Page images
PDF
EPUB

human testimony, and in this view they are, often quoted. In a former number of the Panoplist, was given Dr. Watts' opinion concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. I have taken the trouble to transcribe and transmit to you for publication in your next number, the sentiments of Dr. Doddridge on the same subject. The following may be found in the first volume of his Family Expositor, page 24. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

PARAPHRASE.

In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, or the first production of any created being, a glorious Person existed, who (on account of the perfections of his nature and his being in time the medium of divine manifestations to us) may properly be called the Word of God.

And the Word was originally with God the Father of all; so that to him the words of Solomon might justly be applied, Prov. viii. 30; "He was by him as one brought up with him, and was daily his delight." Nay, by a generation, which none can declare, and an union, which none can fully conceive, the Word was himself God, that is, possessed of a nature truly and properly DIVINE.

His views are fully explained

in the following Note:

The Word was God.] I know how eagerly many have contended, that the word GOD is used in an inferior sense; the necessary consequence of which is (as indeed some have expressly avowed it) that this clause should be

[ocr errors][merged small]

:

rendered, the Word was a god, that is, a kind of inferior deity, as governors are called gods. See John x. 34, and 1 Cor. viii. 5, But it is impossible he should here be so called, as merely a governor, because he is spoken of as existing before the production of any creatures, whom he could govern and it is to me most incredible, that when the Jews were so exceed. ingly averse to idolatry, and the Gentiles so unhappily prone to it, such a plain writer, as this apostle, should lay so dangerous a stumbling block on the very threshold of his work, and represent it as the Christian doctrine, that in the beginning of all things there were two Gods, one su preme and the other subordinate: would be yet farther increased by a difficulty, which, if possible, recollecting what so many ancient writers assert, that this gospel was written with a particular view of opposing the Cerinthi ans and Ebionites (see Iren. 50. 1. c. 26; 3. c. 11. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 50. 6. c. 14) on which account a greater accuracy of expression must have been necessary. There are so many in stances in the writings of this apostle, and even in this chapter, (see ver. 6, 12, 13, 18) where Qo, without the article is used to signify God in the highest sense of the word, that it is something surprising such a stress should be laid on the want of that article, as a proof that it is used only in a subordinate sense. On the other hand, to conceive of Christ as a distinct and coordinate God, would be equally inconsistent with the most express declarations of Scripture, and far more irreconcileable with

leave it as far as I could in the simplicity of scripture expressions. I shall only add in the words, or at least in the sense of Bishop Burnet, "that had not St. John and the other apostles thought it a doctrine of great im'portance in the gospel scheme, they would have rather waved than asserted and insisted upon it, considering the critical cir'cumstances in which they wrote." (See Burnet on the Articles, p.

reason. Nothing I have said
above can by any means be just-
ly interpreted in such a sense :
and I here solemnly disclaim the
least intention of insinuating one
thought of that kind by any thing
I have ever written here or else-
where. The order of the words
in the original (Oros nv o hoyos)
is such, as that some have thought
the clause might more exactly be
'translated, God was the Word.
But there are almost every
where so many instances of such.40.)
a construction, as our version
supposes, that I chose rather to
follow it, than to vary from it,
unnecessarily, in this important
passage. I am deeply sensible
of the sublime and mysterious
nature of the doctrine of Christ's
deity, as here declared: but it
would be quite foreign to my
purpose to enter into a large dis-
'cussion of that great FOUNDA-
TION of our faith; it has often
been done by much abler hands.
It was, however, matter of con-
science with me, on the one
hand, thus strongly to declare my
belief of it and on the other, to

[ocr errors]

This eminent divine, in his Paraphrase on Phil. ii. 5, 6, further declares his sentiments in unequivocal language on this sublime subject, this "great foundation of our faith," as he justly considers it, in which he speaks of Christ, as an "adorable person," "possessed of divine perfections," as of right appearing "as God, assuming the highest divine names, titles and attributes, by which the Supreme Being has made himself known, and receiving from his servants divine honours and adorations.”

Selections.

