« PredošláPokračovať »
tinguished for his attachment to that faith. This article was written twenty four years before the Sandy Foundation Shaken was published. We do not pretend to analyse or reconcile Biddle’s opinions any more than Penn's. We only aim to show, that it was customary with the unitarians of that period to maintain the divinity of Christ, in the same sense as Penn has maintained it in his writings. They considered the Deity so closely united with him, that all his thoughts, words, and deeds, were in reality the thoughts, words, and deeds of God himself; and that he partook of the same nature, and was actuated by the same will. Penn says, the Quakers "believe Christ to be God, for they truly and expressly own him to be so according to scripture;” and so did Biddle, and so did other unitarians.
In regard to the Holy Spirit, he expressly denies, that it has any separate existence from God himself. When he says, that the Quakers believe the “Holy Three to be truly and properly one,” he also says, they believe them such according to scripture, and immediately adds, "that they are very tender of quitting scripture terms and phrases for schoolmen's, such as distinct and separate persons, and subsistences are; from whence people are apt to entertain gross
ideas and notions of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” This is universally the doctrine of unitarians. They believe in the “Father, Word, and Spirit, according to scripture;” and they believe, moreover, that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and separate person, nor subsistence, but truly and really God himself. The gifts of the Spirit, so often mentioned in the New Testament, were
the effects of the immediate operations of God, or of a divine influence on the minds of men.
It hence appears, that Penn's views of the trinity, as explained by himself, differed in no respect from those entertained by the unitarians of his time. They perfectly agree, also, with the opinions of the same class of christians at the present day, except in a certain indefinable notion relating to the union between God and the Saviour, which neither Penn, nor Biddle makes in. telligible. By this mode of explaining Penn's writings you preserve his integrity, and show him to be consistent with himself; but this would certainly be impossible, were you to go upon the supposition, that he was in any acknowledged sense of the term a trinitarian.
Selden on Heresy.
It is a vain thing, says Selden, to talk of an heretic; for a man for his heart can think no otherwise than he does think. In the primitive times, there were many opinions, nothing scarce but some or other held. One of these opinions being embraced by some prince, and received into his kingdom, the rest were condemned as heresies; and his religion, which was but one of the several opinions, first is said to be orthodox, and so has continued ever since the apostles.
An obituary notice of the late Col. Garrard, of Kentucky, will be published. By accident it did not come to hand in proper time,
he following extracts are selected and translated from a correspondence between Locke and Limborch, which is usually printed in the last volume of Locke's works. This correspondence is chiefly in Latin, but partly in French. Limborch was a celebrated divine of Amsterdam, and a friend of Locke and Le Clerc. His Theologia Christiana is considered a work of very great merit, and is perhaps the best exposition of the Arminian views of theology, which has been written. He was attacked by the eminent theologians of that day on the continent, and from his account it would seem, that the form and substance of orthodoxy were very much the same at that time, as at present. Writing to Locke, he says,
“A certain Lutheran Professor at Kiel 'has published a work, called Anti-Limborchian Exercitations, against my Christian Theology. Thus I am pursued both at Rome and in Germany. I have not seen the book, but I am told it is sufficiently dull. I have read an abstract of it in the Leipsic Acts; but I shall hardly raise my pen against such an opponent. As far as I can judge from these Acts, the authors do not contend for truth but for a received opinion, for human decrees, and the authority of a church. The rule of orthodoxy with them is a consent to the Lutheran doctrine. With such men it would be in vain to argue; for it is a useless labour to inquire what is taught by the Lutheran church, since this is well known from books and creeds; but no labour is too great to ascertain what is truth, and what the Scriptures teach. As things go, we find popery every where, and men succeed in establishing their own authority under the specious pretext of preserving orthodoxy. Thus orthodoxy will always obey the more powerful, and truth will be one thing at Rome, another at Geneva, and another at Wittenberg. These evils can never be avoided, while human decrees are made the criterion of orthodoxy.
“Whatsoever is peculiarly odious in the above mentioned Exercitations, the Leipsic writers have taken special care to quote. In these writers I have observed what I must either call malignity, or an inconsiderate zeal, by which they are prompted, when they find any passages in the authors, whom they review, that reflect reproach or abuse upon the Remonstrants, to point them out with eagerness, and to express them in the most bitter terms. I know not, indeed, how it is, that the Remonstrants have provoked their wrath, unless it be, that they inculcate free inquiry after truth, and fraternal forbearance towards such as differ from them. Against such persons I feel no disposition to take up my pen; nor shall I make any reply to them, nor attempt to exculpate myself from their charges. In short, I could not be on good terms with them without rendering myself unacceptable to others, whom I prefer to please. To pass them by in silence and contempt shall be my only revenge."*
Thus far Limborch. A few days after, Locke wrote a letter in reply, a part of which is translated below.
“I applaud,” says Locke, “your neglect of your adversary at Kiel. I esteem you the more for the abuse, which
you receive from these men, who differ so much among themselves; for such is the usage with which the sincere and disinterested advocates of truth are accustomed to meet. “Allow me to renew my thanks for your
Christian Theology, not because you have added a volume to my library, but because you have increased my knowledge.
“During the last winter I have been diligently inquiring in what consists the christian faith, and, refraining from the creeds of orthodoxy, and the opinions of sects and systems, I have been contented to draw only from the fountains of the sacred Scriptures. From a close and accurate examination of the New Testament, it appears to me, that the nature of the new covenant and the doctrine of the Gospel are clearer than the meri. dian light; nor do I believe, that any one, who carefully studies the Gospel, can be at a loss to decide in what the christian faith consists. I have spread out my thoughts thus collected on paper, that I might the more leisurely and calmly observe their mutual accordance, harmony, and support. When all things in this my creed appeared sound, and conformable to the divine word, I applied myself to consulting theologians, especially the reformed, that I might ascertain what they had determined concerning faith. I resorted to Cal
* Vid. Epist. Joanni Locke Philippi á Limborch. Amstelod. 26 Apr, 1695.