The author of these Discourses, first, assigns reasons "why the friends of the Sabbath believe it to be an institution of universal and permanent obligation;" secondly, "considers some of the appropriate duties of the Sabbath ;" and thirdly, points out "some of the personal blessings to be derived from the performance of these various duties." We are glad to see so satisfactory a discussion of this important subject, at the present time. 7. The Kingdom of Christ; a Sermon preached before the Annual Convention of the Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts, in Boston, May 29, 1830. By Heman Humphrey, D. D., President of Amherst College. Boston: Peirce & Williams. pp. 36. 6 "The kingdom of Christ," says Dr. H. " is his church, which he hath purchased with his own blood,' and which in its holiest aspirations asks for none but spiritual munitions for its defence. It wants no Jeffries, no Star Chamber, to enforce its discipline-no compulsory tythes to support its teachers-no military to extend its conquests or guard its sacred towers. Its preservation and increase do not depend upon bulwarks of stone and mortar, nor upon long training in the use of steel and gunpowder." "The church has always flourished most, when it has been let alone. And even a dark and frowning sky has been safer for it, than the brightest radiance of any political firmament. How wonderfully has it been purified and enlarged by the fires of persecution! How often have the faithful come up invigorated out of great tribulation; while, on the other hand, they have been all but destroyed by the caresses of kings and parliaments." 8. Lessons for Infant Sabbath Schools, with a Plan for conducting an Infant Class. Worcester: Dorr & Howland. 1830. pp. 108. 9. Elements of Dogmatic History. By William Muenscher, S. T. D. and Ordinary Professor of Theology at Marburg. Translated from the second edition of the original German. By James Murdock, D. D. New Haven: A. H. Maltby. 1830. pp. 203. This work is an outline of a general history of the Christian faith, with copious references to authorities and authors who have treated on the subjects." "It is purely a history: For the author did not design to discriminate between true and false doctrines," but "to narrate truly and candidly what doctrines were discussed. and how they were stated, defended, and attacked, and by whom, without laboring to prepossess the reader either for or against any doctrine." 10. History of the Town of Natick, Mass., from the days of the Apostolic Elliot, MDCL., to the present time, MDCCCXXX. By Wm. Biglow. Boston: Marsh, Capen & Lyon. pp. 88. From this amusing pamphlet, we extract a single paragaph, to show the concealment formerly practised by the Unitarian Clergy of Massachusetts. Speaking of Mr. Badger, a former Minister of Natick, who died in 1803, Mr. Biglow (himself a Unitarian) says, "Like many of his distinguished contemporaries in the ministry... . . . he (Mr. Badger) was a Unitarian; but, LIKE THE REST, with the exception of Dr. Mayhew of Boston and Dr. Howard, his successor, he thought that, though it was lawful for them to avow this sentiment, IT WAS NOT EXPEDIENT. They believed that, in omitting to mention this opinion, they kept back nothing that would be profitable to their hearers." p. 61. The peculiarities of Unitarianism must be of very little importance, in the estimation of their own receivers, if they can be concealed from a people, year after year, and still nothing be kept back that is profitable. To the Conductors of the Spirit of the Pilgrims. GENTLEMEN, AN article with the above title, which appeared in your pages several months since, appears to have excited unusual attention, and to have occasioned, in some minds, not a little disquietude. With the review in your last, in reply to the Christian Examiner, I have no reason to be dissatisfied, and shall not think it necessary to call further attention to what has of late been published in that work. On an article in the Unitarian Advocate for May last, I propose to offer a few remarks; in doing which, I shall of necessity be led into a more particular investigation of the general subject. The conductors of the Advocate commence with saying, "We are utterly at a loss to conceive how there can be any difference of opinion on the question, what profession of faith is necessary to constitute a man a Christian, as distinguished from an infidel; and we believe that until a comparatively recent date there has been but one opinion on the subject. The test now adopted by Christians of the exclusive sect, is altogether arbitrary and fallacious, and to us appears opposed to reason, to the usage of all Christian antiquity, and to the plain import of the language of the Bible." "If we carefully read the New Testament, we shall find that the faith deemed necessary to constitute a Christian, by Jesus, and his apostles, was exceedingly simple. It consisted in the belief of this single proposition-Jesus is the Messiah, or Christ. Whoever made this profession was considered a Christian as distinguished from a Jew, or a Heathen; and whoever now makes it is a Christian, so far as faith is concerned. He is a Christian, as distinguished from an unbeliever or infidel, and he is authorized to complain of injustice done him, if his title to the name of Christian be denied him." "This, we conceive, is the sense of the term Christian, as distinguished from infidel. Whoever employs it in any other sense, departs from primitive usage; he assigns to it a meaning which was unknown to Jesus and his apostles; sets up a test not sanctioned by their example." 