Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]


rurselves respecting a fuct and its explanation. We have sail, in reference to the Trinity, “ prove the fact and it will not be disputed.". Notwithstanding this, and his quotation of our very words, he has the matchless effrontery to affirm that we say, “its being incomprehensible is a sufficient reason for rejecting it!" He farther asserts, after having distinctly stated that the doctrine of , the Trinity is a doctrine of inference that he “has proved the fact from the Scriptures, and that we will not believe it, because it is incomprehensible.On the contrary, it is stated in the Essay, (p. 101, and of the second edition, p. 64,) that the Unitarian ailmits “ that the incomprehensibility of a doctrine may ve no just ground of objection.” But Mr. C.contends, that he “has proved the fact ?" Risum teneatis, amici? We should as soon believe that he has unsphered a fixed star. And how has he proved it ? By telling us, that the doctrine of the Trinity is “ doctrine of inference, and of indirect intimation *** rather than a doctrine directly and explicitly declareil.” Proved the fact ! What pity that he had not been born fifteen centuries ago, that his proof might have preserved the Christian world from the controversy, in which it has ever since been so unprofitably engaged ? But his proof is of such a subtle and intangible consistence, as not to be seen, felt, or understood by any minds, which are not gifted with his own “enviable faculty." That which the most eminent divines of the Roman Catholic Church bare acknowledged to be incapable of any proof by Scripture, or by any thing but tradition and church authority, is now made plain by a disciple of Calvin ! That which the most erudite Protestants have been obliged to abandon to mystery, as impenetrable and inexplicable, is now demonstrated by the Rev. James Carlile, Minister of the Scots Church, Mary's Abbey, Dublin !—Io, triumphe ! We shall expect soon to hear that, by means of his occult quality, he has discovered the perpetual motion, the philosopher's stone, and the elixir of life. Proved the fact ! He has betrayed the cause which, in a foolish spirit of knight errantry, he came forth to defend. The deepest degradation and hopelessness, in which any cause could be plunged, would be condemnation to such ac!vocacy as that by which the doctrine of the Trinity has been exposed to scorn and ridicule in the pages of the Rev. James Carlile.

To accompany our author farther would be superfluous. We have cited enough of his book to enable the reader to form a tolerably just opinion of its merits. Some of our fair and sensitive Unitarian friends will think, perhaps, that we have expressed ourselves strongly on this subject; we admit it, but not more strongly than the subject required. In the cause of great and important truths, we can yield nothing to complaisance; we make no compromise with error, especially when it is defended by disingenuous arts, and an ostentatious parade of learning without the reality ; least of all should we feel disposed to be lenient to any antagonist who evinces a reckless disregard for the name and character of individuals infinitely his superiors. What must we think, and what should we say of the writer who, without any just pretensions to the critic's chair, says of R. Roy that he is extremely

ignorant of the Hebrew language ?--who, with lordly disdain, speaks of a Dr. Young--(ilid he ever hear of one John Milton?)— the learned Bishop of Clonfert, who, as a scholar, was an ornament to his university, and, as a divine, an honour to his church ?-a writer, who defames Unitarians as capable of forging bis own abominable creed, with a view to misrepresent Calvinism, forsooth, that dark anti-christian system, of which no portraiture has yet been presented to the world half so bideous as the original ?*_and who himself commits, to a flagrant degree, the very offence which he condemns ? For how does he treat Dr. Priestley, that truly Christian divine and excellent philosopher, whose name is em: balmed in the history of science, and which will be remembered with gratitude for ages after his calumniators and persecutors have sunk into oblivion-Priestley, who stood boldly forward as the champion of Christianity, and in its defence threw down the gauntlet of defiance to the celebrated author of “ The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”—Priestley, of whom it might be truly asserted, that he had bis whole conversation in this world,


• As Dr. Wardlaw is the Magnus Apollo of Mr. C. we recommend to his consideration the following extract from the Christian Pioneer, for December, 1830. It occurs in an artiele entitled Orthodoxy, and its advocate Dr. Wardlaw, in conflict with the Vew Testament :

“ One of the most revolting principles of Calvinism, is fully set forth in the discourse of which we are speaking : • The delight of God in Christ is manifested in the perdition of those that perish, as well as in the salvation of those that are saved,' is a proposition which this Divine lays down, and labours to establish. There is, in these few words, enough to sink any system whatever. If proved from Scripture, Scripture is thereby disproved ; if a pari of Christianity, Christianity is not of God :- but they are, thank God! Calvinism, not the Gospel. The benevolent Jesus is not answerable for so fou) a libel on the Creator. Man's damnation God's delight! Horrible idea! The God of Jesus delighting in the eternal torments of the vast majority of his creatures ! If this be not blasphemy, it is something worse.* Hell shall bear testimony to this,' viz. God's delight in Christ, • well as heaven The lesson shall be read for ever by the fires of Tophet, as well as by the light of Paradise.' And this is said of God, who is love,' and Christ who was tenderness itself! This said in the 19th century, and men expected to believe it! Surely, this is, now-a-days, un peu de trop. We would advise Dr. Wardlaw (and Mr. C.) to abandon Calvinism, and preach the Gospel, which they would do well to remember, whenever their Calvinistic impressions are too strong for their good sense and humanity, means “good news'-'glad tidings' — peace on earth'-good will to man?"

