Page images
PDF
EPUB

Unitarian in the true sense of the word, the dogmas of Mr. Belsham annexed to it were supposed to be part of his creed.

Mr. Belsham has certainly a right to use words in what sense he pleases; but it does not follow, that the sense he chooses to give it is the true sense of the word. He may say, if he pleases, that he is an Unitarian, and nobody else is an Unitarian but who believes according to his standard of faith. That may be the law for those within his pale:

Eolus.

Illâ se jactet in aulâ

There is and will be, I am persuaded, a body of Unitarians, how ever small, who will be contented with the short creed given by our Master: "This is life eternal to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent:" and to

all who hold this faith they will be happy in holding out the right hand of fellowship, though they may entertain very different opinions on certain points, which Mr. Belsham lays down as essential to Unitarianism. In this small number I profess to be.

SIR,

MR

W. FREND.

Bristol,

December 8, 1819. R. BELSHAM'S communication, respecting the proceedings at the last annual meeting of the Western Unitarian Society, appears to me to require some notice on the part of those who supported the alteration to which he refers.

As a part of my case, I must beg you to insert the Notice which was given of the approaching Meeting in your Number for June [p, 396].

"Agreeably to the resolutions of the General Meeting of 1818, it will be referred to the ensuing Meeting, to consider the propriety of altering that part of the Preamble which relates to the doctrinal principles on which the Society is founded, so as to open it to all who worship the Father as the only true God, and worship him alone.

"The part of the Preamble referred to is as follows: declaring it to be the fundamental principle of the Society, in which we all agree, that there is but one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, without an equal or a vicegerent, the only proper object of religious wor

ship; and that Jesus Christ was the most eminent of those messengers which he has employed to reveal his will to maskiad, possessing extraordinary powers similar to those received by other prophets, but in a much higher degree.'

On this Notice I have only to observe, that the Resolution at Ilminster was expressed more loosely, to include Unitarians of every description; and that it was directed to be inserted in the Catalogues, and I think in the Monthly Repository; but that the above Notice was sent when the writer was from home, and he had no document to refer to.

To explain the share which I took in the proposed alteration, I must be indulged in a retrospective detail.

About the time when the W. U.S. was to be held in Exeter, (1811, when Mr. Kentish delivered his ex

cellent discourse on the Connection

between the Simplicity of the Gospel, and the Leading Doctrines of the Protestant Cause, its exclusive constitution formed the subject of discussion. Some, who on the ground of Christian duty united with us in the Exclusive Worship of God even the Father, and in the close bonds of Christiau communion, and were very solicitous to promote, and to see promoted, the great principles which separate the Unitarian from the worship and communion of every other body of Christions, felt painfully that the limiting restriction of our Preamble prevented them from uniting with us in our exertions; which, but for that profession or test, they could conscientiously have doue. I represented that the expression respecting the person of Christ was worded so generally, that sone who did not believe in the Simple Humanity, had felt themselves at liberty to join us. The answer was, If the expression is not designed to exclude the believer in the Preexistence, why not make it less definite? I was myself satisfied that by the original constitution of the Society, it was so designed; but I saw no reason why it should be so limited, as to exclude those whom Mr. Belsham himself allowed to be Unitarians. And if it could not be so far altered, my own wish was, that it should be made more definite.

On conferring with the two friends whose opinions were likely to decide

the question, the able Preacher of the year, and my present highlyrespected Colleague, (both of whom had been among the earliest supporters of the Society, and to the latter of whom it was under constant obligations for his judicious and zealous attention to its concerns,)-I found it met, so decidedly and unhesitatingly, with their disapprobation, that the question was not publicly agitated: and there the matter dropped.

