« AnteriorContinuar »
Number for October, 1820, Vol. XV. hood, called Quakers--in the comprepp. 606-609, has been made the pre- hensive fraternal embrace" of the text for a very heavy charge against Unitarians. This, he thinks, has of the Monthly Repository. It is pre- late“ been a favourite design with ferred by a Constant Reader and Oc- them. And as those letters from the casional Contributor to the Christian Illinois were written in the style and Observer, in the Number for Novem- language" of the Quakers, he says, ber, 1821, Vol. XX. p. 690, under the “it would seem to the undiscerning signature of T. P. His letter is with public to corroborate this claim to out date, but says, “were the month association." to pass away without bringing to my Yet I think the public are not so door its Number of the Christian Ob- blind as this attack of T. P. supposes, server, I should feel as though that for not one word do those letters conmonth had lost a day of sunshine.” tain respecting Unitarians, or any of He adds, “ It happened, not long their distinguishing doctrines. “This since, that my favourite pamphlet error, however," adds he, “ can only found its way to me in company with operate on minds totally unacquainted a number of the Monthly Repository, with the opinions, feelings and wor, I am no reader of the latter produc- ship of the Quakers." It should, tion; but my bookseller observing in therefore, seem, if his object was to it some private letters, from a family correct the error into which the style to which I am related, now residing of his relatives had led your readers, in the Illinois State, North America, that he should have addressed you on sent it for my perusal.”
the subject, not the Editor of the T. P. describes himself, moreover, Christian Observer. His next senas“ residing in a small town at a great tence may, however, explain why he distance from the metropolis." He did not, though he fancies you hare is of opinion the said letters should fewer readers among Friends than the not have been published without the latter work, and being otherwise curi. permission of the writers. Adding, ous, I shall give it entire. He says, is This liberty, however, if not justili. “As this people have found their able, loses its fainter hue of enormity, happiness materially guarded, by when compared with the attacks on avoiding, as much as possible, all dis. public opinion, for which the Monthly putes on theological questions, I am Repository is so justly celebrated.” not going to drag them into the arena As he is no readers of this work, of controversy. But I cannot apprethough his censure is intended to con- hend any danger, from throwing into vey no slight hue of enormity, it seems the pages of the Christian Observer as if T. P. judged it not from exami- (for no periodical work is so much nation, but from report. He should read, or so well received by them) a have been more careful to avoid even passage I have lately met with, which the appearance of “ defamation and I think explains their feelings on cerdetraction," against which the Society tain points of difficulty, in a manner of Friends, of which I suppose he is a that places them at an immense dismember, give salutary cautions, and tance from the hardy Unitarian;" a profess to bear a religious testimony. character as little alarmed at controHe should also have considered, that versy, as any he could have mentioned, an attack “ on public opinion," may because it is not apt to build on the be sometimes not only innocent, but sand of human invention, but “on useful and commendable. The writers that foundation which cannot be of the New Testament attacked it moved." boldly and with great effect, as faithful The docunient T. P. quotes for the witnesses and servants of their Lord above purpose, is not from Penn's and Master.
“ Sandy Foundation Shaken," or any T. P. does not think he is “wholly other approved work of the early ignorant of the channel through which Friends, but from “ Dr. Waterland's those letters found their way to pub- controversy with Dr. Clarke," as cited lication," or of “ one of the motives “in a letter from Edward Nares to for printing them;" viz. “ to catch Francis Stone,” two entire strangers the little, quiet, undisputing brother- to me. This quotation informs us,
** The first Christians easily believed held that the above text has no relation that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, whatever to water baptism. in whese name they were baptized, and Dr. Waterland, as quoted by T. P.; whom they worshiped, were equally adds, “ Probably these plain, honest dirine ; without troubling themselves Christians believed every person to be about the manner of it, or the recon- God, and yet but one God.” This is ciling it with the belief in one God.” oddly enough called “the artless simIt is much easier to make these asser- plicity of the primitive Christians," tions than to prove them.