Let us hear no more of Unitarians misrepreseriting Calvinism. We can• not describe it in any colours more dark, nor in any forms more hideously revolting, than those in which it is pourtrayed by its own advocates. The style employed by Mr. C. in describing the God of the Calvinists, forms an exact parallel to that employed by the Rev. Dr. Buchanan in describing Juggernaut, the Moloch of Hindostan. The former says “ The Lord (i.e. his Lord) views the whole race (of mankind) as a king does a rebel army.

Не takes no cognizance of the diversities of character that may be in such an army," (see p. 147.) Dr. B. says, “ So great a God is this, (Juggernaut) that (on the day of his great feast) the dignity of high cast disappears before him. The great king recognizes no distinction of rank among his subjects; all men are equal in his presence.”-(Ind. Researches, 3rd Ed. p. 27.) But it is only distinction of rank that Juggernaut does not recognize, and in this there is some justice. The God of Mr. C. takes no cognizance of diversities of



*: in simplicity and godly sincerity ?”. After affirming of this great philosopher and admirable Christian, that he had exposed his learning to utter contempt, and forfeited all claims to the character of an honest man, he endeavours to fix upon him the foul imputation of having declared of Christ that he was “a sinful

Now, if Mr. C. has any regard for his own character, he will either prove, or retract this charge. He will prove it, not by inference, as he says he has proved the Trinity, but by referring us to the book, chapter, page, and the ipsissisima verba in which Dr. Priestley has made that declaration, or else he will avow that it is a slander, fabricated to injure the reputation, and destroy the influence of a great and a good man's name. Perhaps, on consideration, he may find that he made a slight mistake in attributing to Dr. Priestley what, some may think, more properly belongs to his own orthodox friend, the celebrated Rev. E. Irving, who describes the human nature, " which the Son of Man was clothed upon uithal, (as) bristling thick and strong with sin, like the hairs upon the porcupine!"

We now take leave of Mr. C. without any personal feeling of unkindness. We have spoken of him freely as an author, and as we thought the interests of truth exacted. We have pronounced

character, and in this there is such a flagrant disregard to morality and right, as would put the priests of Juggernaut to shame if imputed to their God, and make them rise indignantly to repel the imputation as a slander. The barbarous superstition of Hindostan, sacrifices children “ by drowning them or exposing them to sharks and crocodiles." The more barbarous superstition of Calvinisin, condemns unregenerate children with their parents to the most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hellfire, for ever !and tells us, that “ there are thousands of them, not a span long, frying in hell, being appointed as vessels of wrath"-and all for the glory of God! We ourselves, though holding the Gospel of peace and salvation in our hands and to our hearts, are denied the name of Christian, sentenced to the same hard fate, and damned “soul and body in hell-fire for ever," as heretics and soul destroyers, because we cannot believe such blas. phemous abominations. How long will men, who have the least claim to sense and reason, suffer themselves to be “mocked, insulted, and abused ??

* When Dr. Priestley revolted from the principles of Calvinism, in which he had been educated, it is surprising, that in his recoil from its impious doginas, he was not hurried into infidelity. But determined to follow the Apostle's advice to “prove all things,” he informs us, that he “became a High Arian, next a Low Arian, and in a little time a Socinian of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fullible and peccable.” This, as quoted from that chaotic mass of theological trash, called “ Magee on the Atonement," is the passage, we presume, which has furnished such authors as Mr. Carlile, who do not, or will not understand it, with a pretence for imputing to Dr. Priestley opinions which he never held nor expressed. We believe that no divine in existence would have more cheerfully subscribed to the Apostle's declarations, that Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead;" and that though he was “in all points tempted like as we are, yet (was he) with out sin."

Do not the most orthodox writers admit, that Christ had a human nature, and was tempted ? What constitutes human nature ? Is it infallibility or impeccability? A being who, by virtue of his physical constitution, is infallible and impeccable, partakes not of the constitution of

upon his book a sentence not more severe than merited and jusł. If he act wisely he will in future confine his lucubrations to his own pulpit and to his own people, who can understand them, and ask no more questions about the o accredited pastors" of other congregations feeding their flock with negatives. But should he have the temerity to come again before the public, he will do well to remember that those principles of reason and common sense, which he has laboured to explode, are likely to become the fashion. The reign of occult qualities is long since past, and that of mystery is hastening to a close. Unitarian Christianity, the simple and beautiful, the heart-dilating, the mind-expanding religion taught by Christ and his Apostles, is prevailing more and more ; and all such efforts as his to throw obstacles in its way, and retard its progress, serve only to accumulate its volume, and roll it forward with accelerating speed.