ACCOUNT OF CALVIN'S TREAT- asserted, that the Geneva
MENT OF SERVETUS.

[From Sennebier's Histoire Litera-
ire de Geneve, t. 1. Genev. 1786.
p. 204-227.]

1

[blocks in formation]

T.

re

former long harboured an implacable hatred of the unfortunate Spaniard, used every effort to gratify his malice, denounced him to the Magistrates of Vienne, and caused seize him in the morning after his arrival at Geneva. Men easily believe, what is so positively asserted, and almost imagine it impossible that the tale can be false. Yet Bolzee, the cotemporary and

the mortal enemy of Calvin, who wrote his life only to tear his character in pieces, and Maimburg, so celebrated for partiality and misrepresentation, durst not allege those pretended facts, which modern historians have advanced. Bolzec says, that Servetus's haughtiness, inso lence, and dangerous projects, making him hated and dreaded at Lyons, he left it for Charlieu; yet afterwards returned to Lyons, and communicated his ideas to Calvin, who keenly opposed them; and, on Servetus' sending him his Restitutio Christianismi, broke off all intercourse with him. Calvin however did not betray his secrets, or cause seize him at Vienne; for he wrote to Viretus and Farel, that if Servetus came to Geneva, the consequence would be, the loss of his life. Calvin naturally concluded this from the spirit of the laws and government at Geneva, and from the ideas of all sects at that time. Indeed, he bore with Servetus as long as there was any hope of his recovery; and it was the Spaniard who first introduced personal abuse into their controversy. Bucer, Oecolampadius, Farel, Beza, and even the gentle Melancthon, approved the sentence passed against him. As it would be unjust on that account to accuse these celebrated men, it is equally unjust to accuse Calvin of hatred to Servetus.

But Calvin abused his confidence, and sent to Vienne the leiers he had received from him, and the Restitutio Christianismi with which he had presented him. That accusation is absurd. Could Calvin, whose name was executed by Papists, expect at

E

tention to his complaints, or regard to his letters, from the Magistrates of Vienne? Suppose Calvin as cruel as you please, why was he silent for seven years, why did he not in an earlier period commence his persecution of Servetus, and why did he not send to every place where the heretic resided, the letters he had received from him, and his Restitutio? It is evident, from a letter of Calvin, dated February, 1546, that Calvin, convinced of the punishment Servetus deserved, would not encourage him to come to Geneva, but intimated to him what he had to fear, should he venture it. He wished, therefore, by keeping him at a distance from Geneva, that he might escape the punishment with which he threatened him, if he came there. So far was he from contriving to subject him to punishment in another place. Indeed, Calvin's writing the Magistrates of Vienne, and sending them the Restitutio, could answer no purpose. It would have been ridiculous for him to send them a copy of a book printed in France under their eyes, or to point out what was exceptionable in it, which the reading it would sufficiently do. Accordingly, the sentence passed at Vienne, gives no insinuation that Calvin had interposed in the pro

cess.

It is true, that the Magistrates of Vienne, knowing that Servetus had corresponded with Calvin, applied to the council at Geneva for his letters. But it is equally true, that their sentence was founded on the errors in his book, and his own confessions; not on, these letters.

201

-B

But Calvin, informed of Servefux's escape from the frison

Vienne, caused seize him two or three days after his arrival at Geneva. Facts do not quadrate with this charge. Servetus es caped from Vienne before the execution of the sentence, which condemned him to be burned, 17th June. If he took fifteen days in his flight, he would have been at Geneva the beginning of July, and yet he was not seized there till 13th August. Think not that he was concealed till then somewhere else. A little prudence would prevent his tar rying where popery was established, lest the clamours of Vi enne should overtake him; and Geneva was the first place where he could expect shelter. Probably, therefore, he was seized, not in two or three days, but near six weeks after his arrival. The accusations against him were, 1. His saying, in his commentary on Ptolemy, that the Bible vain-gloriously celebrated the fertility of Canaan, though indeed an uncultivated and barren country. 2. His calling one God in three persons a three headed Cerberus. 3. His asserting, that God was every thing, and that every thing was God. He did not deny the charges, but pled the necessity of toleration. The council of Vienne demanded that he should be sent back to them; but it being left to his choice, he prefer red the chance of a more fa vourable sentence at Geneva, to the certainty of capital punishment at Vienne.