57 VOL. III.NO. IX. "That the simple proposition, Jesus is the Messiah, or Christ, the Son of God, expressions which, in the language of the Jews, were considered as synonymous, was, as we have asserted, the only article of belief required by the Founder of our religion and by his apostles, the first preachers of Christianity, in order to the enjoyment of the Christian name and privileges, is too obvious to need formal proof." In view of the extracts here given, two questions arise; first, Was "the simple proposition, Jesus is the Messiah or Christ, the only article of belief required by the apostles in order to the enjoyment of Christian privileges?" And, secondly, Does a profession of belief in this "simple proposition" constitute the proper distinction now between a Christian and an infidel? The first of these inquiries, although not directly connected with the subject in hand, is yet of sufficient importance to attract a moment's attention; for it is one on which Unitarians have dwelt long and often, with great apparent satisfaction,* and which they seem to suppose must be decided in their favor. I shall presume, however, to decide it against them, and to maintain, that a bald, unexplained profession of belief in Jesus, as the promised Messiah, was not sufficient, in the days of the apostles, to entitle those who made it to the fellowship of Christians. In support of this position, I need only refer to several plain cases, in which those who professed to believe in Jesus as the Messiah were spoken of as enemies to the cross of Christ. 6 This evidently was the case with the Judaizing teachers, whom Paul denounced and anathematized as preaching another Gospel. These professed to believe that the Messiah had come, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah; but they denied the sufficiency of his atoning blood, and taught, Except ye be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, ye cannot be saved.' Acts xv. 1, 5. This sentiment was condemned by the assembled apostles in their consultation at Jerusalem, and those who held it were represented by Paul as perverting the Gospel of Christ,' and making it of 'no effect.' Again, the Gnostic believers, whom John denounced, admitted that Christ had come, and that Jesus was the Christ; but they denied that he had come in the flesh.+ Considering matter as the source of all evil, they could not reconcile it with their notions of аз *So long ago as 1810, Dr. Porter of Roxbury asserted, in his Convention Sermon, that the faith required of the primitive Christians "consisted of one glorious article, and was contained in one bright line, Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ." This sentiment was echoed in areview of the sermon of Dr. P. in the Anthology in October of the same year. Mr. Hurlbut says, "The essentials of our creed may be stated in three words, "Jesus is the Christ." Presumptive Arguments, &c. p. 32. "We thus arrive," says a writer in the Unitarian Advocate (vol. ii. p. 31.)" at the only true faith of the Gospel. It consists in believing this one plain proposition, Jesus is the Christ." "What," says Mr. Whitman, "is faith in Jesus? It is believing this one plain, simple proposition, Jesus is the Christ." Sermon on Regeneration, p. 43. "There was a class of people who, at the same time that they acknowledged the truth of Christ's mission, held that he did not come in the flesh." Hamilton's Reasons for the Únitarian Belief, p. 67. the purity of Jesus to believe that he had a material body. They regarded him as the spiritual image of a man, who suffered, died, and rose again rather in appearance than in reality. This class of teachers, according to the standard instituted by Unitarians, must have been admitted without question or explanation to the fellowship of the Christian church. But not so judged the beloved disciple. 'Many deceivers,' says he, are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an ANTICHRIST." 2 John, 7. 6 Other instances equally in point may be adduced. Thus Diotrephes, who prated against the apostles with malicious words,' and whose evil deeds John promised he would remember, professed to believe that Jesus was the Christ. How should he have been in a situation to tyrannize over the church, without such a profession? 