Near the close of the year 1815, my friend Mr. Worsley, of Plymouth, communicated to me his conviction, that as the seat of the W. U. S. was so remote from the western part of Devon, and from Cornwall, it would promote the local interests of Unitarianism, if an Association for Devon and Cornwall was formed, upon a plan similar to that of the W. U. S., and which might be open to those who were not disposed to contribute so much as the subscription of the parent Society. I agreed with him on the desirableness of the plan, provided we adopted as the basis, that "God, even the Father, is the Only True God, the Primary Source of all the blessings we enjoy through Christ Jesus, and the Only Proper Object of Religious Worship." This was agreed to. The first meeting of the Devon and Cornwall Unitarian Association, was held at Plymouth, in 1814, when 134 joined us, chiefly from those who had not before been connected with any other Unitarian Society; and our venerable and pious advocate, Dr. Toulmin, preached before the new Association, the sermon which he afterwards delivered before the W. U. S. at Yeovil. The two Societies had a common and most harmonious meeting at Exeter, in the year 1817, when Mr. John Kenrick delivered that masterly discourse, entitled Unitarianism the Essence of Vital Christianity, with which most of your readers must be well acquainted.-At a previous meeting of the W. U. S. at Bristol, 1815, when Mr. Fox delivered his eloquent and interesting Reply to Popular Ob

.

*It was explicitly laid down as a principle, that "union with this Association shall in no way imply approbation of all the books which may be admitted into the Catalogue."

jections against Unitarianism, some allusion was made, in the Report of the Committee, to a diminution of numbers caused by the establishment of the Devon and Cornwall Association; and it was stated in reply, that for every one that was lost, several were gained to the open avowal of the great principles of Unitarianism, and active exertions for the dissemination of them. The conversation at that time, respecting the basis of the Association, led Mr. Fox to say (to the best of my recollection) that he was not aware he had been preaching before a Society which made the doctrine of Simple Humanity an essential point of Unitarianism; and that he could not be a member of any Society which made it an exclusive bond of union.

I do not recollect any thing more connected with the subject, till the spring of 1818, when Mr. Rowe received information from Mr. Fawcett, of Yeovil, that it was wished by some to propose at the ensuing meeting of the W. U. S. at Ilminster, an alteration in the Preamble of the Society, in order to open the door for the admission of those Unitarians who were now excluded. We could neither of us conveniently attend the meeting; but seeing in Exeter a friend who proposed going, I requested him to suggest to the meeting, that, as the subject was an important one, and few comparatively would be present, if it were moved at all, it should merely be to resolve that the question should be discussed at the next annual meeting. This suggestion was adopted. At the Ilminster meeting Mr. Yates of Birmingham was present; and the Members urged him to undertake the office of Preacher for the ensuing year: but he declined; and he was understood to state, that he could not be the Preacher of a Society which, from the then somewhat unsettled state of his mind on

* I trust that Mr. Fox and another of our ablest advocates, whom I shall soon have to mention, will excuse my adverting to their opinions. These assisted in deciding my mind, as to the course I should pursue on the question. They may have seen good reason to change them; and I am sure they ought to change them, if they have seen such reason.

the subject of the Pre-existence, he could not join as a Member. *

As the subject was publicly brought before the Society, I was solicitous that it should be fully discussed and laid to rest one way or other; and I more than once expressed, in our Committee meetings, my intention of delivering my sentiments at the annual meeting. I conceived that how ever expedient it might have been, when the Society was first instituted to make the avowal of the Simple Humanity an essential feature, (since, at that time, the Arians, however near in sentiment, were almost as much opposed to the believers of the Simple Humanity, and as much afraid of them, as the Trinitarians themselves were, and generally speaking were in no way disposed to unite with them in public efforts to oppose even the great errors of moderu orthodoxy,) yet that the time is come, when the middle wall of separation, in spirit and mutual co-operation, ought to be broken down: that the great distinction now is, between the Trinitarian and the avowed Unitarian: that there is at least one doctrine, on which the believers of the Simple Humanity differ, which is vastly more momentous than that on which they agree, and in which most of the believers in the Simple Pre-existence, unite with the bulk of those who reject the Pre-existence, the doctrine of Final Restoration: and that if the believer in the Pre-existence, adhering strictly and openly to the great principles of Unitarianism, (the Unrivalled Supremacy, Exclusive Worship, and Essential Mercy, of God even the Father,) joining with us in our Unitarian Fellowship Funds, uniting with us exclusively in our Worship, and sitting down with us at the Lord's Supper,-were disposed to associate with us, (without expecting that we should alter our practice in the introduction of books into the Catalogue, or in other means for the dissemination of the Simple Humanity · of Christ in connexion with the

I have somewhat recently heard, with great satisfaction, that he has publicly stated that his mind is no longer unsettled, but rests in the simple truth, that the Mediator between God and men was the MAN Christ Jesus.

