CUMMING'S Discourse. addreffed to the legislature of ART. 3. A difcourfe to a fociety of young men in London; preached in the year 1719, by Rev. John Cumming, minifter of the Scots church, London. Bolton. Manning & Loring. FROM the advertisement of this difcourfe in the newspaper, one would very naturally fup pofe that it was defigned to coun- But we were fomewhat disap The text of this difcourfe is the 3d verfe of Jude. It was needfut for me to write unto you, and exbort you, that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the faints, A difcourfe on fuch a fubject as this. After fpeaking of heterodox cannot be unfeasonable at any time, fchemes and the opinions now and may feem neceffary at a time, when the foundations of our religion propagated among us by the dif are openly attacked, a new faith is im- ciples of Arius, we find the folpofed upon chriftians, and when the re- lowing very fober and candid revivers of an exploded herefy impudent- flection. ly boast of numbers and authorities. Now, reader, recollect that this difcourfe is published as containing "feafonable thoughts," and deferves the fame ftri&tnefs of animadverfion as though it were recently written, and written for the prefent ftate of the church. We ask then, what is this "new faith," which is impofed upon christians"? Who are the "revivers of an exploded herefy"? "All distinction between herefy and found doctrine is laughed at as ridiculous," &c. This charge may come very well from a devotee to a Prefbyterian hierarchy; but where are we to obtain our authority for deciding on herefy, for discriminating in all points between found doctrine and falfe? ex Things are come to a crifis, and the common vaunt is, that it will be the glory of this age to end in Arianiim." It is defirable that this 66 ploded" controversy should not be revived; but, when what was defigned as a reproach at the beginning of the last century, is fo unfairly and prefumptuously caft upon no one knows whom at the beginning of the prefent, we involuntarily with to afcertain what is meant. Whoever has imagined this difcourfe fo "feafonable," will doubtless inform us who have boafted or predicted, "that it will be the glory of this inquifitive age to end inArianism." When fuch a dreadful fcene opens to our view, when there is a manifeft confpiracy carried on against the funda mentals of our religion, it fhould animate the zeal of chriftians, &c. Where, by whom, and in what manner is this dreadful and alarming confpiracy "manifefted" and carried on against the fundamentals of chriftianity? In our country furely. By infidels? No, by heretical chriftians. In what ways? Through the inftrumentality of books, pamphlets, newfpa pers, or periodical publications? By fecret plots, inflammatory declamation, or addreffes from the facred defk ?-This remains to be explained! From remarking on the divinity and fatisfaction of Chrift, the the writer of this difcourfe proceeds to obferve, I might mention other principles in revealed religion, which have a neceffary connexion with the former, and which are esteemed fundamental by the unanimous fuffrage of all the reformed churches. The "fuffrage of reformed churches" is not admitted to the rule of faith by Congregationalists; nor indeed in words by any other churches. But it is very queftionable, whether it can be made to appear that there has been fuch a harmony in opinions, as our author would make us be lieve. The reformed church of England, for example, has its ar ticles of faith, and those to which it requires the affent of all candidates for its protection, honours, and emoluments. But it is well known that many of its clergy. and even dignitaries, moft eminent, pious, and candid, have explained many of these articles in a manner very different from the writer of this difcourfe, and not very fatisfactory to him who has difturbed his afhes. What will fuch fay of Tillotson, Clarke, and Watfon? They will not furely deny them the name of christians. It is not thought expedient to change or annul any articles, ог canons of faith in the English church. But, were its clergy affembled in council, we fhould be far from finding an "unanimous fuffrage" in their favour; unless every one would comply with fecret conftructions and mental refervations. Without ftating many of his premifes, this preacher to the young lays down his conclufion, That it is a neceffary part of faith, a fundamental in our religion, to believe that our Lord Jefus Chrift is God, in the native and literal fenfe of the word as it fignifies a being of infinite perfections, of abfolute eternity, and neceffary exiftence. This is that faith we muft live and die in, if we will be chriftians: If we fuffer ourselves to grow cold or indifferent towards it, it will be an eafy matter for the adverfaries of the truth firft to make us fcepticks, and then to overthrow our faith entirely, in thofe points of revealed religion that are apprehended to be of lefs moment, or in which a difference in opinion may be thought lefs hazardous. It would be very gratifying, if the perfon who has given us this new edition of Scotch bigotry, would become his author's com mentator upon these fentences. And furely he will not fhrink from the task through an apprehenfion of perplexing orthodox chriftians. He will not fuffer them to wreft fuch paffages to their own confufion. "Every one that will live and die a chriftian muft believe that Chrift is abfolutely eternal, and neceffarily exiftent." A glorious anathema, worthy of being fulminated in modern times! And who has authorized a Cumming of 1805 thus rafhly to denounce many of our moft pious and ex-, emplary men, and to pronounce, damnatory fentence upon the memory of some of our reverend fathers? How does he dare thus infolently to trample on the afhes of the dead? thus prefumptuously to arraign the living who have not manifested all that temerity of judgment, and intrepidity in decif ion, which he is ready to exercife? Is this to become the spirit of our times? Is any one among us to affume it as a truth that a certain church rightly interprets a particular doctrine? to call thofe, who decide by the fame fcriptures, hereticks? and to revive a spirit of controverfy on a fubject, which has already fufficiently confounded the judgment and inflamed the paffions of the christian world, and