of which, however, the New Testa. If, as Archdeacon Blackburne ob- ment, the only, or at least the most serves, we read the supposed bap- authentic record of their faith, affords tismal form, Matt. xxviii. 19, as fol- not even the slightest evidence. “ It lows, “Go ye, therefore, and disciple seems they troubled not their heads all nations (baptizing them) into the with any nice speculations about the name of the Father, and of the Son, modus of it, till prying and pretending and of the Holy Ghost;" there is not men came to start difficulties, and a single tittle altered in the text of raise scruples and make disturbances; the Erangelist, save in the pointing; and then,” adds the Doctor, “ it was and get a very material alteration of necessary to guard,” not the purity the sense of the passage obtained, and simplicity of the apostolic faith, which makes the two Evangelists as expressed in Scripture, but “the Matthew and Luke perfectly con- faith of the church,” in new notions sistent with each other. For as the which required new terms “ against passage stands above, explained by such cavils and impertinencies as began the parenthesis, the command to bap- to threaten it.” tize refers to no particular form at How did the church act in this diffiall, and leaves us to suppose, what culty, as T. P. confesses it still is, to was certainly the truth of the matter, reconcile the doctrine of the Divine that the apostles being already well Unity, with that which he holds the actuainted with the form used in the cominon doctrine of the Trinity? His baptism of Jesus, it was quite super- oracle, Dr. Waterland, says, “ Philofluous to enjoin it here.
sophy and metaphysics were called in St. John tells us expressly, chap. to its assistance, but not till heretics is. 2, that the disciples of Jesus made had shewn the way, and made it in a and baptized other disciples to their manner necessary for the Catholics to Master, and these not a few. This is encounter them with their own weaa sufficient proof without any other, pons." that the apostles of Christ were well This is, in other words, to say the versed in the form of baptism pre- Catholics adopted heretical language. scribed by our Saviour ; upon which I confess there is too much truth account the repetition of it in this in this, whether they or others first solemn manner, is one of the last set so bad an example. “Some things one would look for in this par- new terms and particular applications ticular passage.
came in by this means, that such as The Archdeacon, I need hardly add, had a mind to corrupt or destroy the was of opinion that the words in ques- faith” aforesaid, “ might be defeated tion contain“ no baptismal form at in their purposes ; but after the hereall.” Works, I. xxvi. Appendix B. tics had invidiously represented the Barclay, in his Quakerism confirmed, Catholics as asserting a division," by says, “That the apostles used the the new terms they had adopted in words Father, Son and Holy Ghost, speaking of the one true God, instead when they baptized, cannot be proved; of those used by the sacred writers, far less used they the word Trinity, and by their Lord and Master, “it which was not invented still long after was high time," says the Doctor, “for the apostles' days.” Works, III. 139. the Catholics to resent the injury, and And, accordingly, he is entirely silent deny," not disprove, “ the charge." on that doctrine in his “ Apology for He adds, “ There was no occasion for the true Christian Divinity," which mentioning of three hypostases, till he of course thought might well do such as Praxeas, Noetus and Sabellius, without it. The Quakers have always had pretended to make one hypostasis
an article of faith,” which he calls or THREE distinct and separate holy very properly “ their prime position.” ones.” “The oporsion itself,” he says, "might In pointing out “the absurdities have been spared, at least out of the that unavoidably follow the comparicreeds, had not a fraudulent abuse of son of—the vulgar doctrine of Satisgood words brought matters to that faction, being dependent upon the pass, that the Catholic faith was in second person of the Trinity," he even danger of being lost, even under Ca- describes “Jesus Christ as a finite and tholic language.”
impotent creature,” without reference Such is the substance of T. Pi's to the unscriptural notion of two na. quotation, of which he says, “ The tures, and his God and Father as point I aim at is this—to refer the "the infinite and omnipotent Creator." reader to the simple view of the full I am aware that some of their apand supreme divinity of the Father, proved authors have sometimes used the Son, and the Holy Ghost, ascribed mystical language on the subject, as by Dr. Waterland to the apostles and nearly approaching the present standthe primitive Christians ; for precisely ard of reputed orthodoxy, as Sabelthe same view is taken of this high lians have long ago employed, but I doctrine by the Quakers in the present know of only one writer amongst day; a view, which is greatly con- them who has gone so far as T. P., firmed by their almost exclusive use and that is the author, whom I much of the Sacred Scriptures as the foun, esteem, of a work published in 1813, tain of their doctrines.”
