You some time ago requested me to give you the result of my inquiries into the tenets of the different religious sects which I had been acquainted with; and respecting which we had at different times conversed. In the time which has since elapsed I have been endeavouring, both to ascertain them more completely, and to compare them with what I conceive to be the true spirit of Christianity; but the subject has so grown as I proceeded, that even now I can only give you a very short, and I fear, in some cases, an imperfect notion of them. Yet the subject is one of deep interest; and as I feel convinced that if we looked a little closer into the differences between the established church and those who separate from it, both parties would find them smaller and less important than I propose therefore to show you by extracts from the works of the principal writers among the different religious sects, how they all agree in most of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; at the same time that I point out the evil consequences which I conceive would ensue were some of their tenets fully carried out into practice: and also to state wherein their peculiar opinions appear to me to be opposed to “the truth as it is in Christ Jesus,” so far as to prevent me from adopting them; though I can fully believe that those who hold these opinions in the abstract, may, notwithstanding, be excellent practical Christians. Firmly attached as I am to the Church of England, whose form of worship (allowing for the imperfections which naturally cling to all human institutions), I consider preferable to any other; I can still see much to admire in other persuasions and other ceremonies, mixed up, though it be, with some imperfections and error; and my love to the established church does not blind me to some matters which might “Of all the Christian graces,” says a quaint writer, “zeal is the most apt to turn sour;” and the observation is no less true than it is sad, for men too seldom remember that they must add to their faith knowledge, and that both are of no avail without the crowning gift of charity, We are too apt to hold each other accountable for all the consequences which can be logically deduced from an opinion, however extreme they may be: and then having persuaded ourselves that those abstract tenets which, by straining them to an extreme point, may have an evil effect, must have an evil effect on all who profess them,—we avoid those who differ from us on religious subjects, because we have assumed that they are actually immoral by virtue of their opinions; and thus we miss the opportunity of convincing ourselves of our mistake by a more intimate knowledge of their lives. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” says our Lord; but we seldom approach them closely enough to see the fruits. If we would be content to sink minor differences, and be satisfied that “in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him,” we should soon meet on better terms; for we do not hold at a distance from those on earth whom we expect to meet in heaven; and thanks be to God, there St. Paul recommends to the churches that they be “kindly affectioned one towards another, in honour preferring one another:” So clear is the command to exercise universal benevolence, that whatever obscurity there may be in other parts of Scripture, however men, even wise ones, may differ as to the real signification of certain passages in the Bible, here at least there can be no cavilling. It is intelligible to the most ignorant as well as the most learned, so that “the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein.” Archbishop Tillotson relates of Mr. Gouge, an eminent nonconformist, that he allowed men to differ from him in opinions that were “very dear to him;” and provided men did but “fear God and work righteousness,” he loved them heartily, how distant soever from him in judgment about things less necessary: “in all I have given the opinion of these two eminent men of different persuasions, partly to show that the evil I complain of is one of long standing; partly to justify my own opinion as to the remedy; namely, the paying more attention to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; less, to those minor differences which, from the very obscurity of the texts on which they are founded, come more frequently under discussion, and thus, from a mental operation somewhat analogous to that of the laws of perspective, seem large and important because they are close under our eyes, though they are in fact minute in comparison with those which we have not been examining so closely. Thus men inadvertently reverse the order of things, and zeal for the maintenance of peculiar tenets too often supersedes The Quakers, in their address to James II. on his accession, told him that they understood he was no more of the established religion than themselves. “We therefore hope,” said they, “that thou wilt allow us that liberty which thou takest thyself:” and it would be well if we took a hint from this, and reflected that we differ as much from other sects as they do from us, It is, however, needful to distinguish between the Christian spirit of forbearance towards those who differ from us in religious opinions, which Sincere belief must be the consequence of proof, without which we cannot believe truly; with it, we must. If then we content ourselves with the mere ipse dixit of others without seeking proof, our belief is the result of indolence, There will be some danger of losing our way These two views of the Divine dispensations towards man were first arrayed in actual hostility at the Synod of Dort in 1618, where the doctrines of James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of Leyden, who had followed the opinions of Luther and Melancthon, were condemned, and those of the Calvinistic church of Geneva affirmed. From that time the various sects of the reformed church have generally been known as Arminian or Calvinistic, according as they embraced the peculiar tenets of either party on the subject of man’s salvation: I shall therefore thus distinguish the two classes into which I propose to arrange them, though they may not follow out either in the whole of their opinions. I. Arminian. 1. Quakers. 2. Socinians and Unitarians. 3. Wesleyan Methodists. 4. General Baptists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Plymouth Brethren. 1. Presbyterians, Independents. 2. Particular Baptists, Sub and Supralapsarians, Sandemanians. 3. Calvinistic Methodists. Evangelical or Low Church. |