Pr. Lowell

THE

CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE.

NEW SERIES-No. 23.

September and October, 1822.

ON THE ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE UNITARIANS OF THE NAME OF

CHRISTIANS.

FROM THE UNITARIAN DEFENDANT.

AMONG the variety of injuries which have been heaped upon those, the basis of whose religious creed is the One True God, and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent, not the least in magnitude or importance consists in the attempt to rob them of the name of Christians. We feel, however, very sure, that the number of such as have resorted to this ultimate and puerile measure of controversy, is as yet comparatively few. It was at first, we believe, set on foot by writers who had lost their temper in debate, and is now principally confined to those exclusive and intolerant religionists, who, being willing to go all lengths in their creeds, are equally ready to go all lengths in their denunciations. But, unless we are very greatly deceived, a vast majority of those who are allowed to be orthodox Christians, have not as yet given into the cruel and preposterous injustice which it is our present object to expose. Next to refusing us the name of Christians, the most severe term applied to us, with the exception of infidel, which is the same as denying us to be Christians, is that of heretics. But even the common signification of this term does not necessarily. exclude the title of Christian. Johnson defines a heretic to be one, who propagates his private opinions in opposition to the catholic (or universal) church.". Neither the Romish nor the English church has gone so far as to confound heretics in all cases with infidels. No ecclesiastical historian that we know of has intimated the identity of heretics with infidels, or insinuated that he was not giving an account of Christians, when treating of heretics. We just mention these facts in passing, to show the New Series-vol. IV.

40

extremely loose and inconsistent practice of some violent partizans, who, thinking their cause is the best served by the greatest number of opprobrious names thrown out on their opponents, make no scruple to deny us to be Christians and to call us Heretics in one and the same breath! Happily, these two contradictory charges annihilate each other. If we are really heretics, in the modern sense of the word, we are only mistaken and obstinate Christians; if we are no Christians at all, then we certainly are set free from the burden of being heretics. In this dilemma, our revilers may take their choice. But enough of this.

We were going to remark, that the title of heretics, though a good deal softer than the absolute denial of any right to the Christian name, is still by no means universally applied to Unitarians. Many, many, orthodox. pious, moderate, sensible, yet firm and zealous Christians, conscious that neither Johnson's definition, nor the usual ecclesiastical acceptation of the word heretic is the truly scriptural one, think no more of giving that title to Unitarians, than they do that of murderers and assassins. Very poorly is he versed in the criticism of the New Testament, who does not know that neither the word heretic nor heresy is ever used in that sacred book with the least reference to true or false doctrines, or to the honest and peaceable opinions entertained by any individuals, but that those words solely and entirely refer to factious and quarrelsome practices, which began to spring up in the very earliest periods of Christianity. Whoever has read Part 4, Dissertation 9, of the Preliminary Dissertations to the New Testament, written by the very pious, learned and orthodox Dr. Campbell, never can give to modern Unitarians the name of heretics, unless he intends to abandon the meaning of scriptural phraseology, and to take up with the language of exasperated popes and councils, who in the pride of fancied infallibility, regard a mere difference of opinion, however conscientious, in as black a light as they do a spirit of faction and division. Indeed, when it is recollected, that the followers of papacy consider us all, to a man, and without any exception, as heretics, one would suppose that the absurdity of this modern and unscriptural use of the word must often come home to those Protestants who are so liberal in applying it to their brethren. It is for the foregoing reasons, that the most moderate and rational among the believers in the Trinity, as was above observed, have not only refused to deny us the name of Christians, but will not go even so far as to fix upon us the miserable and childish nickname of heretics. We have the best reasons for stating that a very large majority of Protestant believers regard Unitarians in

no darker light, and denominate them by no harsher epithet, than that of misguided Christians, whose sincerity, integrity, and right to courteous language, are just as much to be respected, as their possible errors are to be pitied and avoided. Yet, although we believe this to be by far, very far, the largest class of those who differ from us, it is by no means the most active, jealous or hostile class. There are some who seem determined to keep up the ball. By loud and pertinacious reiterations, their object appears to be, to force upon the public ear, the assertion that we ought not to be called Christians, and to make the din of controversy take place of solid and clear conviction on the subject. And as the names of Quaker and Methodist, though first applied in derision, have come at length to be serious and universal appellations, so a quiet world may be made to settle down in time, by the mere force of overbearing acclamation, into the bitter injustice of which we are now complaining. To resist the tendency to this state of things, it becomes our duty to raise a voice, however feeble, and in some measure at least to counteract by fair arguments, by clear statements, and by direct expostulations, this clamour of epithets, and virulence of denunciation. For this purpose, we engage, at the stake of our reputation, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of every thinking and candid man, that the denial of the name of Christian to Unitarians, is in the first place manifestly unscriptural, in the second place, decidedly unjust, and in the third place, especially in the present state of the Christian world, highly imprudent and inexpedient.