While we blame the principles of jurisprudence, which conducted this process, it should be acknowledged, that the council at Geneva neglected nothing for discovering the truth; exVol. II. No. 4.

erted every mean for persuad ing Servetus to retract; and, when all proved in vain, asked the advice of the Swiss Cantons, who unanimously exhorted them to punish the wicked person, and put him out of a condition of spreading heresy. The intolerance therefore of the age, not the cruelty of Calvin, dictated the sentence 27th October, that Servetus should be burnt alive. Castalio alone had the courage to write a dissertation against the punishment of heretics, which, though he was at Basil, he thought it necessary for his own safety to publish under the feigned name of Bellius. There have been both former and later instances at Geneva, of similar violent proceedings against her etics. In 1536, all were depriv ed of the right of citizenship, who did not admit the received doctrine.

In 1558, Gentilis escaped death only by retracting. Calvin says, in a letter written at that time, that Servetus, if he had not been mad, would have escaped punishment, by renouncing his errors, or even by a more modest behaviour. But Servetus persisted to defend his opinions in blasphemous language: the laws of the times could not be violated: and, therefore, the endeavours of some to satisfy themselves with his banishment, and of Calvin to render his punishment less cruel, had no effect. It is certain, Calvin deplored Servetus's fate; and the disputes in prison were managed with much greater moderation on his side, than on that of the panel. In a period when the principles of toleration were not understood, zeal against opinions subversive both

of natural and revealed religion, drove men to cruel and unwarrantable extremes. Calvin's situation was peculiarly delicate. Roman Catholics accused him of dangerous theological errors. Their eyes were fixed upon him; and had he remained an indifferent spectator of the process against Servetus, they would have pronounced him a favourer of his opinions. Add to this, had Servetus escaped, his gross and abusive charges against Calvin would have appeared well-founded; and Calvin's adversaries would have availed themselves of that advantage for ruining his influence.

RULES FOR PREACHING.

Found among the papers of a deceased minister, signed W. C.

the author unknown.

[From the Biblical Magazine.] 1. DISCOVER no more of your method than needs must.

2. Pass not any thing, till you have bolted it to the bran.

3. Use the mother speech and tone, without affectation or imitation of any man, that you may not seem to act a comedy, instead of preaching a sermon.

4. Clog not your memory too much it will exceedingly hinder invention, and mar delivery.

5. Be sure you eye God, his glory, the good of souls, having the day before mastered self and man-pleasing ague. This must be renewed toties quoties.

6. Let your words be soft, few, and slow; and see they come no faster than the weakest hearer can digest each morsel; pause a while, and look in the

child's eye, till he has swallowed his bit.

7. Look to your affections most carefully, that they be not, (1.) feigned, nor, (2.) forcedly let loose to have their full scope; for then they will either overrun your judgment, or be a temptation to vain glory.

8. Preach speaking or talking to the people; look on the people, not on roofs or walls, and look on the most mortified faces in the assembly; let them know your preaching is real talking with them, whereby they may be provoked (as it were) to an swer you again.

9. Take heed of over-wording any thing.

10. Be sure you have made the people understand thorough. ly what is the good you exhort them to, or the evil you dehort them from, before you bring your motives and means; and,

11. Touch no Scripture slight ly; trouble not many, but open the metaphors, and let one Scrip ture point out the other, the one a key to the other.

12. Let the Scripture teach you, and not you it.

13. Be sure you feed yourself upon every pause with the peo ple, before you pass it, else that will do them little good, and you none at all: oh taste every bit.

14. Take these four candles to find out what to say to the people: (1) The Scripture unbiassed. (2) The thoughts and experiences of good men. (3) Your own experience. (4) The condition of the people.

15. Break off any where, rather than run upon any of these two inconveniences; (1) Either to huddle or tumble together spiritual things; or,

« PreviousContinue »