[ocr errors]

Proper Unity of God,) provided we would cease to lay down the avowal of the Simple Humanity as an essential requisite for membership, we ought not to keep him aloof from us.

Firmly and unhesitatingly believ ing the doctrine of Simple Humanity, advocating it on all occasions where a regard to still more important principles permits me, and satisfied that the current of conviction will eventually lead every Unitarian to the reception of it, I nevertheless believed, that in the present state of the Unitarian controversy, the interests of pure Christianity would be more effectually served, by generally relinquishing this as an exclusive separating principle; and that even with respect to this doctrine itself, the doubters, or disbelievers, would be more likely to come to us, if they fought with us under common banners. With these views, which as yet I have seen no reason to change, I wished, as the measure had been brought forwards, that it should be subjected to a fair and ample discussion. When I reached Bath the evening before the meeting, I found that some of those who supported the alteration at the preceding meeting would not be present, and I could not learn that any arrangements had been made for bringing the matter regularly forwards. I believe those who wished the change, had done as I had myself, left the matter to its own course. I had myself had no communication with any of them with a view to it. In these circumstances, I drew up the following resolutions, which, at the wish of Mr. Fawcett, whom alone I conversed with before the service commenced, I undertook to submit to the meeting.

"That with a view to those believers ia

the Absolute Unity, Unrivalled Supremacy, Exclusive Worship, and Essential Unpurchased Love and Mercy, of God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hold the doctrine of the Simple Pre-existence of our Lord,—and to those who, though they cordially unite in these fundamental principles of Unitarianism, do not possess that decided conviction in the doctrine of the Simple Humanity, which would enable them to avow belief in it,-and also to those believers in the Simple Humanity, who, however important they estimate this doctrine, object to it as an exclusive test among persons who are united by the open avowal of doctrines which exclude all who

consistently profess them from the fellowship and even the worship of other denominations of Christians,-that part of the Preamble of this Society which respects its fundamental principles, do stand as follows:

"That there is but One God, the Maker

and Preserver of Heaven and of Earth and of all things therein, Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our God and Father;-that Jehovah is One, in substance undivided, in glory unrivalled, supremely great, infinitely powerful, wise, and good, the Only Proper Object of Religious Worship, the Sole Original Source of every blessing both temporal and spiritual; and that Jesus Christ was the most distinguished of the Messengers of His wisdom and mercy to the human race, authorized and empowered by Him to declare and execute the Gospel-scheme of salvation, or deliverance of mankind from siu and misery; but in every respect, and at every period, now and for ever, subordinate to and dependant upon Him, so that God may be all in all.

"That by the proposed alteration in the Preamble, it is not intended to make any change whatever in the practice of the Society respecting its chief object, the distribution of books,-agreeably to which, the selection of books is regulated by what are regarded as the sentiments of the great bulk of its Members, while each individual is left to choose for himself what he pleases for his own employment, and is not regarded as responsible for the sentiments advocated or avowed in others."

At the meeting for business, much time had been occupied, with considering various alterations proposed by the Committee in the Rules; and we came to the main point respecting the Preamble, too late to allow of that species of discussion which I had hoped for. Before the opportunity was afforded me of proposing the above resolutions, &c., the respected individual to whom, I presume, Mr. Belsham alludes, (as having, by his "good sense and solid arguments made a deep impression on all who heard him,") in the commencement of his address, made a pointed declaration, which I conceive must have made a deeper impression than even his arguments, and which at least prevented the simple effect of these

[blocks in formation]

from being ascertainable,-viz. that if the alteration was made, several (I think) of the oldest Menbers of the Society would withdraw from it. It is my earnest hope, that when any discussion with the interests of Christian truth, on questions connected occur among Unitarians, this mode of biassing a meeting may not be regarded as a precedent. If those Members were resolved to pursue such a measure, in case the disposition of the meeting favoured the alteration, perhaps (in the present case) it was desirable that their resolution should be made known before the final décision,

but not at the beginning of a dis

cussion.

When my resolutions were read, it seemed doubtful whether they would be seconded: but this was done by a Member from Bristol, with whom I had had no communication on the subject; and this (as far as I can recollect) was the case with respect to all the other Members present, except those in the Committee, at the meetings of which the subject had been brought forwards more than

once.