First, it is unscriptural. Very happily for our purpose in this particular point of the controversy, we have a verse in the Bible, in which the word Christian occurs, and that too almost as if this controversy had been prophetically anticipated, mentioning the very circumstance of the name being first applied to a particular class of inen. We allude to the 26th verse of the 11th chapter of the Book of Acts, of which these are the concluding words: And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Now the point at issue will be, who were really the disciples? And to ascertain this, can we consult any record more authentic than this very book of Acts, where the name in question is defined? Will our opponents allow the three thousand souls, who were converted by the preaching of Peter soon after the ascension of our Saviour, to be disciples and to be Christians? They must of course. Will they insist that these three thousand souls became Christians in consequence of any other doctrines, or opinions, or principles, or statements, than those which occurred in the sermon or address of Peter to them, just preceding their conver

sion? We dare to say they will not. Turn then to the second chapter of Acts, in which the history of this whole transaction is recorded, and read the speech of Peter, and see if one allusion is made in it to the Trinity, or one allusion to the total depravity of human nature, or one allusion to the death of Christ as a satisfaction for the sins either of the world or of the elect, or one allusion to any of those dogmas which are tendered to us in modern times as the sine qua non of our being called Christians. On the contrary, this address of Peter is for nothing in the world so remarkable, as for the very broadest and most ultimate Unitarianism! After quoting a passage from the Prophet Joel, he thus proceeds to the business of his harangue. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, A MAN approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs which God did by him," &c-In the next verse but one, still speaking of Jesus, he says, whom God hath raised up, and again, verse 32, This Jesus hath God raised up. And in verse 36, God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Filled with convictions arising from such statements as these, three thousand men in one day became undeniably Christians; and when the same convictions and statements are admitted at the present day by certainly as many as a million of persons scattered all over Christendom, though vast numbers do not go nearly as far in heterodoxy as Peter in the above speech,-there are to be found some Christians of wider creeds and a more me. taphysical faith, who denounce the simplicity of belief which Peter and his converts bequeathed us, and would tear from our foreheads the name to which we attach all our dearest privileges and blessings here, and all our richest hopes of an hereafter.

Let our readers now turn to the next public speech of Peter, in the third chapter of Acts, particularly the 22d verse.* Was Peter a Christian? Why then did not his mind labour and overflow with the topics and qualifications which we are told constitute the essence of Christianity and alone entitle men to the name of Christians?—It is said too, in Acts iv. 4. that the number of those converted by the just-mentioned speech, was about five thousand. Were they Christians too? Certainly. But what proof have we that they were converted by any other, than the purest Unitarian doctrines, principles and arguments? See the above speech again.

In ch. iv. vs. 82, 33,† a multitude of new converts appear to

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul;

have been formed by the simple preaching of the resurrection of Jesus, a doctrine upon which Unitarians have been blamed as laying a disproportionate stress. but which they have the strongest reasons for representing as the great corner stone of Christianity. Our opponents we presume will allow the abovementioned converts to be "Christians."

Listen to the following dialogue and transaction between the Apostle Philip and the treasurer of the Ethiopian queen, Acts viii. 37, 38. "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest [be baptised.] And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptised him." Would the Presbytery of Harmony receive this qualification for baptism? Would Dr. Miller exchange pastoral labors with the Apostle Philip? Was the eunuch after baptism a Christian or not? And what proof is there that he differed in belief from the sternest and simplest Unitarian of the present day?

The moment that Saul became miraculously converted, and converted into a Christian too, what did he preach? The articles of modern orthodoxy? No, "And straightway he preached Christ in the Synagogues, that he is the Son of God," Acts c. 9. v. 20. and "proving that this is the very Christ," or the anointed, v. 22; doctrines, to which Unitarians incessantly adhere, and which when they abandon, it will be time enough to deny them to be Christians. Nor is Saul here recorded to have preached any thing else.

And how did Cornelius and all his kinsmen and friends become Christians? In consequence of the following speech of Peter, which we here copy at length, as a specimen of the principles, doctrines, and favourite topics, which are generally urged by Unitarians.

"Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Na

neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own ; but they had all things common.

And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all,