agfl Ma j^wtwtha^ AaAA 'a ;^aa^ SAa^ &w#^$ (A* a a* *2 ^% lAAiMli {LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.'} [FORCE COLLECTION. ^/'ZEdXi/j-t I I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. < BtS^ftftc »n : - A A'. ' «~ w*wV > a o ^ -v ' Jfs.r A - "Vy Wff^fipto iV ■ » a rs ^ Ss /* A*' fi$M$ WW m tW - - . riR** 9a«^! " ^ a ^ . mm mmm LETTER i w TO THE MODERATOR OF THE \E\V-HAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION. BY TIMOTHY. Mistake me not, I do not slight orthodoxy, nor jeer at the name ; btM: onl) disclose the pretences of diabolical zeal in pious, or seemingly pious The slanders oi some of these, and the bitter, opprobrious speeches ot others, have more effectua% done the devil's service under the name of orthodoxy and zeal for truth, than the malignant scorwers of godliness. BiXTEK. BOST0N: POINTED BY WATSQK U BANGI. 18U*. JT "£> LETTER. Hev. Sir, YOU are probably not insensible, that men of reputation, for discernment, orthodoxy and piety have expressed great concern that the General Association lately formed, would prove productive of great evil to the churches ; that they would become instead of a Pope, to lord it over the rights of conscience, to the discouragemqit of free inquiry and to the wound- ing of the cause of truth and christian fellowship, by d - ling out premature and unjust anathemas against supposed error. Men of wisdom had so much ex- pressed their fears to this point, that it was hardly to be expected the N. H. Association, in a meeting of he members, besides eight from abroad, would so soon go all the length, as in the address you sign- ed at Dunbarton last September. Without going such a distance, as many ministers, of perhaps equal weight of character and equal concern for the souls of their fellow men, might have met, and very con- scientiously pronounced the address, one -of the most erronc ous and misleading publications they had seen ; and might have honestly referred to the same scrip- tures to which you refer and to many more for their support. And what would this prove ? Nothing so clearly as the evil tendency of all votes, addresses and results of associations to establish any poir^ of doctrine. Thus originated the amazing errors, the dreadful superstitions and horrid persecutions in the dark ages of the church. But, sir, after all, what is the great thing about which so many solemn and affectionate expressions are used, with the most censorious implications against all, who in any manner dissent from the ad- dress ? Is it any thing more than mere language of controversy, mere words of human invention, and scholastic divinity ? You will say, a great article of faith, a fundamental doctrine of the bible is contend- ed for. But, sir, do those against whom the address was pointed, deny that great article, that "funda- mental" doctrine, any otherwise thanks we dissent from language of human invention ? Do not our writings shew that we believe in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; and that concerning each we receive, or, at least, we mean to receive, the whole of Scripture testimony in its most unq&alified sense, and most uniform agreement ? What then is the ground on which we are implicitly charged with " damnable heresies ?? Is it not, sir, simply this, that we prefer the clear, intelligible, edifying lan- guage of inspiration, to the dark mysterious language " invented" through the controversies of the fourth century ? Will it not be found, on the most thor- ough inquiry ; will not the light of eternity shew the solemn fact, that we have only departed from such dark, confused language as is not found in the bible ; such words and forms as were never known in the church until the fourth century, when " fac- tion was high and charity was low,"* and that for * Miiaer's Church History, Vol. II. p. 185. ({lis we ate intentionally denounced as heretics, igainst whom the churches arc warned in the most pathetic manner ? Is it possible for you, or aiitf other man to get rid of this tact, by fairly she™ ing the contrary ? Although from the most un- righteous, terrifying insinuations of the address, one would suppose that we deny the divine nature and dignity of the Son of God, and his gracious and infinitely meritorious mediation between God and man ; and that we deny the Holy Spirit of God as given through his Son, to renew r , sanctify and comfort the heirs of salvation. But our writ- ings are our witness before the public that we are chargeable with no such error. Yes, sir, and our writings shew that our views of Q od, his Son, and his Spirit, are in perfect agreement with the views of the fathers of the first centuries. In almost their own words, we had expressed our own views, before their language had ever come to our knowledge* The very language of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ire- naeus, and others of those early times, is such, as we honestly use without any qualification or reserve, to express our own sentiments. Irenreus says that " the church dispersed through the whole world" in his day, about A. D, 130, believed " in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of the heavens, the earth and the sea ; in one Jesus Christ his Son, made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit. "* In this very language our sentiments were before the public when the address was voted. And how did the Association know, or who authorized them to judge that we do not mean as much, and the very t View of Her. p. 7», same, by such language as Irerueus and others of his time did. In respect to the divine Sonship, cft|ine nature, fulness, and dignity of Christ, we I admitted and pleaded for the plain unqualified sense of inspired language. We have also quoted, with approbation the language of the celebrated council of Nice, A, D. 325, and had published accordi more ihan a year before the meeting of the Associa- tion. We have in the most explicit manner, in our publications, expressed^ur belief in God, his Son. and his Spirit as of one divine nature, in most per^ feet agreement with the language of Calvin in his Institutes, where, speaking of Christ, he says, "He is of the Father, his essence is without beginning, but the beginning of his Person is God himself," p. 57. What then could be our heresy, about which such solemn parade w r as made by an Association professing the highest veneration for the name and sentiments of Calvin ? From the facts brought to view, is not the conclusion unavoidable that the here- sy, which the Association were pleased to terra "damnable" consists simply in a return from the "invented" language of controversy, to the plain language of the bible, and of the primitive church, which we view as infinitely more honorable to our blessed Savior, and unspeakably more expressive of divine grace in our salvation ? We cannot in con- science subscribe triune articles of faith, or use triune forms of worship- in the language which men have "invented" because it appears to its very confound- ing to the most precious truth, and exceedingly tiarring to "the glory of the gospel." Is not this the ? And vvh it hold, than to 1. >', hum "words of man's wisdom/ 1 w<* known to all the saints until more than three hun- years alter Christ ; words which \v ty of votes, in the "confused'* :il of Constantinople, A. D. 381 ;* words which Calvin speaks of as "invented" in a time pf controversy, to it grief of many in those days ; and v respect to which Calvin himself says, "I would to God that the} were buried indeed 1" p. 43. Speak- ing of Hilar)', Calvin also says, "He excuseth him- self with many words, for that he was so bold to utter new names, for after he had used the natural names, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he addeth, whatsoever is sought further, is beyond the reach of sense, be- * If we may rely on what Calvin, •Mosheim, Saurin, Jllilner and others sav about the "new" "invented" triune language, which was * t fixed,'" > A, P. 381, then one of these two things must be true ; either that the*council of Constantinople did materially depart from christian simplicity on the great point in r|iiestion, or the truth on this point had never been well Le b> st manner stated before. Let this be duly weighed by frpposc it incredible, that the doctrine contended for in the should not be correct, because it has been so long^nd so generally re- 1 by learned Divines. From the beginning of the world to the time when "the doctrine" was so "fixed" was about four thousand three hun- dred ei , a period more than three times as long as the time About two thirds of the last much shorter period, almost the whole » in world was enveloped in Popish darkness, adhering to many super- stitions and inventions, which Protestants have found to be exceedingly ry to the simplicity which is in Christ. On the other hand within the kmg foi iod, lived all the Protestants, Moses, and the Proph- nd all the inspired writers, and those with whom Inspired men were conversant. Now thviu, aside from every other consideration, is it so incredible confused and disorderly" Council of Constantinople, did froi i 'he simplicity of divine testimony, and that in this been followed by Divines in general ever since, as it is to suppose that a most important point of doctrine was never well known, manner stated. vil who had spoken and written £»9 thty were moved by the Holy Spirit" Before that time. I yond the comp\ss of speech, and beyond the capaci- ty of uiKKxstanding." Then, after speaking of what had been said in like manner by Augustine, Calvin adds, "This modesty of the holy man ought to warn us that we do not so severely, like censors, brand those with infamy who cannot subscribe anc swear to* such words as we propound them." p. 44. The words we had in view are the very words so much insisted on in the ad- dress, and there used with as much assurance as though the bible were full of them. In respect to the same words, the celebrated Saurin candidly al- lows, that the fathers of the first centuries would have deemed them heretical ! Now, sir, let the address be fairly compared with the sentiments which we have published with due examination of the