With respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by Athanasius or any other man, I cannot look upon it to be so fundamental in religion as to think we should be guilty of sin, in consenting to revise, or even to change it. If in this I differ from some, I have others to support me; nay, I have the great principle of all the Protestant churches in the world in my favour; for it is a principle with them all to admit the fallibility of all human explications of Scripture. Every human explication, then, of the Trinity may be an erroneous explication; and what may be an error cannot and ought not to be imposed as a fundamental Christian verity. - BISHOP WATSON: Expediency of Revising the Liturgy, p. 67; apud Christian Reformer for June, 1839, p. 407. Bishop Burnet has said all that can well be said upon them [the damnatory sentences in the Athanasian Creed], but, in my opinion, to very little purpose. Honestly, therefore, did Archbishop TILLOTSON declare to him, "The account given of Athanasius's Creed seems to me in nowise satisfactory. I wish we were well rid of it."— And so do I too, for the credit of our common Christianity. It has been a millstone about the neck of many thousands of worthy men. To be sure, declarations like these ascended out of the bottomless pit, to disgrace the subscribing clergy, to render ridiculous the doctrines of the gospel, to impel the world into infidelity, and to damn the souls of those who, for the sake of filthy lucre, set their hands to what they do not honestly believe. The truth is, though I do believe the doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in the Scriptures; yet I am not prepared, openly and explicitly, to send to the devil, under my solemn subscription, every one who cannot embrace the Athanasian illustration of it. In this thing the Lord pardon his servant for subscribing in time past. Assuredly I will do so no more.— -SIMPSON: Plea for Religion, p. 569, Appendix ii. [This noble-minded man was prevented by death from putting his resolution of quitting the Established Church into effect.] I would willingly admit, that salvation may be obtained without a knowledge of the Athanasian Creed. Thousands and millions of Christians have gone to their graves, who have either never heard of it, or not understood it; and I would add, that let a man believe the Scriptures, let him profess his faith in Christ in the plain and simple language of the New Testament, and he may pass through life as piously and happily, he may go to his grave with as quiet a conscience, and, more than this, he may rise again as freely pardoned and forgiven, as if he had dived into the depths of controversy, and traced the nature of the Deity through the highest walks of metaphysics. But, &c.- DR. BURTON: Theol. Works, vol. i. Serm. xii. p. 283. Subjects purely speculative should be left free. If some are so bold as to determine,—who hath a right so to do, in matters of whose nature, it is generally allowed, no one can have any intuition, perception, or knowledge? Who, then, will presume to say positively what a man is or is not to believe? To attempt an explanation of these things, or to make men understand them, is equally ridiculous as to bid the blind to see, or the deaf to hear. How necessary it is, therefore, to read the Scripture, that we might with certainty know what we should believe, and might not be loaded with articles, which, if not altogether useless, are indifferent, and will not make us either the wiser or the better! Our time will be more properly employed in learning our duty, than in exercising a vain curiosity after mysteries. Bad actions are worse than erroneous opinions. The latter flow from a weak and mistaken judgment: the former proceed from a wicked and corrupt heart. The one will be forgiven; the other, without repentance, never. .... Articles of faith should be few in number, and such as are apparently and absolutely necessary, so that to refuse assent to them would be absurd. REV. JAMES PENN, B. A. Undermaster of Christ's Hospital: Tracts, p. 13; apud Manning's Vindication of Dissent, pp. 25, 26. We believe it to be taught in Scripture, that Jesus is the Son of God, in respect to his divine nature and eternal filiation; but we dare not pronounce belief in this doctrine necessary to eternal salvation. The doctrine is, indeed, involved in so much obscurity and subtlety, that, after having harassed themselves in attempting to understand it, the most learned and talented men have been forced to acknowledge their own ignorance. Now it is incredible that the Almighty should have caused our everlasting happiness to depend on the reception of a dogma so obscure and perplexed, that in all probability no man can form a distinct conception of it. Many other dogmas are involved in the same obscurity, such as that of the most Holy Trinity, namely, that there is in one numerical essence, three distinct persons; one begetting, another begotten, and a third proceeding; and that of the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, though only one, consists of two complete natures, the divine and the human. It cannot, therefore, be urged, that the belief of such doctrines is essential to salvation. Abridged from LIMBORCH: Theol. Christ. lib. v. cap. 9, § 9, 10. [See also Comment. in Acta Apostolorum, pp. 90, 91; an excellent passage, but too long for insertion.] ORTHODOXY, HERESY, AND SIMILAR TERMS, THE WATCH- Men have thought it an honour to be styled that which they call zealous orthodox, to be firmly linked to a certain party, to load others with calumnies, and to damn by an absolute authority the rest of mankind; but have taken no care to demonstrate the sincerity and fervour of their piety, by an exact observation [observance] of the gospel morals; which has come to pass by reason that orthodoxy agrees very well with our passions, whereas the severe morals of the gospel are incompatible with our way of living. - LE CLERC: Five Letters on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, p. 108. As to orthodox, I should be glad to know the meaning of the epithet. Nothing, you say, can be plainer. The orthodox are those who, in religious matters, entertain right opinions. Be it so. How, then, is it possible I should know who they are that entertain right opinions, before I know what opinions are right? I must therefore unquestionably know orthodoxy, before I can know or judge who are orthodox. Now, to know the truths of religion, which you call orthodox, is the very end of my inquiries; and am I to begin these inquiries