Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

sents a letter, written by Dr. Freeman of Boston to Mr. Lindsey of London, in which, after mentioning the avidity" with which the "Unitarian Tracts," received by him from Mr. Lindsey, were extensively read, and the "impression which they could not fail to make upon the minds of many,' Dr. Freeman says, "From these and other causes the Unitarian doctrine appears to be still upon the increase." "It flourishes chiefly in New England; but not much in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, or the western counties of Massachusetts. A few seeds have been sown in Vermont, and an abundant harvest has been produced in the vicinity of Boston, and in the counties directly south of it." Immediately in this connexion, the Reviewer says, "How far the sentiments in question have spread in Boston, "has been often a subject of inquiry, and not unfrequently of "debate. Mr. Belsham will inform us. If, says he, I am "not greatly misinformed, divine worship, in many of the "principal churches in Boston, is carried on upon principles

strictly, if not avowedly Unitarian." The Reviewer then adds, "If any thing be lacking in Mr. Belsham's ac"count, it is supplied in a letter to him, by William' Wells, "Esq. of Boston, a gentleman who, from his extensive ac"quaintance with books and men, and his distinguished zeal "in the cause of Unitarianism, may well be supposed to give "as exact a picture as any man living could draw." In this letter, which the Reviewer gives at large, Mr. Wells says, "Most of our Boston clergy and respectable laymen (of whom we have many enlightened theologians) are Unitarians."-"I "may safely say, the general habit of thinking and speaking "upon this question, in Boston, is Unitarian." Upon this the Reviewer remarks, "Such is the testimony in the case "under consideration;" (viz. "How far the sentiments in "question have spread in Boston;) and we presume that no "man in his senses will hesitate for a moment to give implicit "credit to such witnesses." Here comes the passage in question: "We shall feel ourselves warranted hereafter to speak "of the first as certain, that Unitarianism is the predominant "religion among the ministers and churches of Boston."

Now, dear Sir, you will permit me to ask again, and to

ask very seriously, does the connexion warrant the broad construction which you have given to this passage? A construction which the terms of the passage, by themselves, certainly do not warrant; but upon which you have grounded the heavy accusation of falsehood. Is not the inquiry, in this connexion, limited expressly to Boston, to the exclusion most clearly of "its vicinity," and of "the great body of liberal "christians" elsewhere? Does not the Reviewer come to the conclusion, expressed in the debated passage, explicitly upon the ground of the adduced testimony of Mr. Belsham and Mr. Wells, in addition to that of Dr. Freeman? And does he not use the name Unitarian as unrestrictedly, as it is used by Mr. Wells himself, who must very well have known how Mr. Belsham would be likely to understand him? Upon what principles, then, of fairness or of truth could we be justified in alleging, that the Review here "asserts, that the minis"ters of Boston and its vicinity, and the great body of liber"al christians are Unitarians, in Mr. Belsham's sense of "the word."

Before I dismiss this point, I must be permitted to ask further-Is not the Reviewer fairly borne out, in the declaration which he does make, respecting Boston, by the testimony upon which the declaration is made? Had he not a right to consider Dr. Freeman, Mr. Belsham and Mr. Wells, good authority in the case? Does he say more than what their testimony, particularly that of Mr. Wells, evidently warrants? Why then the heated indignation against him, while none is expressed against them? Why the strenu ous endeavour to inflame and direct the resentments of the ministers and people of Boston against him, while they are treated with such exemplary forbearance?-Nay, rather, what occasion for any indignation, or resentment, either against him or them? Do you not, Sir, yourself mean to concede as much respecting Boston, as he asserts,-when you say, "The word Unitarianism, as denoting opposition to "Trinitarianism, undoubtedly expresses the character of a "considerable part of the ministers of this town and its vicinity?" I dare not, indeed, affirm that you, do; especially since you think it proper to add in the same sentence, and the common

wealth." I have great satisfaction in the confidence, that Unitarianism is not the "predominant religion" among the ministers and churches of this commonwealth, and in the hope in God that it never will be. I do suppose, however, that you have great satisfaction also in the confidence, that it is the predominant religion among the ministers and churches of Boston." But if so, what can be the reason that the true statement of the fact should produce such an unusual intensity of heat in your mind?