differer . theories, and will it not be found that a mere fevm of "invented words," which no man will profess to understand, is the amount of all which is so solemnly inculcated by the address, beyond what w r e hold dearer than life ? And in respect to this favorite form of words, can you be ignorant, tjjat those who hold them so sacred ar^ exceedingly diverse, in the explanations given of their meaning and import ? It is doubted whether any five of the twenty who voted the address, if sep- arately inquired of, would be found agreed in any meaning of the words as there used. If the Associa- tion had gone into an inquiry concerning what each member means by such words, and had suspended their address until all were agreed in some definite meaning which they would be willing to state to the public, it is presumed, it would never have been se«i 9 in print. Was it, sir, an object worthy of that body t up the dark, equivocal, undefined language roversy, as the aW % to the chun rt, to insinuate, so contrary to the whole tenor of our publications, that deny "the God o{' the bible ;" that we denjjyflfce divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ; that we make daring* inquiries about "secret things ;" that we take away the "foundation" of the christian's "hope ;" that we set aside "the glory of the gospel ;" and take the believer's "God, aid" SAVIOR, and COMFORTER" away? Does a conscientious dis- , from a form of words which no man can un- rand, involve all this ? Does a good cause ever require the aid of such frightful, groundless, inju- 5 insinuations ? According to the representations the address, compared with abundant credible testimony, wh^t, sir, was the situation of the primi- ehureh ? According to the united testimony of try, Augustine, Calvin, Mosheim, Saurin, and re ali cottnted on your side in point of orthodoxy, ali the saints under the old Testament s and martyrs, and other chris- j three first centuries of the christian era, lived and died without using any triune article of faith, any triune doxclogy, or any such triune lan- st£ is made so "fundamental" in the address. * Ts it not perfectly incredible that a doctrine wliicn is <{ the glorv of the ill in a//," to "th humbli believer,' should not h ted in ? When et v any do< i ' not plainly lit the understandings u their Uuuds .' 10 Now, sir, was "baptism" to all the primitive chris- tians without meaning ? Without use ? Had they no "foundation' 7 for christian "hope ?" Was "the glory of the gospel" hid from them all ? Had they no such "GOD," no such "SAVIOR," no such JMFORTER" as true christians have now ? I suppose you would say, that admitting Milner is cor- rect in saying "Florian" of the fourth century "was the first who invented the doxology, glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost,"* admitting triune wqfds and worship had not been known be- fore, yet the primitive christians held in essence the same doctrine for whicii you now contend. But what evidence have you of this in regard to them, you have not in regard to us ? As they did, do not we hold most sacred every article of faith as we find it in the precious volume of revelation ? Inquiring about no secret things, we regard the holy scriptures as our standard, excluding all the w r ords of man's wisdom, and conscientiously hold fast every senti- ment which we can learn by searching, and compar- ing scripture with scripture. And we find no lan- guage in which we can more honestly, and unre- servedly express our own sentiments, than the very language of the ancient fathers, as given by eminent writers whom you claim as of the same triune ortho- doxy as the Association. If then you view the ancient fathers, whose lan- guage we most heartily adopt, as having been ortho- dox in the essence of your favorite point, where is your ground to cry heresy against us ? Those fathers undoubtedly thought they saw 1 >v in f Milner's Hist, of the Church, Vol, II. p. ! 11 the scriptures, meaning in baptisms, and glory in the gospel. We think the same. Yea, to the praise of the divine grace we would say it, we think we have found such meaning in baptism, such harmony in the scriptures, and such glory in the gospel, as has been greatly obscured for ages, by "words of man's wisdom," by that mysterious language of con- troversy, which the address so much sets up as the "all in alP of religion. And who has authorised you or any others to call in question our sincerity, or to charge us with vain presumptuous specula- tions ; or to denounce the sentiments we express in in the plain, unqualified language of inspiration, as "damnable heresies ?" How often was the same lan- guage used in the terrible denunciations against Lu- ther, Calvin, Zuingle, Melancthon, and others, with- out whose independent exertions, we might have been now enveloped in all the darkness of Popery ! , Such reproaches are of a nature grievous to be borne ; especially when they come from such as we have been habituated to rerere and love as fathers and brethren. But, sir, our opinions are the result of too much serious, prayerful and