by Wm. Phillips, London, and entitled If T. P. has done the Quakers jus. “Remarks suggested by the Perusal tice, I must say that on this point the of a Portraiture of Primitive QuaL'nitarians have greatly the advantage kerism, by William Penn ; with a of them, for the Scriptures are not Modern Sketch of Reputed Orthomerely “ almost," but the sole foun- doxy,' &c., by Thomas Prichard." tain of their doctrines. Freely admit The Portraiture is reviewed in your ting T. P.'s right to profess his own journal for 1812 (VII. 523). The faith in any words he may choose for remarks on it have, I believe, not himself, or adopt from any writer, come under your notice. The greater ancient or modern, I must demur to part of the pamphlet consists of a rehis competency to speak in such posi- publication of another tract of Penn's, tive terms of the faith of the Quakers, which was more to the Editor's taste even “ in the present day;" amongst than the Portraiture, the readers of whom, perhaps, I have had as large which he describes as “ introduced an acquaintance as himself, and at to this amiable writer, only through least equal, if not better opportunities the medium of Unitarian quotation." of knowing their sentiments, and how Whereas, it must be confessed, the very generally the most strict amongst other tract is rather strongly tinctured them of every class, even when closely with Sabellianism, but with nothing pressed, refuse to admit in any sense like “ the common doctrine of the whatever, any distinction of persons in Trinity,” without which he considered the Deity. I have also read many of the Quakers as consigned “to the the writings of their best and most invidious condition of the bat in the approved authors, none of whom, so fable, neither bird nor beast, with all far as I know, ever professed to hold its pernicious consequences." Yet he that doctrine. William Penn said, tells his readers, that Penn's Sandy very truly, in his Sandy Foundation Foundation Shaken, or the above PorShaken, for writing and publishing traiture, “ professes to attack all that which, being a notable attack on is of mere human authority and inven“ public opinion,” he was persecuted tion in the tenets that relate to the by his enemies, but applauded by his Trinity, imputed righteousness, and friends the Quakers, with remarkable the satisfaction and atonement made unanimity, that “the Scriptures un- by Christ.” The author considered deniably prove that one is God, and the whole as founded on the sand, God only is that only ONE ; there, and tells us he “ endeavoured a total fore he cannot be divided into or sub- enervation of those cardinal points, sist,” says lie,“ in an holy THREE, and chief doctrines so firmly believed, and continually imposed for articles of scriptural revelation on this point of Christian faith.”
primary importance, and teaching, in T. P. concludes his letter to the its stead, for doctrine, the inventions Editor of the Christian Observer by of men. saying, “ So strong is my desire to
THOMAS FOSTER. detach the Quakers from that identity with the Unitarians, under which some Sir, mistaken minds regard them, that I | HAVE several times endeavoured may perhaps feel rather gratified than I to procure from the booksellers, hurt at any consequences that may Yates's “ Sequel” to his “ Vindicaresult from the general diffusion of tion of Unitarianism :" but the anthis knowledge, that their tenets are swer is uniformly the same-out of at an irreconcileable variance. T. P.” print. Now, Sir, as the theological The Editors, in a courteous P. S., say critic in the British Quarterly Review, “T. P. will find a letter in our Vol. with a meanness of dissimulation for 1819, p. 582, signed Samuel Fen- which, I suppose, he would excuse by nel, containing a similar complaint the convenient subterfuge of inherent against the Monthly Repository, and moral incapacity, has sunk upon his a defence of the Society of Friends readers the existence of this tract, from the charge of Socinianism." although incidentally he betrays his . In this letter S. F. does, indeed, knowledge of it, and as the great repeat his totally groundless charge advocate of tritheism and vicarious against you. (XIV. 400.] As to his righteousness himself, Dr. Wardlaw defence of Friends, he has indeed continues with unabashed ostentation shewn, that the Quakers had not to re-advertise in the Newspapers his wholly discarded the term Trinity. “ Unitarianism incapable of VindicaDirectly after his quotation, abruptly tion,” may I ask why the “ Sequel" ending with an “&c.," Penn adds, is not reprinted? If the able author “But they are very tender of quit. himself be unwilling to risk the exting Scripture terms and phrases for pense, (though I should have thought Schoolmen's, such as distinct and the sale of the first edition a guarantee separate persons, and subsistences, &c. for the success of the undertaking.) are, from whence people are apt to why is not this tract, which so calmly entertain gross ideas and notions of and rationally exposes the hollow blusthe Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” tering pretensions of the orthodox
I would willingly remove T. P.'s school, reprinted and liberally re-adpainful but groundless apprehension, vertised at the expense of the society? that it is a favourite design with the Let me take this opportunity of Unitarians to identify “ their tenets” suggesting also the expediency of rewith those of the Quakers, farther printing in a separate tract, and at a than they actually approximate. They cheap rate, the excellent and learned can have no motive to do this. He Dr. Lardner's “Posthumous Disdoes not seem to be aware, that from courses on the Trinity,” which appear the time of Sabellius, those who “say to state the respective grounds of the nothing of three hypostases for per- Trinitarian, Arian and Unitarian docsons) but keep to one,” in expressing trine, with a plainness, comprehentheir belief in God, have always been sion and acumen, calculated to make considered by the reputedly orthodox, a strong, popular impression, and, at as nearly allied to the Unitarians, not the same time, to remove much of withstanding their occasional use, like the prejudice existing against the simthe Quakers, of obscure, ambiguous plicity of the ancient faith in minds or semi-orthodox language.
