IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /. i,s u^ :a^*#.. / 1.0 !iftt lllM la 1^ |ii||2.2 - lis iiiiM I.I yj 1114 111.6 11.8 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. MS80 (716) 873-4503 f\ ?V ^ m N> ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6td possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s cidessous. v' Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque y I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiquas en couleur D Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur V 7j Showthrough/ Transparence D D □ Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauratlon apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire CI Only edition available/ J Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illu.stration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^- (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ^- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^ i r — Vi r '% SPURIOUS CATHOLICJ-^^' OK. SOCINIANISM UNMASKS) i;V A Mi'/niOlMST MlNlSTKil. "He that is first in l.i. oa'u ciusl- s....:u^th ii.U; 1..'. hi. noi:^!)l-r v -meth ;ni(l scarr'hoth him. PiloviKHS xviii. IV. \\ OS TRK AI. noO K R <» O M Tor until : MKTIlODISr I'.OOK ROOM. 1877. :S mk.^ ^9m^ 1*KI« 1: 'l'\% IvM'V < i:.>f I !*. v' '■•' -IN \ :i..-y> SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY; OR, brimEnism Unmasketr. A REVIEW OP THE REV. JAMES ROTS RECENT PAMPHLET, IN WHICH HE ASSAILS THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE AND THE TRUTH OF THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINES OF RELIGION. BY A METHODIST MINISTER. " He that is first in his own cause seemeth just ; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him.— Proverbs xviii. 17. MONTREAL BOOK ROOM Tornnto : METHODIST BOOK ROOM. \ - 1877. ii CONTENTS I. Denial of the Supreme Authority of the Scriptures ..... II. Mr. Roy's Teaching Shown to be Identical with XJnitarianism III. His Partial and Incorrect Representation of the Facts of Church History IV. Mr. Roy's Misrepresentation of Wesley's Doctrinal Views .... V. The Cry of Persecution Shown to be a False Issue .... Page 6 20 39 49 55 ERRATUM. On page 31, for "repentance and remissions," etc., read- repentance mid remission of sins, etc. V t I SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY. WHY HERESY MAKES A SENSATION. HE teaching of hereby, or any extravagant notions, ^^^ by a preacher of an orthodox Church, is the clieapest method of obtaining public notoriety. One horse that breaks the shafts, and runs away, will attract more at- tention from the crowd than a thousand horses that quietly do their work without running away. There are slumber- ing fires antagonistic to evangelical Christianity in every community, which soon flame up and applaud any preacher who takes up a .position of opposition to the doctrines, or discipline of the Church. Many are ready to cheer on such a man, because his assaults on the Church help to palliate their indifference to doctrine and discipline. A minister who constantly interlards his teaching with the thoughts and theories of heterodox writers, which others equally familiar with them regard as unsound and dangerous, often secures a reputation for originality and ability which is denied to abler and wiser men, who deem it unadvisable to retail in their sermons every crude speculation which they meet in their reading. Any one who says or does something 1 SPURIOUS CATHOLICTTY ; H different from what was expected of him, is sure to arrest attention. We need not tlierofore wonder that the Rev. James Roy's pamphlet on " Catliolicity and Metliodism" has made some sensation. Not because it contained anything new to those at all familiar with the skeptical Rationalism of the day, but it was a sur})rise to those not acquainted with Mr. Roy, to learn that a Methodist minister had published views on important doctrinal (luestions in harujony with Broad Church Rationalism, or still more closely identical with the Socinianism of modern Unitarians. As Mr. Roy has appealed through the press to the judgment of the public, and complains that he was unjustly and severely dealt with by the couimittee that tried him — as he has disloyally us:;(l the influence of the position, which the Methodist Church luid given him, to alienate the minds of the people of his charge from the Church of which he was a minister, and viole^itiy traduced ]Methodist ministers, who deserve moi-v honorable ti-eatment at his liands, there is no unfairness for one who believes his teaching to be mis- leading and unscriptural, his method of reasoning dis- ingenuous and illogical, and his tactics ungenerous and treacherous, to use the press in self-defence, and claim the right to unmask tl>«^ real character and tendency of his speculations, and the weakness and sophistry of the special pleading by which he explains and defends his statements. The fact that Mr. Roy and his friends in Montreal are laboring to make the impression that he is a wronged and ill-used man, — that he has been misrepresented and unjustly censured, — of itself lays an obligation on those who believe that this is not true, to show that there is something to be said upon the other side. The questions raised respecting Mr. Roy and his teaching cannot be settled by appeals to the partial sympathy of his personal friends. Indeed, that ..»