thorough inquiry, and are rested too exclusively on divine testimony to be shaken by any such terrific denunciations ! Judg- ing from much careful examination of the subject, and from daily observation respecting the manner ia which our writings are treated, we are settled in the opinion, that the only way for any man to remain on the common ground, in respect to the great point of popular orthodoxy, is to yield to the prepossessions, 12 interests and fears which oppose any departure from it, so as to make no thorough impartial examinational concerning it. The God of all grace forgive what the Association thought to do against us, and prevent the evil which the address might otherwise produce. Yours with due respect, TIMOTHY. ^ P. S. Rarely, if ever, have we seen what appeared to us a higher manifestation of a sectarian spirit than is found in the address. Is it not usual for the most enthusiastic, schismatic, and erroneous sectarians, to make high professions of the most benevolent concern, for those to whom they volunteer their ser- vices ? Do they not usually treat their peculiar sentiments as the "all in air of religion ? Do they not usually make a great show of reliance on scripture., while very little, jf any is quoted fairly to their purpose ? Do they not usually rely on detached parts of the bible, without any due regard to the analogy of things, and the agreement of all scripture ? Do they not usually pass confi- dent as?ertie, i oag arguments ? Do they not usually keep the most weighty objections and arguments against them, as much as possible out of sight ? Do they not usually repeat with the more zeal such arguments as have been shewn to be fallacious ? Do they not usually become the more confident, zealous and cen- sorious, the more clearly their errors are pointed out ? Do they not usually become exceedingly bitter against auoh as most clear- ly and fairly expose their errors, however amiable their charac- ter ? Do they not often make the most groundless and injurious insinuations against such as they would fear to accuse in any di- rect explicit manner ? D.j .hey not usually avoi^jneetiug their op- ponents fa any fair r>en, nanly way ? And do they not usually endeavor to work \ p i\ pa^ffljs of their admirers to the highest veneration for their own pecuKar- tenets, and to the greatest aver- sion to every th5ng in opposition to them ?* All the?e thirds are, at least, to some minds, very strikingly manifest in the address, # * Ts It not, to wise observers, characterise of tlxe most erroneous Secta- rung lo rely on a certain round Oi specious arguments, regardless of what- 13 Tt is not, mt. in my heart to insinuate that your "aural char- I ill a of the brethren who voted the addict^ i> ol such But it is thought worth) of very serious c-onsid- hetheryou, and they, moved with great zeal, to cuppert Hilar, idolized error, have not, in an hign degree, fallen into the verj Bamc spirit and manner, which in others who propagate i 1 > perceive and very justly disapprove. Certain the spirit and manner of the address are such, that it appears to have already done much, to confirm an able, reflect- ing Brother in the ministry, in the opinion, that the causes it was intended to support, is not good.. In one particular, other secta- rian^ in general have the advantage. They find some detached ieripture language in which to express their favorite opinions, and are not so entirely dependant on "invented" "words of man's wisdom," or so driven to add to what is written ! Who can point to any argument ever used by wise men, which is more fallacious than that which is the great pillar of the ad- dress ? What is more common than such elliptical sentences as the baptizing text ? W T e speak of the laws of God, and of man, mean- ing the la?vs of God, and the laws of men. We speak of the pres- ence of God, and of angels, and of men, meaning the presence of God, the presence of angels, and the presence of men. In any prop- er case it would be equall/^proper to say, in the name of God, and of angels, and of nfen, meaning in the name of God, in the ever is said to show their fallacy, and never fairly meeting the arguments which support the truth against them ? On the contrary is it not character- istic of those who have truth on their side, to offer strong reasons for their opinions, at the same time pointing out the fallacy of the most specious arguments which go to the support of error ? In our publications we have given what we consider strong scripture reasons for our sentiments, and, as we think, have faiyty shewn material defect in the arguments which have long supported contrary opinions. But where is the manly attempt to show any fallacy in any arguments on which we rely ? Or where is the manly reply in defence of arguments which we have considered fallacious ' Where is any thing directed against us, in any other manner, than in that which is characteristic of a bad cause ? If our opponents have the truth on their side, they certainly can do more than repeat the arguments we have considered defective. Yes, if the truth is with them, ran shew material defect in our arguments, and can make it appear that their own are not so defective as we have supposed. And until they fairly do 'his, is not all their cry of heresy, with bare repetition of arguments which we consider refuted, premature, and highly evidential that theft; sauae n desperate ? 