Thou mak'st the sleeping billows roll, Thou mak'st the rolling billows sleep. I will trespass no farther upon your pages by other quotations. I would only observe, that in pointing out these coincidences in two versions, which have been long in possession of the christian world, I do not presume, that I am adding any thing new to literature, but only stating a fact, which is not known to many, with a view to do justice to a version, that of late seems to be too much undervalued. Far less would I be suspected of a design to lessen the high estimation of a man, whom every christian must delight to honour. Dr. Watts has given more to devotional poetry, than all other poets of his nation combined, and I mention it as one recommendation of the Collection to which I alluded in the beginning of my remarks, that more than one fifth of the whole is drawn from his various works. I have not obtained access to any early edition of Dr. Watts's version. I have seen extracts from the preface to one of 1719, in the papers contained in the Gentleman's Magazine, respecting the author of the three hymns generally ascribed to Addison, but claimed for Andrew Marvel, by an editor of his works, on the authority of a manuscript copy in Marvel's hand-writing. In these extracts, which profess to give an enumeration of all he had taken from other versions, Dr. Watts acknowledges, that almost all of the 21st psalm, and part of the 139th were Tate's, but nothing is said of the 112th, or of any other. In the same preface, he acknowledges his obligations to Patrick and Denham also, and it is not to be supposed he would have intentionally overlooked or denied any he was under to Tate. S. Liberal Views of Bishop Watson. NEWTON and Locke were esteemed Socinians; Lardner was an avowed one; Clarke and Whiston were declared Arians; Bull and Waterland were professed Athanasians. Who will take upon him to say, that these men were not equal to each other in probity and scriptural knowledge? And if that be admitted, surely we ought to learn no other lesson from the diversity of their opinions, except that of perfect moderation and good will towards all those, who happen to differ from ourselves. We ought to entertain no other wish, but that every man may be allowed, without loss of fame or fortune, et sentire quæ velit, et quæ sentiat dicere. This absolute freedom of inquiry, it is apprehended, is the best way of investigating the sense of scripture, the most probable mean of producing a uniformity of opinion, and of rendering the gospel dispensation as intelligible to us in the eighteenth century, as we presume it was to the christians in the first. [Watson's Tracts, Appendix. What interest can a unitarian, or arian, have, in dissenting from the faith esteemed orthodox? If either, or both of them are in error, may the mercy of God forgive them; but let not the unmerciful judgment of man condemn them. There are, doubtless, some fundamental doctrines in christianity, concerning which, no one ought to hesitate," inasmuch as without a belief in them, he cannot be reputed a christian. Reputed! By whom? By Christ, or you? [Charge. The Fourth Letter to the Rev. Dr. Miller will appear in our next number. Also, a notice of Mr. Sewall's Collection of Hymus. Doctrine of the Trinity not derived from Scripture. SEVERAL of the most learned writers among the Catholics, and strenuous defenders of the trinity, have contended, that this doctrine cannot be proved from the Scriptures. They have considered it entirely a doctrine of tradition, descending through the successive ages of the church from the apostles. In their controversies with the Protestants, they have often resorted to this, as an argument in favour of the authority of tradition, and charged them with inconsistency in believing the trinity, and at the same time rejecting other doctrines, which the Catholics embraced as coming from the same source. The learned Jesuit, Petavius, writes, that "before the Nicene Council, nothing had been written, or distinctly known, respecting the three persons and one essence of the divinity, because this mystery was not made known and confirmed, till after the contest between the Arians and the Catholics." De Trinitate, lib. 1. cap. 1. sec. 3. It is also testified by Sacroboscus, that "although the scriptures might have been adduced against the Arians, yet, because the Arians also appealed to the scriptures, the Fathers of the Nicene Council condemned them, not from the written doctrine, but from that, which had been transmitted to them by tradition." Defensio Tridentini Concilii, cap. 6. And why were not the Arians condemned from the scriptures? For a very good reason, says Wolzogen, because the passages of scripture, which they produced, could not be refuted. Another Jesuit, Peter Skarga, in writing on the text, which speaks of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, says, "It was customary at first for the apostles to conceal the doctrine of the trinity, on account of its difficulty. Peter, in his first address to the Jews, conveyed no intimation of the divinity of Christ, but only declared, that the person, whom they had crucified, God had made both Lord and Christ. The apostle Paul taught the Athenians, that there was but one God, who was the creator of the universe; and concerning Christ, he said only, that God had raised him from the dead, and made him the judge of the world.” But if the apostles did not teach the trinity, especially on those occasions on which they professed to speak particularly of the character of God and of Christ, by what authority can we call it an apostolical doctrine? And even Bellarmine, who, on other occasions, leaves no stone unturned to prove the trinity from the scriptures, says, that "since the Arians could not be convinced from the scriptures, as they expounded them differently from the Catholics, they were condemned by the unwritten word, which was nevertheless piously understood." De Verbo Dei, lib. 4, cap. 6. what other reason could the opponents of the Arians have deserted the scriptures, in passing sentence of condemnation, except that the arguments brought by the Arians could not be confuted out of the scriptures? How does it happen, that the large body of bishops, and distinguished men, who were assembled in this For council, should have rejected the sacred scriptures, and judged their adversaries by the unwritten word, that is, the traditions of the church, if the doctrine of the trinity could have been proved by any legitimate, or even plausible reasonings, drawn from the scriptures? Salmeron, in his commentary on John xvi. 12, where Christ tells his disciples, that he has many things to say to them, but that they cannot bear them now, remarks as follows. "The things, to which Christ here alludes, are the three persons in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, consubstantial (uoscov) with the Father and Son; and also the two perfect natures, and consequently the two distinct operations, and the two wills, which were in Christ." Remundus, in addressing the Lutherans and Calvinists, says to them, "you will be obliged to confess, however unwillingly, that, if you rely on the scriptures, you will be compelled to yield to the modern Arians, no less than the Fathers were to those of ancient times, unless, like them, you appeal to tradition, and the unanimous consent of the church. They were taught by tradition, that there are three consubstantial persons of the same nature and essence, which we worship as one God in the fulness of the trinity; and, also, that in Jesus Christ there are two perfect substances, but only one person. Tell me, if you listen to the scriptures, and the express word of God alone, with what arms you can expect to engage with these persons? In what way can you extricate yourself from the innumerable arguments, which they advance, unless you cling to tradition, and the consent of the church, as the only anchor of safety." Historia de Ortu et Progressu Hæres, lib. 2. cap. 15.* *For these references and extracts we are indebted to Wolzogen's treatise, entitled, Preparatio ad utilem Lectionem Librorum Novi Testamenti. |