* I arrest PS Roy's de some to those the day, Ir. Roy, lews on Broad rt^ith the to the unjustly 1 him — 1, which 5 minds liich he inisters, there is be mis- ng dis- »us and aim the of his i special cements, real are ^ed and mjustly I believe g to be specting peals to ed, that OR, SOCINIANISM UNMAsKED. method is seldom adopted, except where there is a conscious- ness that the proper kind of evidence necessary to a suc- cessful defence is not avaihible. My design in these biief notes is to point out some of the chief things on which, in my judgment, ^Ir. Roy's views are false and unscriptural. In the limited sj)ace to which other duties compel me to contine my remarks, I cannot attempt any formal refutation of these questionable theories, nor even so much as name all the points to which I take exception. Bui 1 shall *' nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice." I do not jjublish these thoughts anony- mously because I recoil from ..vowing and defending what 1 have written ; but simply bec^ause I wish them to be read without favor or preji^ I ee—- without being hindered or helped by the name of their author. I ask a candid read- ing, especially from those wLo think Mr. Roy misrepresented and ill-used. And as he has i)ub]icly intimated that this is the case, and has denied the interpretation put upon his words by the Committee and the Christian Guardian, I design candidly to examine the impori of Mr. Roy's teaching, touching very briefly upon its tendency, and the course pur- sued by Mr. Roy himself. It will not be expected that I should dwell upon many sentiments of which 1 approve, such as his antagonism to piiestly assumptions, and his earnesc pleading for freedom of thought, with which all true men will sympathize, though they may differ from Mr. Roy in the practical application of the principle. Let us inquire what heterodox views are taught by Mr. Roy, and what eflfect would the acceptance of these views have upon spiritual religion. Tsssimmmimmmmmmm 6 sruiMous catholicity; I. Mt , EoY Denies the Supreme Authoiuty of the Holy Schiptukes as a Tkustwoethy Basis for Doctrinal Statements of Truth. .;i repumating his own argument is futile. I iiiaiiLtaiii that every unprejiRliced and intelligent reader of Mr. Roy's pamplilet must admit that this ailirmation is justified by Mr. Roy's statements. The Ch/ristioit Guardian alleged that Mr. Roy maintained in his i)junplilet that the Bible is no certain standard as to what is truth ; and that he had labored to cover with doul)t and distrust the founda- tions on which all the theological statements of religious trutli rested. Mr. Roy, in a letter to that paper, denied that this was a fair construction ol his statements. He said : — " When vou represent me as teachino- that 'the Bible is " no ce]-tain stiindard as to what is tmtli,' did you not forget "my sentence on page 56, 'the Bible, as the highest known " expression of that truth, gives a final decision on the facts it "revealw' ll Did you not also forget the sentence on page 61, " ' Where the teachings of the Bible are clearly demonstra- " ted, no scrutiny has found error i]i its leading doctrines''? '^ Did you not also forget what is said on }>ag(! 84 *?— Facts of " Scripture alone shoidd bo insisted u})on. These facts must " be elicited by free criticism. They are summarized in the '' Apostles' Creed." It must be obvious to every reader that these rather aui- })iguous sentences cannot dis})i'ove the charge against which they are cjuoted. Even had these isolated remarks been more explicit, they could not disprove an allegation based upon the import of an exteiuled argimient, intended to show that the Bible cannot be relied upon to settle what doctrines are true, or what are false. If a man uses several different kinds of argument to prove that a certain bridge is unsafe OF THE US FOR , reader ation is uardian liat tlie jid that fbiuida- eligioiis denied ts. He Bible is t forget known facts it )age 6 1 , lonstra- jtrines'? B^'acts of ts must I in the lier am- fc which ks been n based to show octrines Utferent J unsafe OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 7 and rotten, and should not be trusted, no sophistry can make it appear that he meant, all the time, that the bridge was perfectly safe and