The next passage to be considered is this: "We feel en"tirely warranted to say, that the predominant religion of "the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian, in Mr. Belsham's "sense of the word." Docs this "assert, that the ministers "of Boston and its vicinity, and the great body of liberal "christians are" of this character? Certainly, Sir, you will not hesitate to admit that, by itself, it does not. Does it then, when taken in connexion with the former passage? The former passage instead of helping to extend the sense of this, evidently serves to restrict it: for that passage plainly imports, that the ministers and churches of Boston are not all Unitarian, even in the general sense of the word. In each of these passages the restrictive word, "predominant," is used; and in the latter passage, to give it the greater force of restriction, it is printed in Italicks. The utmost then, that can be fairly made out from the two passages together, of assertion in regard to the ministers and churches of Boston, is, that the majority of them are Unitarian, and that the greater part of the Unitarian majority hold with Mr. Belsham. All this might be true, and yet not half of those ministers and churches be Unitarians of this character. Yet you, my dear Sir, have emphatically represented that, in these passages,

the Review asserts, that the ministers of Boston, with the ministers of the vicinity, and the great body of liberal christians are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word;" and, under cover of this representation, have, in your haste, most earnestly accused the Reviewer of falsehood.

I have stated the utmost that can fairly be made out towards what you allege. But the passage under consideration admits of an interpretation, still less favourable to your allegation.

1

It may mean a "predominance," not in point of numbers, but in point of influence: and from the connexion this should seem to be its real meaning. After stating, "We feel entirely warranted to say, that the predominant religion of the liberal party is decidedly Unitarian in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word," the Reviewer proceeds to shew the grounds upon which this declaration is made. He adduces the Monthly Anthology, the General Repository, and the Improved Version of the New Testament; publications which, as he supposes, were put forth and patronized by "the most prominent clergymen and laymen of the liberal party,"-men “who have the entire control of the college." And, after saying what he judged requisite, respecting the Unitarianism of these publications, he concludes thus: "It appears, then, that the / "College and nearly all the influence of the liberal party "through the medium of the press are in favour of Unitarian"ism. If individuals dislike Mr. Belsham as a leader; if they "are not willing to be classed among his followers; let them "declare their own opinions openly." Here then, we have evidently an explanation of what the Reviewer meant, by “Unitarianism in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word being the predominant religion of the liberal party:" that it is predominant in point of influence," having "the most prominent characters" for its supporters and abettors. This, as you will readily acknowledge, might be true, though not one half, not one quarter of "the great body of liberal Christians" were Unitarians in this sense. And, Sir, that it is not actually true, nothing which you have advanced goes to shew.

What, however, the real truth in the case is, I will not take upon me to say: but I must say, that I do not see that the Reviewer may not have been perfectly honest in the opinion which he has expressed; perfectly honest in declaring that he "feels himself entirely warranted to say" what he does say. If his opinion is a mistaken one, yet an "unperverted mind” will admit, that the grounds on which it was formed have at least the appearance of some solidity; and it would require, it should seem, no uncommon share of "the meekness of wisdom," no extraordinary effort of that "charity which hopeth all things," to refrain from charging him with falsehood.

One other passage, under this head, remains to be considered: "The liberal party mutilate the New Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man." This is the last of the three passages which you have cited to shew that the "Review asserts, that the ministers of Boston and the vicinity, and the great body of liberal Christians are Unitarians in Mr. Belsham's sense of the word," and upon which you ground your principal accusation of falsehood. But is it here asserted, that all the individuals of the liberal party actually do the things, and all of them, which the party is said to do? Is this a fair interpretation of the passage? Or if it admits of this, does it fairly' admit of no other?

The apostles, Sir, as you very well know, repeatedly charge the Jewish rulers and people, generally, even “the great body" of the nation, with having "crucified and slain the Lord of life and glory." Yet, as you also know, but a very small part of that great body actually imbrued their hands in his blood. But some of them did; and of the rest, some more, and others less directly, consented to the deed. Hence they were generally involved in the guilt, and brought under the charge; and upon the great body, eventually, "wrath came to the uttermost." Such was the judgment of the apostles; and such the judgment of Him, whose throne is established in righteousness.-And, Sir, if among the liberal party, the things charged by the Reviewer are done; if some of the party do actually "mutilate the New Testament, reject nearly all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and degrade the Saviour to the condition of a fallible, peccable, and ignorant man,"-and of the rest, some more, and others less directly, consent to all this; if, as a party, or as individuals of the party, they bear no decided testimony against these deeds, and do nothing effectually to secure, or to purge themselves from the guilt of them; then, is it not true, and right, and proper to say of the party generally, that they do these things? and will they not generally, with all who adhere to them, be held to answer for them at the bar of the righteous Judge?

« НазадПродовжити »