between Arianism, Socinianism, and Unitarianism, that it is difficult to know which is meant. As a large proportion of the modern Presbyterians have embraced Unitarian doctrines, it seems improbable that the Irish should have adopted those of Arius, though my author uses the term Arian as applied to the doctrine of the seceders. See “The Use and Abuse of Creeds and Confession of Faith,” by the Rev. Charles James Carlile, Dublin, 1836. “The Irish Church and Ireland,” p. 66–68, and “A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Associate Synod in Ireland and Scotland in the affair of the Royal Bounty,” by James Bryce. Belfast, 1816. Although the excellent Bishop Heber’s mind was deeply imbued with devotional feelings, he considered a moderate participation in what are usually called worldly amusements, to be allowable and blameless. “He thought,” says his biographer, “that the strictness which made no distinction between things blameable only in their abuse, and the practices which were really immoral, was prejudicial to the interests of true religion; and on this point his opinion remained unchanged to the last. His own life indeed was a proof that amusement so participated in, may be perfectly harmless, and no way interfere with any religious or moral duty.” “Rowland Hill, in his theological opinions, leaned towards Calvinism, but what is called Hyper-calvinism, he could not endure. In a system of doctrine he was follower of no man, but drew his sermons fresh from a prayerful reading of the Bible. He was for drawing together all the people of God wherever they could meet, and was willing to join in a universal communion with Christians of every name. When, on one occasion, he had preached in a chapel, where none but baptized adults (i.e. baptized after attaining years of discretion), were admitted to the sacrament, he wished to have communicated with them, but was told respectfully, ‘You cannot sit down at our table.’ He calmly replied, ‘I thought it was the Lord’s table.’” Sidney’s Life of R. Hill, p. 422, 3rd Edit. Simeon’s Works, Vol. III. p. 101, &c. Simeon’s Works, Vol. III. p. 333. Exod. xxxii. 4. Vide Colossians ii. 18, 19. 2 Cor. v. 15. 1 Tim. ii. 6. 2 Pet. iii. 9. Rom. ii. 6–11. Rom. xiv. 5.