trustworthy. Mr. Roy's denial that the Bible can l)e a standard of faith is not contained merely in some doubtful expresssion, that could be explained away, when it became inconvenient to avow it. It is proved by his extended line of argument designed to show that the Bible, because of certnin faults and defects which he names, cannot be a ])asis for the orthodox doctrines. Mr. Roy's views on this point must l)e learned from a candid examina- tion of the logical and grammatical import of the arguments and statements put forth in his pamphlet; and not from some hidi-sounding and ambiguous sentence, taken apart from the whole tenor of liis reasoning. HE CLAIMS THAT THE BIBLE CANNOT SUSTAIN DOCTRINES, Mr. Roy puts as the heading of one of the sections of his book the question :— "■ Can orthodoxy rest upon the Bible?" He then devotes several ]>ages to an eftbrt to prove that the orthoireul. Such a statement only confirms my charge. And it certainly displays a good deal of confidence in' the sim])licity of the public, for Mr. Roy to offer a few inflated and obscure sentences in conti-adiction of his full and repeated assertions, illustrations, quotations, and pleadings — all designed to prove that Christians can have no good confidence as to tlie meaning or truth of what they read in the Bible ! If two persons were disputing as to whac was the direction in which the River St. Lawrence flowed, and one should maintain that in some small whirling eddies, near the shore, the water a})})eai'ed to go westward, should this upset the convictions based upon the visible flow of the whole vast current towards the east ? Can such special pleading be really candid ? Has tlie man who puts it forth to mislead those who are not ready for the strong meat of skepticism, and who may not detect the misleading sophistry of such a weak plea in arrest of judgment, any confidence in such reasoning himself? If he has, he cannot be a man of sound mind. If he has not, he is not sincere. For candid readers I need not add anything more to prove that Mr. Roy denies the authority of the Bible as a rule of faith — denies the possibility uf its being a ti-ustworthy standard of doctrine. 10 SPURIOUS catholicity; I II HIS TEACHING ABOUT THE BIBLE PARTIAL AND UNFAIR. My limited space will not allow me to offer any formal proof of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. I do not think this necessary. I do not base my repudiation of Mr. Roy's loose views on a rigid, mechanical theory of inspiration. I believe there is a human as well as a Divine element in the Scriptures. I simply contend for the suffi- ciency of the Holy Scriptures as a special Divine revelation from God, to be a sure foundation of definite doctrinal truth. In the words of Bishop Harold Browne, " We want to be assured that we have an infalliV)le depository of religious truth ; and if we are satisfied that the Apostles were accredited messengers for delivering God's message and communicating God's truth to the world, we have this assurance."* Such objections against the trustworthiness of the Bible as Mr. Roy has brought forward have been familiar to the Christian Church, from the time of Celsus and Porphyry down to the present day. They have been repeatedly urged by the assailants of Christianity, and replied to in numerous able works by its defenders. Mr. Roy, therefore, has voluntarily associated himself with the enemies of the Bible, in exaggerating the supposed contra- dictions and ambiguities of the Scriptures, in order to disparage their claims as an infallible depository of religious truth. The impartial reader of Mr. Roy's pamphlet cannot fail to note the anhmis of his frequent unfair exaggeration of everything that tends to shake confidence in the authority of the Bible. Those who accept its Divine authority are said by him to take it as a "dictator." This term being evidently chosen for its offensiveness, rather than for its fitness; for it strictly can be applied only to a person. But 'tf, * Aids to Faith, p. 366. % OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 11 'A it serves to present Bible authority in a repulsive way. For the same ]^)iirpose, Mr. Eoy incorrectly says, " When the Bible Itevision Committee have finished their labors, the i)eople will have Avhat will practically be two Bibles." On the contrary, all accounts recei\'ed res})ecting the revised translation justify the statement of Dr. Pullman, in a paper recently read in New York, " that the revision is to be con- ducted in a very conservative spirit, and it is thought, when the new Bible is read, ninety-five per cent, of the people will not know it ft'om the old." Mr. Roy knows that we have now in use several independent translations of the Scriptures, and that they produce no distrust of the essential unity and integrity of the Bible. In the