Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

readiness to take the lowest place, could only be exceeded by the eagerness of all who knew him to assign him the highest; and this was the only competition which the distinctions of life ever cost him. His modesty was such, that the praises he was most solicitous to merit he blushed to receive; and never appeared so disconcerted and embarrassed, as when he was necessitated to hear his own commendations. Hence it will be easily inferred, that he was completely exempt from the jealousy of superior talent or reputation; that it gave him not a moment's uneasiness to find himself eclipsed, and that he was the ardent admirer and panegyrist of the mental endowments in which he was most deficient. Though he had neglected to cultivate the powers of his imagination, and was little distinguished for the graces of style, no one was ever more disposed to admire them wherever they were conspicuous. The candour and benignity of his mind prepared him to embrace every kind of intellectual superiority, to rejoice in every display of talent, devoted to the interest of religion; and to derive exquisite gratification from the operation of those qualities and powers, to which he made the least pretensions. His enjoyment of intellectual repast, was not impaired by the consciousness of not having contributed to furnish it; and his virtue was thus its own reward, by enabling him to reap the harvest, where he neither sowed the seed, nor prepared the soil.

If any man ever practised the gentleness of Jesus Christ, it was certainly our lamented friend. Possessed of a temper naturally quick and irritable, he had, by the aid of reason and religion, so far subdued that propensity, that it was rarely suffered to appear; and when it did, it was a momentary agitation which quickly subsided

into kindness and benignity. His sensibility was exquisite. There were a numerous class of subjects to which he could rarely advert without tears. The bare recurrence to his mind of the great objects of religion, was sufficient to produce a gush of tenderness; so entirely was his heart softened, that it might be truly styled " a heart of flesh." Nor was his sensibility confined to religion. It pervaded the whole system of his life, producing a quick and powerful sympathy; not only with his own species, but with the whole circle of animated nature, the properties of which he took great delight in investigating, and in tracing the exquisite contrivance of its benevolent Author for its preservation and enjoyment.

The opportunities of making great sacrifices for the good of mankind, are of rare occurrence, and he who remains inactive till it is in his power to confer signal benefits, or yield important services, is in imminent danger of incurring the doom of the slothful servant. It is the preference of duty to inclination in the ordinary course of life, it is the practice of self-denial in a thousand little instances, which forms the truest test of character, and secures the honour and the reward of those who "live not to themselves." Viewed in this life, our lamented friend presented a pattern of Christian virtue, rarely if ever surpassed. His whole life was a series of acts of self-denial; his conduct appeared invariably to proceed from the impulse of benevolence and the sense of duty, and though not exempt from the errors and imperfections incident to the present state, his " eye was always single," his intentions always upright. If the essence of Christian perfection consists in a sole and supreme desire to do the will of God, he probably made as near an approach to it, as is attainable in the present state, though he not

only never pretended to it, but held all such pretensions in abhor

rence.

That denomination of Christians, of which he was so long a distinguished ornament, will especially lay this providence to heart. Our hands are weakened this day; and if the glory is not departed from us, it is at least eclipsed and obscured. We have been visited with stroke upon stroke. Our brightest lights have been successively extinguished; and in vain. do we look around for a Beddome, a Booth, a Fuller, or a Ryland; names which would have given lustre to any denomination, and were long the glory of ours. Your pastor was endeared to us, as one of the last links of the chain which connected the present generation with the founders of the Baptist Mission. From the very beginning, he mingled his counsels and his prayers with that determined band, who, in the absence of all human resources, resolved to send the Gospel to the remotest quarter of the globe; nor did he cease to his last hour to watch over its progress with parental, solicitude. The intimate friendship which subsisted between that

lovely triumvirate, Fuller, Ryland, and Sutcliff, which never suffered a moment's interruption or abatement, was cemented by their common attachment to that object. of congenial sentiments and taste, though of very different temperament and character, there was scarce a thought which they did not communicate to each other, while they united all their energies in supporting the same cause; nor is it easy to determine whether the success of our mission is most to be ascribed to the vigour of Fuller, the prudence of Sutcliff, or the piety of Ryland. Is it presumption to suppose, they still turn their attention to that object; that they bend their eyes on the plains of Hindostan, and sympathize with the toils of a Carey and of his associates, content to postpone the pleasure which awaits them on his arrival, while they behold the steady though gradual progress of light, and see, at no great distance, the idol temples fallen, the vedas and shasters consigned to oblivion, the cruel rights of a degrading superstition abhorred and abandoned, and " the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of God and of his Christ."

ORIGINAL ESSAYS, COMMUNICATIONS, &c.

THE WELSH COTTAGER.

No. II.