pre-occupied by college theology ; and He has, I own, completely absolved to awaken serious doubts whether himself from the imputation, but be- “ the things which they have learned” fore he again asserts “ that the Qua- be in reality “sound doctrine.” This kers bave precisely the same view of little publication is further needed as this high doctrine” as himself, I recom- a set-off against the affectedly imparmend him to make farther inquiry, tial, but really dogmatic and bigoted, lest he should mistakenly represent not to say insidious, statement of them as forsaking generally or col. Dean Tucker ; entitled a “ Brief and lectively, the authentic testimony of Dispassionate View of the Difficulties
attending the Trinitarian, Arian and deep silence which reigns through the Socinian Systems,” to which it forms writings of the former, upon the name no less striking a contrast in force, and history of Jesus the CHRIST, nor than in fairness of reasoning.
would the alleged Heathen converts PROSELYTUS. have avoided the being distinguished
as disciples of Jesus, or Christians.
Feb. 15. 1822. It is, indeed, not improbable that the TN the last Volume of the Reposi. appellative Christian was first applied
tory, p. 354, your ingenious and to the followers of Jesus by their oplearned correspondent, Dr. Jones, ani- ponents; and that, according to a premadverts upon my having said that valent association of idea with Latin “the New Testament disciples of adjectives in anus denoting party, the Jesus were not ashamed or afraid to new term might have a discreditable own that worthy name by which they appearance. But it is worthy of obwere called." " He conceives me servation, that this term was invented chargeable with “a total inattention and brought into use with reference to the fact.” He has not made it evi- to the first Gentile church, and at the dent what “fact” he adverts to; but time when the right of Gentiles to the we cannot be mistaken if we under- blessings and privileges of the gospel, stand him as referring to one, or more without being subjected to circumciprobably to both, of the statements sion or any other Judaical observance, which immediately follow : “that all was established by apostolieal authothe Jewish converts considered Chris- rity. Thus there was, primâ facie, tianity and Judaism as the self-same some reason why converts from Heareligion ;” and “ that the name Chris. thenism to the religion of Jesus should tians was given the disciples by their have been the more eminently called enemies as a term of reproach : and Christians. If the name had an unthat, for this reason, the apostles and friendly origin, it would soon, acthe converts made by them declined cording to the common principles of the use of it.”
human nature, cease to convey an unNeither of these assertions can I welcome association, and would be regard as “beyond controversy ;” and accepted and gloried in as a badge of I do seriously think that strong objec- honour. About eighteen years after, tions lie against them both. Nor do we find the apostle Peter writing I perceive that Dr. Jones has replied thus : “If any one of you suffer as a to the remarks wbich I proposed upon Christian, let him not be ashamed, his sentiment, (I comply with his wish but let him glorify God on this bein not calling it hypothesis,) that Philo half.” | Peter iv. 16. and Josephus were Christians. (Script. It can scarcely be necessary for me
Test. I. 449, 450.) Till those remarks to add, that the argument is not nulare distinctly met, I do not feel myself lified by the passage which has been called upon to embark anew in the sometimes called the testimony of dispute. My only object at present Josephus to Christ; for it appears to is to say, that Dr. Jones has misap- me very satisfactorily shewn by Lardprehended the point of my reference. ner and others, that the passage is Perhaps I did not express myself with spurious. due explicitness : but the citation of
March 9. James ii. 7, I had supposed would Unavoidable hindrances prevented have prevented any misconception. my finishing this letter in time for the By the “worthy name" I did not last month. I proceed to Dr. Jones's mean exclusively the appellation Chris- critical and doctrinal remarks on Phil. tian, as my respected friend takes it ; ii. 6-8, in pp. 535, &c. of your last but the name Jesus, or the official volume. designation Christ, as well as the term (1.) He asserts “that isa eq is a Christian: and to that name or desig- parallelism with ky popcorn sou, and is nation the allusion was principally in- but a varied expression of the same tended. My argument was, that had idea." This appears to ine to be imPhilo and Josephus, and the persons puting to the apostle au absolute tau. whom they speak of as having em- tology. If the two terms are synonybraced Judaism, been really Chris- mous, each of them may be put = a; tians, there would not have been the then the apostle will be made to say,