In the course of my remarks to the general meeting, I adverted to the opinion, (which for the reasons already given I believe to be wellfounded,) that, if they were otherwise disposed to join us, our Preamble would keep from us two distinguished advocates for Unitarian Christianity; and I conceived that this might be regarded as a specimen of its natural effect: I knew that it had had such an effect in other cases. It was stated in reply, that those individuals had for some time been Members of the London Unitarian Society; and this, the Parent Society, lays down, in more explicit yet more scriptural terms, the doctrine of the Simple Humanity as its exclusive basis. The principle on which mainly I advocated the change remained the same; but the practical desirableness of it was greatly lessened.

When as much had been said, on both sides, as the circumstances of the case allowed, understanding that the disposition of the meeting was against the change, and that it would be painful to some of those present to press a division, with the consent of the friend who had seconded my proposed reso

Jutions, I withdrew them. As far as the present prosperity of the Society is concerned, and the satisfaction of some of its most effective Members, I see no cause to regret the failure of the proposal.

And now I must offer a few remarks on some parts of Mr. Belsham's communication. I will take them as they occur. The letter itself has, without a doubt, been perused by all your readers, with the attention which every thing which comes from his pen receives among us; and I need not therefore quote at large.

(1) As far as I am concerned, (and I presume it was the case with others,) the question was not brought forwards "inadvertently," nor" under a mistaken notion of liberality." Had I beeu a Member of the W. U. S. at its commencement, I should have been one of those who conceived (as I still think) that the line of distinction was then necessary.-My opinion now is, that those who are excluded, by certain principles, from the worship and communion of every other Christian Church, and are united in worship and communion on those principles, and are alike strict in maintaining them, and alike desirous of openly avowing and promoting them, should make those principles the bond of union. And my conviction is, that by such a system, not only the great principles of Unitarianism would be most effectually promoted, but even those which most Unitarians decidedly believe to be scriptural truth respecting the person of Christ. It is not in my mind (I may venture to assert) the result of "latitudinarian principles," or concern for the personal feelings of those whom we exclude: however much I may be affected by these, I am not influenced by them: if I were, there are others to outweigh them on the other side.-As to inadvertency, after what I have said, let the reader judge. I know that in pursuing the course I did, I went on merely because I could not otherwise satisfy my own mind. Few could be aware of the painful feelings with which the previous discussions had been attended: and my own wishes were, that the subjects should have been dropped with the Annual Meeting. I knew nothing of the Report which a highly-valued friend sent you

of the proceedings; or I would have requested him simply to state, that the opinion of the Meeting was against the proposed alteration.

(2) Though principle should never be sacrificed, yet what is unnecessarily offensive to others should be avoided. The term idolatrous in the Preamble of the L. U. S., which was also adopted in that of the W. U. S., is to me extremely objectionable: if taken in the common acceptation it conveys a wrong idea; if not, it is at least useless. And it is my conviction, that such expressions have kept many more from Unitarianism, than they can possibly have brought to us. They needlessly arouse prejudice, more than they awaken inquiry.— Undoubtedly the noble band who "so strenuously insisted upon" "the retaining of this offensive expression" pursued that course which they thought principle required; and far be it from me to throw suspicion on their motives: but that it lost us the public (though I apprehend inconsistent) avowal of Unitarian sentiments and co-operation in the dissemination of them, by Jones, and Tyrwhitt, and "the whole body of Unitarians then existing in the University of Cambridge," must have operated greatly to produce the present blank with respect to Unitarian prospects in that University; and taken more generally, must have impeded the spread of our principles much more than the retaining of this offensive expression can have done good.

(S) In my judgment it is not a "trifling logomachy" in what way the term Unitarian shall be employed. Multitudes now glory in the name, with all its reproachful associations, and are getting nearer and nearer to us, the believers in the Simple Humanity, who, had it continued to be restricted to ourselves, would still have been at least on neutral ground, and unable to join with us (as they now do heart and hand) in the great and ennobling efforts which are making to disseminate our grand principles, and to participate in our cheering and encouraging prospects of their final triumph.

(4) The object of many of the books in the W. U. S. Catalogue, is, to promote the great principles of Unitarianism without entering into minor

« PreviousContinue »