same way, Mr. Roy unwarrantably dis})arages the value and integiity of the MSS. of the Noav Testament, insinuating that books which have been left out had as much external evidence in their favor as books that have been i-eceived into the canon of Sci-ipture. He says : " The Apocalypse was not admitted " to the Bible till the sixth century by the Greek Church ; " and even the Latin Church remained for several centuries " before it received the New Testament canon, as it now " stands ; for centuries the majority said certain books were ''not the 'Word of God'; afterward the majority said they "were. Thus it will be seen that whether any book, or "what l)ook, was to be considered the 'Word of God' " rested on the judgments of certain men, or on the argu- " nients that convinced them." All this, and much more in the same spirit, is given to overthrow Avhat lie sneeringly calls the " dictatorship " of the Bible. Mr. Boy's version of the facts is one-sided and distorted. His inference respecting the unreliability of the Bible is unwai-ranted and initrue. I would just mention one fact to show the unfair- ness and weakness of Mr. Roy's position. The fourth Gospel, being the last addition to the canon of Scripture, 1* 12 SPURIOUS catholicity; has been thought by skeptical Rationalists the most vulner- able to hostile criticism. At any rate, they have chosen it as their point of attack. It has been made, for many years, the object of the strongest and fiercest assaults of German Rationalists of the destructive school of criticism. The greatest ability and scholarship have exhausted all their resources to prove that St. John's Gospel should not be included in the canon of Scripture, and was not written by him. Strauss, Zeller, Hilgenfield, Baur, and the whole Tubingen school of critics, — and, in England, the acute author of " Supernatural Religion " and others, have all exerted their utmost efforts and ingenuity to disparage the external and internal evidence of the genuineness of this Gospel. The result has been to })lace the overwhelming evidence for its apostolic authorship in a clearer and more unanswerable light. Those who have read the convincing replies of Bleek, Mejer, Ebrard, and Luthardt, of Ger- many ; or of Canon Lightfoot, of England, and Professor Fisher, of America, must admit that the vindication of the authority of this Gospel is conclusive and complete. To those who have not had access to these larger works, an able article in the Edinburgh Revieio for January, 1877, in reply to the criticisms in " Supernatural Religion," will present satisfactoiy evidence of the failure of the skeptics to maintain their ground. Instead, therefore, of the whole matter of the canon of Scripture being shaky and doubtful, as Mr. Roy untruthfully intimates, the evidence of the authority of this Gospel, as a part cf the canon of Scripture, though thought by Rationalists the weakest point of the New Testament, was never so thoroughly established ; and never so confidently maintained by Christian scholars as to-day. And if this be true of what was deemed most open to attach' it must be still more true of the other portions of the New Testament. i I OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED, 13 b vnlner- jhosen it ly years, German '.. The 11 their not be tten by ! whole B acute ave all age the of this lelming d more vincing .f Ger- 'ofessor of the !. To 'ks, an 577, in ," will ieptics whole Libtful, 3f the ipture, of the ; and ars as most other f CONTRARY TESTIMONY OF F.MINENT SCHOLARS. It would be easy for me to show, by quotations from the best Biblical scholars, that Mr. Roy's representations, respecting the uncertainty as to what is Scripture or not, are a caricature of the facts. Mr. Roy knows very well that the most eminent Biblical scholars of the age declare that the chief result of the extensive research, discovery, and comparison of ancient MSS. is to show, not that our English Bible is not trustworthy, but that it is eminently so. " How remarkable," says the learned Dr. Angus, a member of the English Revision Committee, "how decisive as an " evidence of Divine care, that while all the libraries of Europe " and of the woi-ld containing copies of the Sacred Scriptures " have been examined, all ancient versions extant compared, "the MSS. of all countries from the third to the sixteenth " century collated, the commentaries of all the Fathers again " and again investigated, nothing has been discovered, not " even a single general reading, which can set aside any im- " portant passage hitherto received as genuine. This negative " conclusion, that our Bible does not essentially differ from " the Bible of the primitive Church, is indeed, an ample re- " compense for all the labor and time which have been de- " voted to these pursuits."