filled Englifh libraries with volumes and volumes of Trinitarian and Unitarian tracts ? Throughout the whole bible Jefus Chrift is definitively and absolutely declared to be God and Lord, and the titles and attributes of the only Lord God are, without limitation, afcribed to him, &c.. Many, who have read and thought upon this fubject, will think that this fentence needs very much explanation. The affertion it contains can apply to but a fmall number of texts which fpeak of Chrift. It is a party decifion founded on a few detached paffages of scripture. Let thofe, that think it proper to fcreen their real fentiments, make ufe of terms ambiguous and equivocal it becomes the ministers of Chrift to be open, free, and explicit in declaring what they believe; what that faith is, which they preach to others; and in detecting the errours, which are opposed to it. We had much better be altogether filent, than perplex men's minds and enfnare their confciences by giving an uncertain found; or making use only of words, that have no determinate meaning, or which the greatest corrupters of the faith wrest to a contrary one. All this doubtlefs is faid with particular reference to the doctrine of the Trinity; for our author feems to confider it the fum and fubftance of chriftian faith. But no "ambiguous" nor "equivocal" words must be nfed. Extraordinary indeed! Then furely there is nothing myfterious in the Trinity, nor there any texts relating to the perfon of Christ of doubtful interpretation. All ferious men will unquestionably explain them precifely in the fame way. Speaking of the means to be ufed in contending for the faith, the writer remarks, "they are not carnal. It excludes all manner of violence, coercive power," &c. Humane indeed! But fail not to wield your fpiritual weapons, to create falfe alarms, to hold up to publick jealoufy certain fects of chriftians, and by thofe and other means to impair and destroy their reputation and usefulness. When they blafpheme the Author and Finisher of our faith, deny his eternal Godhead, profane his blood, the price of our redemption, as accidentally shed, and turn into burlefque and ridicule the unity of the faered Three; when fuch blafphemies, I fay, appear without difguife and are vended without control, it is high time for the stewards of the myfteries of God (unless that character is to be given up in compliment to the tribe of libertines) to beftir themselves in vindication of those truths, that are in a particular manner committed to their truft. All this doubtlefs has been thought applicable to our times, or, like fome other paffages in the original difcourfe inconfiftent with all candour and decorum, it would have been suppressed. For my own part, I cannot conceive how thofe, who depart from the common faith of the reformed churches in the doctrine of the ever bleffed and undivided Trinity; who oppugn the true Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift, his being one God with the Father, of the fame adorable nature; who regard his death as an accidental thing, or deny it to be a proper atonement for fin, a complete fatisfaction to Divine Juftice; can any longer retain a due efteem for the fcripture as given opinion of the writer, the " by infpiration of God. Here the preacher has certainly reprefented as infeparable tenets, which are not always found united in the fame creed. The abfurdity of perpetually prating upon the "common faith of the reformed churches" ftrikes every one, who has a flight knowledge only of the diversity of opinion among their refpectable clergy. That the difbelief of the Athanafian Trinity implies a denial of the atonement, we do not admit. We produce the following as an example of our author's fairnefs and candour. Such is the abfurdity of a dependant God, who neither was made out of nothing, nor is the felf exiftent fubtance, but a middle nature between created and uncreated! who is not abfolutely eternal, and yet always was! who is indeed omnipotent, or may be fo called, but is not fupreme over all! who is God over all, bleffed forev ermore, and yet a precarious, inferiour being, as much depending upon the Supreme Caufe, as thofe vain men, who form to themselves fuch a chimerical divinity! Are these very intelligible notions ? Certainly not. But it is very eafy for a man of lefs ingenuity than the writer of this difcourfe to create a set of abfurdities, and charge them upon a fect of christians. On the subject of belief he fays, "I grant it is no good reafon why we fhould hold fast an opinion merely becaufe generally received and long entertained," &c. unan. imous fuffrage of the proteftant churches" was fufficient to estab lith a doctrine. The faith of the gofpel has been fettled long ago. The church has been in poffeffion of that faith from the be ginning, and from the beginning took terminate fenfe, &c. the word of fcripture in a certain de This is a downright falfehood. ground his faith on any other teftimoAnd though no chriftian ought to y, than that of fcripture, yet it should be no fmall fatisfaction to all good men, that the great truths they contend for have been always held and maintained by the chriftian church. The writer has certainly blended things in the strangest manner. He makes the fcriptures competent to fettle all points of faith, and yet brings in the church in all ages (including the teftimony of fathers and councils no doubt) to fettle points already fettled. We have hot room here to invef tigate this fubject; but the author of this difcourfe ought to have known that, on the doctrine of the Trinity, there has been a diversity of opinion in the "church" "from the beginning"; fathers against fathers, and councils against councils, and fects again fects, and churches against churches. What is commonly taught in the reformed churches in their confeflions and articles, concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the perfon of Christ, is the very fame with what was believed and taught in the chriftian church from the beginning, though not without oppofition from Satan and his emiflaries. This is a conceffion, which the general fpirit of the difcourfe gave Such hardihood in affertion is us little reafon to anticipate. We not common. Who would have had thought before, that, in the imagined that there were any in Vol. II. No. 1. G |