3 John, 9, 10. "The Nicolaitans" also, and "that woman Jezebel," and those "that held the doctrine of Balaam," no doubt pretended to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. How should they be suffered to teach in the churches of Asia, or to hold any manner of connexion with them, unless they believed as much as this? Rev. ii. 14-20. There might have been those in these churches who held to the modern Unitarian notion, that if a candidate for membership professed to believe in Jesus as the Christ, no further questions must be asked; and it was through their means, perhaps, that "the Nicolaitans" and " that woman Jezebel" gained admittance. But what says the ascended Saviour? "The doctrine of the Nicolaitans-I HATE ;" and "I will cast that woman Jezebel into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, and I will kill her children with death."* When the apostles commenced their labors on the day of Pentecost, and for a while afterwards, the profession of a belief in Jesus as the promised Messiah implied, and was understood to imply, perhaps all that was requisite in doctrine and character, so that there was scarcely a necessity of asking many questions. But before the labors of these holy men ceased, the mystery of iniquity began to work, errors were broached, and it became indispensable to be more explicit. Paul would wish to know of those who applied to him for admission to the churches, not only whether they believed that Jesus was the Christ, but whether they regarded the sacrifice of Christ as the sole and sufficient foundation of hope. He would wish to know whether they thought that they must "be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, in order to be saved." And John would be sure to inquire of those who applied to him for admission, not only whether they believed that the Messiah had come, but whether he had come in the flesh. He might wish to know, too, how they regarded the doctrine of "the Nicolaitans," and the teachings of "that woman Jezebel," and the heresy of If it be supposed that a class of teachers is here referred to, under the name and figure of an adulterous woman, the inference in my favor will be the stronger. the Unitarian Cerinthus. As errors and grounds of deception were invented and multiplied, a greater number of questions, and a more particular examination, would be necessary ;-and it is on account of the various errors and grounds of deception which now prevail, that an examination of candidates for membership has become indispensable to the safety of the church. I proceed to inquire, in the second place, whether a profession of belief in Jesus as the Christ constitutes, at this day, the proper mark of distinction between a Christian and an infidel.-In discussing this question, I might pursue a similar course to that in my former communication. I might show, from the authentic and acknowledged writings of the old English deists, that most of them professed to believe that Jesus was the Christ. Morgan, "in many passages, speaks very honorably of Jesus Christ, and of the religion he introduced." Chubb, in his posthumous works, acknowledges repeatedly the divine mission of Christ." He says that by Christianity, he means" that revelation of God's will which Christ was, in a special manner, sent to acquaint the world with." Bolingbroke speaks of Christ as "the divine Logos," by whom "the Christian system of faith and practice was revealed." Woolston" declares, that he is the farthest of any man from being engaged in the cause of infidels or deists; and that he writes, not for the service of infidelity, which has no place in his heart, but for the honor of the holy Jesus, and in defence of Christianity. He concludes several of his discourses by declaring, that "his design is the advancement of the truth, and THE MESSIAHSHIP OF THE HOLY JESUS, to whom be glory forever, Amen."+ It is needless, however, to go over with the subject, on this ground, again. The statements made in my former communication have not been refuted, nor can they be. And they are all in palpable contradiction to the line of distinction between the Christian and the infidel, attempted to be drawn in the article under consideration. In determining the question now before us, there is another medium of proof to which I may recur, and which, it may be hoped, will be more satisfactory. The conductors of the Unitarian periodicals, who are so greatly scandalized at being denominated infidels, it is to be presumed, would not themselves prefer the charge of infidelity but upon the most substantial grounds. They, who complain so loudly of injustice done to them, would not lightly be guilty of the same injustice to others. Let it be known, then, and remembered, that that these men have repeatedly charged the Liberal theologians of Germany with DEISM or INFIDELITY. In the Letters of Professor Stuart to Dr. Channing, published * See Milner's Ecc. Hist. vol. i. pp. 121-124. |