humanity. We affirm, on the highest authority, that there is none good but God-none wise but God—therefore none infallible-none impeccable but God. A being who cannot be tempted, has no more virtue in resisting temptation, than Mount Atlas in witiistanding the breath of a zephyr. The virtue of Christ lay in his moral, not in his physical superiority to temptation, How could he have been tempted in all points, or in any point, like as we are, if no part of his constitution was liable to assault? Can the blind be tempted by beauty, or the deaf by a Siren's song? Where was the merit of his triumph over the tempter, if he was incapable of feeling the charms of ambition and glory? If he had not hungered, would the devil, with all his subtlety, have acted so like a simpleton, as to desire him to convert the stones into bread? The gentlemen, who are in such wrath at Priestley for openly expressing what they virtually admit, inform us, on their own authority, that Adam was created perfect. How, then, we ask, did he fall before the very first temptation that assailed him? Oh! he was fallible. Admirable consistency! And also peccable ?-It must be granted. And consequently, that a being may be perfect, and, at the same time, liable to be deceived, and to be tempted to sin. Adam was not only fallible and peccable, but he was actually deceived, and he actually sinned. This cannot be predicated of Christ, the second Adam. He also was tempted. But he did not yield to temptation; and herein lay one part of his superiority to the first Adam. He was “ without sin :"-this Dr. Priestley would not orly admit, but maintain ; and so far from alleging, as Mr. C. says he does, that Christ was “a sinful man,” he would have been among the most strenuous in maintaining that he was altogether sinless, "holy, harmless, undefiled, sepa. rate from sinners.” A well-known author, whom the orthodox would fondly claim as their own, while be yet stood on the high pinnacle of orthodoxy, eloquently said, “ As the Son of God put on our fesh and blood, so he assumed the various powers and properties of human nature the appetites and passions of mankind; he endured hunger and thirst; he had fear and love, hope, and joy; nor were the more troublesome affections of anger and sorrow left out of his constitution ; but they were all innocent and holy(Priestley would have said the same ;) they were never tainted with sin as ours are; they had no corrupt mixtures to defile his soul-(Priestley would have said the same ;) --our passions are like water with mud at the bottom; when they are moved; they too frequently raise the mud and betray their impurity. But the passions of Christ were ever pure ; like water from the clearest fountain in a glass of crystal, which, though it be never so much agitated, is still unpolluted.” Priestley would have suid the same.



GROTIUS informs us (Ex Syro) that ancient copies had not the word " God,” in this text of Romans, c. ix. v. 5, and that Erasmus remarks, Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom omit it. "* In this short statement," says the Dublin Christian Examiner, (1827) “ there are almost as many inaccuracies as words; Grotius certainly argues, that from its absence in the Syriac; ancient copies must have wanted it; but Dr. Drummond ought to have known that Grotius was mistaken, for that it occurs in that version.”

Had it þeen Dr. D.'s object to ascertain whether it is in the Syriac, version, or to found any criticism on that version in particular, he confesses he ought to have known it; or had he affirmed on his own authority, as the Examiner has affirmed of the text, Acts xx. 28, that the Syriac version has the word God, he farther confesses, that he would have justly exposed himself to all those charges of ignorance and precipitancy, or of

critical dishonesty,' which the Examiner has shewn so much eagerness to advance against him, and which will recoil on the Examiner's own head, if he fail to produce the Syriac of that text which, he positively asserts, contains the disputed word. But Grotius did not confine his observation to one copy, for he says veteres codiccs ; nor did he leave it to rest solely on his own authority. He fortifies his opinion by that of Erasmus, who affirms that Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom, omit the word geog. From this statement, however, the author did not, by any means, contend for its removal, but merely supposed there might be some corruption, or some dislocation of the words from the position in which they originally stood ; and this supposition, for it is offered as nothing more, receives countenance from the different situations which the word occupies in different copies, as well as other discrepant readings, to say nothing of the variety of punctua. tions which affect the sense. For instance, some copies omit the xót, and others the 50. Instead of πανίων- -one has maytd, and another

παντας και ; and • Wy €TONTONY is altogether omitted in the Æthiopic version, if Mill informs us truly :-Omittit Æthiop. Mill in loc. Lipsiæ 1723, p 550. Instead of xoce st Wy the Armenian version transposes the words and reads ež

The words ó xpsotos TO XATA preprcce are also transposed, in another copy, into

[ocr errors]

Griesbach το κατα σαρκα χριστος Cyr. vide Griesbach in loc. also has his mark of omission as to Jeoprefixed to four copies=Cypr. ed. Hilar. ed. semel. Leo semel. Ephr. ap. Jackson. Ante 871 TarTW ponunt Syr. Erp. Iren. Tert. semel. --2nd Edit. Vol. II. p. 193. Mill observes of Grotius that he was in an error as to the Syriac, and apologizes for him as became one liberal-minded scholar in speaking of another. Whitby. also contents himself by saying that it was a mistake' in Grotius. He would have felt ashamed to bring a charge against his general accuracy, much less against his critical honesty. Such insinuations belong to a modern school of SMALL CRITICS, who excel in that “index learning which turns no student pale"-who “strain out a goat and swallow a camel”

Wy xal.

* Grotianas enim in locum annotationes minus moror, tumultuario nempe congestas quæque non receperant ultimam manum; ut proinde quodnam fuerit in hac re viri maximi judicium, ex iis colligcre non liceat.

« AnteriorContinuar »