FORMERLY we cottagers used to consider the disputes between the learned, of different parties among Christians, as terminating eventually in the question, Who understood the Bible best? And in this view of the subject we had numbers of learned men on our side,-a Pool, an Ainsworth, a Patrick, an Owen, a Goodwin, a Charnock, a Baxter, a Henry, a Watts, a Guise, and a Doddridge. But now, the disciples of Socinus intrench themselves in new ground; or rather, occupy

the trenches formed for them by the Deists. They now speak out, and correct the divine penmen themselves. They charge the great Apostle Paul with inconclusive reasoning, and his Divine Master with misquoting Scripture. They pretend to be wiser than inspired men, and exalt themselves above the Holy Spirit. They believe nothing, though delivered by the mouth of inspiration, but what they can comprehend, and what agrees with their preconceived opinions. There is no submitting of the understanding to God, or believing

what he says; but every one must believe the suggestions of his own mind. The will is God's subject to command, but the understand ing is not his to instruct!

Our learned gentry, in their pretensions to superior intellect, are continually pouring out, from their scientific intrenchments, vollies of abuse, and red hot balls of

66

absurd," "irrational," and "contemptible." But we are not yet disposed to capitulate, nor to admit that reason has wholly retired within their lines, or become their exclusive property. We still believe that our learned Trinitarians are not idiots, but men of deep and cool reason; that they are not inferior in rational powers to their vaunting degraders; that they have as much reason and argument at command, as these boasters, though not so many brass cannon on their ramparts. We think it most reasonable to believe every fact, and every proposition asserted by the Omniscient, though the mode of it may be incomprehensible; which is altogether analogous to what we know of his works. We think it most unreasonable to suppose, that God means not as he speaks in his word; or that his inspired servants either used words without a meaning, or words improper to convey intended ideas. We also think, that not to believe any doctrine delivered in Scripture, according to the plain meaning of the words, from a notion that it is contrary to reason, is to be an unbeliever, and to make God a liar. Nevertheless, in believing a proposition that contains some mystery we cannot comprehend, we believe no absurdity. We believe the plain proposition, and not that which therein is mysterious, or unintelligible. For instance, we believe that God was eternally self-existent; but how he was so, is to us unintelligible, and we believe nothing about it. Again, we believe that God is omniscient,

that he searches the heart, and that he will judge the world at the last day; but how he is omniscient, how he searches the heart, and how he will judge the world, is to us unintelligible, and that with which we are not concerned; so that here, we neither believe absurdities, nor speak jargon. In like manner, that "there are three who bear record in heaven," is a plain proposition; and that "these three are one," is another, equally so; but how the three are one, and how the one is personally three, so as to be three witnesses, we are not concerned to know. "God was

over

manifest in the flesh," is a plain proposition; but how he was so, is a "great mystery," which we attempt not to comprehend. That Jesus" came of the fathers, as concerning the flesh," is a plain proposition; and that he is " all, God blessed for ever," is equally plain; but the manner in which he is God-man, is a subject with which we meddle not. An attempt to pry into unrevealed modes,-the query, How can these things be as they are revealed? and a consequent denying of them, because they are incomprehensible, we consider as the highest presumption, and a presumption that ruins the whole Socinian scheme. For when Socinians say, that the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to reason, do they not pretend to comprehend the Deity in their finite minds, and thus become guilty of great rashness by such an assertion? How do they know that it is contrary to reason, unless their reason can comprehend his manner of being? Surely no man should presume, a priori, to know God's manner of being, and then condemn Scripture phraseology as absurd! Would it be just in a peasant, to declare the Newtonian system of philosophy contrary to reason, because it is above his comprehension? Full as just as all the reasoning of Socinians

against the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ! All such reasoning is the essence of unreasonableness.

Our Freeholder says, "If you allow, as you seem to do, the incapacity of the mind to form an idea of the Trinity, the doctrine, as an object of faith, is gone for ever." Well done, Goliah! This is doing business by wholesale. And yet, in the very next page, he acknowledges that the divine nature is incomprehensible. Then, according to the above proposition, the doctrine of the being of God, as an object of faith, is gone for ever, and all religion along with it! We can form no idea of the manner in which God is omnipresent; and must that doctrine, as an object of faith, be also gone for ever? There are thousands who can form no idea how the rays of light are propagated, and how the eye is affected by them, or the ear by sound: must they, therefore, expunge the doctrines of light and sound from their creed? Must we deny the doctrine of gravity, because we can form no idea how it belongs to inert matter? Must we deny the doctrine of God's omnipresence, because we cannot comprehend it? Is not faith a belief of some testimony? And may we not believe the testimony of God, when he reveals a doctrine that surpasses our conceptions?