2 14 name of angels, and in the name of men. Suppose we were to re id oi baptizing into the name of Peter, and of James, and of Joh/ij as to * lie language where would be the impropriety ? And what would be the *ense ? Or suppose we were io read of baptiz- in into the name of "the Spirit/' and of "the water," and of "the blood/' would there be any thing improper in the language, and •woiud 'sep irate subsistences" be any more evidentlyexpressed than in the baptizing phraseology ? Elijah said to the false prophets, "call ye on the name of your gods." Are we to understand that those "gods many" were not "separate Beings, or subsistences" because the word "name" is in the si gular number ? Concerning the sons of Joseph, Israel said, *Iet my name be named upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." Now, sir, why does not the "single name" in this case as much prove that Abraham and Isaac were not "separate beings, or subsistences" as the "single name" in the baptizing text proves the same tiring in respect to God and His Son ? Really, sir, must not a time come when great and gocd men will be astonished with the fallacy of arguments on which they have relied with great assurance, through the blinding na- ture of prepossessions and sectarian interests'? Much as the As- sociation have expressed their confidence in the orthodoxy of the churches addressed, it is seriously believed, that if the mem- bers of those churches were all fairly fcamined one by one, there would ns t be found more than one in five, who has not learned from his bible to view God and his Son as "separate beings?* notwithstanding all the darkening language of controversy by which they have been told otherwise, not perceiving what their teachers have really meant by such mysterious words. Every man well acquainted with the bible knows, that by far the greater part of scripture language, in respect to the Holy Spirit, is of this imoei,«onal kind, "The Spirit of God" "My Spirit," i; Thv Spirit," "His Spirit," "poured out," "shed forth," "cbme unon," tilled with," "residue of" "baptized with;' anointed with," written with," "tne Spirit itself," and the like. Now who can shew one instance of any such language, applied in the same manner, to the Father, or to the Son, or to any other proper Person ? But on the other hand, while the Spirit is in some in- stances, strongly personified, the same is true in respect to the ivind, th£ er^t h . the sea. and many ct^er things. Hence ia be* fieving as you do, concerning the Spirit; do you not entirely 6 part from th€ common n o» oi from all analogy, and Lire with scripture ? 1! j pin Jar opinion concerning correct, u hat reason can be given, whj all thr language of the bible is not as uniformly // in respect to the Spirit, as it is in regard to tlic Father and the Son, and every oth Amidst ail the reproach s cast upon us, "Ouf rejoicing is this, ionv o\ our conscience, that in simplicity, and godly cerity, not uidi fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we had our conversation in the world." IC7" Since the In rejoins; was prepared for the press, the author has seen an able work, written witli great evidence oi* honest assiduous inquiry, in which some account is given of no han twenty -four ecclesiastical councils, before the close of the fourth centuiy, all having so«e respect to the matter of controversy, between Arius and Athanasius, or to the conduct of those men. Before their time, there was, A. D. 270, a great council at Antioch, which acted expressly against what each of those men afterwards contended for. The other twenty- three councils were all, or nearly all, while Athanasius was thing. And it appears that the proceedings of five of those eouneils were more or less favorable to him, or to the cause which he espoused ; that the proceedings of eight were against him. and in support of the Arians or Semi-Arians ; and that S:ie other ten councils avoided any division to set up, or put own one party or the other, otherwise than by expressly, or im- pliedly disapproving any philosophic departure from bible sim- fiicity in respect to the most high God, his Son, and his Spirit, t also appears, that from a sentence of a council of Bishops, * by which he was deposed, and which was confirmed by the. Emperor Const ant ins, Athanasius appealed to Julius Bishop of Rome : and that this extraordinary, antichristian appeal operated finally to turn the scale in his favor, and in favor of new doctrine of the Trinity, so that it grew with the* growth, and was established with the establishment of Popery. See "an attempt to explain the words reason, person sub- stance/' &c. by a Presbyter of the church of England. Some extracts from which may soon be offered to the public. 'AnAAA MW^ ^ . Mttewm* JSbl l3m AAA.