on the presumption, that without any inquiry I know it already?. There is nothing about which men have been, and still are, more divided. It has been accounted orthodox divinity in one age, which hath been branded as ridiculous fanaticism in the next. It is at this day deemed the perfection of orthodoxy in one country, which in an adjacent country is looked upon as damnable heresy. Nay, in the same country, hath not every sect a standard of their own? Accordingly, when any person seriously uses the word, before we can understand his meaning, we must know to what communion he belongs. When that is known, we comprehend him perfectly. By the orthodox he means always those who agree in opinion with him and his party; and by the heterodox, those who differ from him. When one says, then, of any teacher whatever, that all the orthodox acknowledge his orthodoxy, he says neither more nor less than this, "All who are of the same opinion with him, of which number I am one, believe him to be in the right." And is this any thing more than what may be asserted by some person or other, of every teacher that ever did or ever will exist? ... To say the truth, we have but too many ecclesiastic terms and phrases which savour grossly of the arts of a crafty priesthood, who meant to keep the world in ignorance, to secure an implicit faith in their own dogmas, and to intimidate men from an impartial inquiry into holy writ. DR. CAMPBELL: Lectures on Systematic Theology [See also p. 469.] and Pulpit Eloquence, pp. 112-5. .... A suspicion of fallibility would have been an useful principle to the professors of Christianity in every age: it would have choked the spirit of persecution in its birth, and have rendered not only the church of Rome, but every church in Christendom, more shy of assuming to itself the proud title of orthodox, and of branding every other with the opprobrious one of heterodox. It is difficult for any man entirely to divest himself of all prejudice; but he may surely take care, that it be not accompanied with an uncharitable propensity to stigmatise with reproachful appellations those who cannot measure the rectitude of the divine dispensations by his rule, nor seek their way to heaven by insisting on the path which he, in his overweening wisdom, has arrogantly presented as the only one which can lead men thither. What is this thing called orthodoxy, which mars the fortunes of honest men, misleads the judgment of princes, and occasionally endangers the stability of thrones? In the true meaning of the term, it is a sacred thing to which every denomination of Christians lays an arrogant and exclusive claim, but to which no man, no assembly of men, since the apostolic age, can prove a title.- BISHOP WATSON: Preface to Theol. Tracts, vol. i. pp. xv. xvii.; and Life, vol. ii. pp. 287-8. Orthodoxy by itself does not touch the conscience does not quicken the affections: it does not, in any manner, connect itself with the moral faculties. It is not a religion, but a theory; and, inasmuch as it awakens no spiritual feelings, it consists either with the grossest absurdities, or with the grossest corruptions. Orthodoxy, powerless when alone, becomes even efficient for evil, when it combines itself with ascetism, superstition, and hierarchical ambition. What is the religious history of Europe, through a long course of time, but a narrative of the horrors and immoralities that have sprung from this combination! — ISAAC TAYLOR: Lectures on Spiritual Christianity, p. 77. It is a vain thing 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 one 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 have continued ever since the apostles. SELDEN: Table Talk, p. 95. The word heresy is used in Scripture—in a good sense, for a sect or division of opinion; or sometimes in a bad sense, for a false opinion, signally condemned. But no heresies are noted in Scripture, but such are great errors practical, such whose doctrines taught impiety, or such who denied the coming of Christ directly or by consequence; not remote or wiredrawn, but prime and immediate. Heresy is not an error of the understanding, but an error of the will; and this is clearly insinuated in Scripture, in the style whereof faith and a good life are made one duty, and vice is called opposite to faith, and heresy opposed to holiness and sanctity. Indeed, if we remember that St. Paul reckons heresy amongst the works of the flesh, and ranks it with all manner of practical impieties, we shall easily perceive, that, if a man mingles not a vice with his opinion,-if he be innocent in his life, though deceived in his doctrine,- his error is his misery, not his crime. Now, every man that errs, though in a matter of consequence, so long as the foundation is entire, cannot be suspected justly guilty of a crime to give his error a formality of heresy. If his error be not voluntary, and part of an ill life,— then, because he lives a good life, he is a good man, and therefore no heretic. A wicked person in his error becomes heretic, when the good man in the same error shall have all the rewards of faith. For whatever an ill man believes, if he therefore believe it because it serves his own ends, be his belief true or false, the man hath an heretical mind; for, to serve his own ends, his mind is prepared to believe a lie. But a good man that believes what, according to his light, and upon the use of his moral industry, he thinks true, whether he hits upon the right or no, - because he hath a mind desirous of truth, and prepared to believe every truth, is therefore acceptable to God, because nothing hindereth him from it, but what he could not help. A man may maintain an opinion that is in itself damnable, and yet he—not knowing it so, and being invincibly led into it- may go to heaven: his opinion shall burn, and himself be saved. However, I find no opinions in Scripture called damnable, but what are impious in materia practica, or entirely destructive of the faith or the body of Christianity, such of which St. Peter speaks, chap. ii. 1.—Abridged from JEREMY Taylor: Liberty of Prophesying, sect. ii. 2, 8, 12, 22, 36. - Deluded people! that do not consider, that the greatest heresy in the world is a wicked life, because it is so directly and fundamentally opposite to the whole design of the Christian faith and religion; and that do not consider, that God will sooner forgive a man a hundred defects of his understanding, than one fault of his will. — ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON: Works, published by himself; Serm. xxxiv. p. 412. |