In the Freeholder's endeavours to support the credit of his friend, and his associates, he boasts of the excellency of their creed, condemns that of others, misrepresents and calumniates the sentiments of those who differ from them, and burlesques the very language of Scripture. This seems to demonstrate, either that he is not conversant with Scripture itself, but only with certain summaries of doctrine, and the reflections of his own party thereon; or that he is an enemy to Revelation. In his preface, he declares himself "an

enemy to all doctrines, which wise and enlightened men have proved to be contradictory to reason;" and that he thinks it his " duty, on every opportunity, to declare hostilities against those dogmas which confound the human understanding." Now, who are those "wise and enlightened men?" None but such as agree with him in sentiment;-all others are unwise, and unenlightened, we may be assured. To whom have the doctrines he opposes been "proved to be contradictory to reason?" To none but those whose understandings are under the same prejudices as his own. Whose understandings are "confounded" by the doctrines to which he declares himself hostile? None but those of such as himself,—men who confound their own minds by meddling with those hidden things which belong to God alone,-who want to be wise above what is written, and who amuse themselves with the "oppositions of science," as those of old. He talks of “improved versions of the Scriptures," and of improved criticisms," such as would be highly favourable to his cause. But what kind of versions and criticisms does he refer to? And what are the "unadulterated doctrines of Christianity" which he recommends? We may be sure they are such only as agree with his notions; so that he is only complimenting and commending his own understanding in all that he advances on this head. He highly commends his own favourites, as being "distinguished by the amiableness of their virtues, and by their superior information and liberality." We know but little of their personal qualities, and therefore say nothing on the subject. But we understand that their superior information and liberality consist in explaining every topic agreeably to his taste, and in subjecting Scripture to his notion of reason. We also perceive that

"

We are by no means friendly to any kind of church-tyranny, creedmaking, human impositions, or a superiority among fellow-labourers; nor do we approve of the haughty language of those who bask in the sun-shine of preferment, and act the part of Pharaoh's task-masters towards others. Yet we conceive that a boast of superior learning, and the language of burlesque and contempt, is as much fraught with imposition and tyranny, and as contrary to the mild genius of Christianity, as any other kind of conduct, and the only tyranny that men out of power are capable of. To talk, therefore, of amiableness and liberality, and yet to use such contemptuous and arrogant language, is to contradict their own professions; as even a child may easily perceive.

66

their amiableness and liberality Spirit to be God; that they ascribe towards men of sentiments diffe- to each of them divine perfections rent from their own, consist in and operations, as well as to the accounting them all absurd and Father; and that they declare the irrational beings,-in declaring Father, Son, and Spirit, to be one every doctrine, except what they God, is equally undeniable, howadmit to be true, absurd, and in- ever any may explain these represulting to reason. This is their sentations differently from Triniconstant language, and their un- tarians. How then can any one varied mode of disputation. Yet, be so bold as to ridicule the if we admit what they say in praise phraseology of Scripture? Does of themselves, they are very amia- this indicate an amiable, humble, ble and liberal! and liberal mind? Does it show a becoming deference to the Holy Scriptures? Or rather, wherein does it differ from the insulting language of infidels? "The philosophic tribe," as he informs us, having seen pointed out by their experiments, so many traces of the divine benevolence, are apt to become averse to a system which represents the Deity as resolved upon revenge, which can only be appeased by the eternal misery of the human race, or the sufferings and death of a being equal in rank and dignity with himself." On this astonishing passage I would remark, First, How different the views of the writer are from those of the sacred penmen. They represent the sufferings of the Son of God as the most eminent instance of the divine benevolence; but our author despises the idea, as far inferior to those which have been found out by experiments in philosophy. God himself "commends his love," in giving his Son to die a ransom for sinners, in order to save them from the desert of their sins; but our Freeholder despises and denies it! Can any thing be more extraordinary in one who professes himself to be a Christian? Secondly, his making the doctrine of the atonement to represent God as resolved on revenge, is a most gross misrepresentation. Such language, however it may be deemed amiable and liberal among philosophers, must be accounted by cottagers as the vilest calumny, as the effusion

Our author, however, stops not here. He is not satisfied with pouring incessant contempt on the sentiments of others, but burlesques the language of Scripture, and calumniates in order to excite prejudice against it. He ridicules the idea of "the Creator's becoming an infant," and after that, "suffering and dying by the hands of his creatures. That the Scriptures represent Christ with respect to his divinity, as the creator of all things, and that, in his human nature, he was born an infant, is what no man can deny, however any man turn it all into allegory. That the Scriptures also declare Christ to be God, and the Holy

« AnteriorContinuar »