* With the same animus, and for the same unholy purpose of destroying popular contidence in the Bible, Mr. Roy flip- pantly ass(>rts : " The Scriptures contain even in important passages spiu'ious glosses and interpolations." This and other statements, in which he charges the Scriptures with being false and contradictory, though occurring in the mid- dle of paragraphs, he puts in italics. He evidently wants them to tell in the work of undermining the faith of the people in the Bible as the Word of God. I need only say * Bible Handbook, p. 10. 14 SPURIOUS catholicity; in reply to this, that in recent years several translations by eminent scholars have been published ; and while in some respects these translations may have been an improvement on our authorized version, they do not at all justify the slashing statements of Mr. Roy. I am personally in favor of the enterprise of i)reparing a reviseil translation. By all means \et us have the best possible. But scholars who are far more comjietent judges than Mr. Roy, have testified to the great accuracy and faithfulness to the original of our English Bible. Dr. Gcddes, though strongly in favor of a new translation of the Bible, in his " Prospectus of a New Translation," says : — " If accuracy and fidelity and the strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this, of all versions, must be accounted the most excellent. Every sen- tence, every word, every syllable, every letter and point seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed either in the text or margin with the greatest f)recision."* And such is the general testimony of those most competent to judge. Like all human works, it is not perfect ; yet, as another eminent English scholar says, " it may be compared with any translation in the world without fear of inferiority." With the same purpose, Mr. Roy pur- sues his policy of exaggeration, by trying to make the impression that the interpretations of Scripture by Bibli- cal scholars ai'e so diverse and contradictory, that they render the meaning of the Bible so uncertain that its infallibility would be useless without an infallible inter- preter. We may fitly reply to this sweeping allegation by a quotation from Bishop Ellicott's essay on " The Inter- pretation of Scripture." Bishop Ellicott is chairman of the " Company on the Revision of the New Testament," and one of the most eminent Biblical scholars living. He asks : * Vindication of the Authorized Version, p. 16. OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 16 " Are the differences of meaning that have been assigned " to Scripture such in amount as they are said to he, and " such as to demand the rehabilitation of Sciiptural interpre- " tation which is now proposed? Are they sucli that, as it has " been asserted, Scriptnro bears an utterly different meaning " to men of different ages and nat'ons ? As.niredli/ not, no ** state7)ient seems more completely at variance imth our general ^^ Christian consciousness ; no assertion ca;ii he more readily *' disproved lohen im come to details^ This witness is true ; and might easily ])e corroborated l)y other eminent scholars. MR. ROY DOES NOT CORRECTLY REPRESENT THE FACTS AS TO THE TEACHING OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. These statements and quotations by Avhich Mr. Roy per- sistently endeavors to undermine and disparage the authority of the Bible may not be literally false ; but they are partial, exaggerated, and misleading representations of the facts ; and by no means justify the conclusions he draws from them. There are other important truths which balance and counter- act them, which he keeps out of sight, that are necessary to form a right judgment respecting the claims of the Bible as a Divine revelation. He quotes extracts from Hagenbach and Westcott in a way that conveys an incorrect idea of their opinions. For instance. Canon Westcott is quoted so as to convey the idea that he believed the orthodox doctrines were manufactured by men to accord with theories of human philosophy ; although he held no such loose view. Canon Westcott, on the contrary, expresses a '■^ firm conviction of the unerring truthfulness of the sacred writers." One who trusted Mr. E-o^i's representations would naturally suppose that in the primitive Church there was no certainty as to what books were Scripture, and no belief in the inspiration and authority of the^e books. But Canon Westcott, in his * Aicb to Faith, p. 435. 16 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; essay " On the Primitive Doctrine of Inspiration," convinc- ingly shows that this was not so. The quotations he gives amjily prove that the a})ostolic Fathers, and those of later times, tirmly believed that the prophets and Apostles wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He says : " If we can ** trace, under various forms, one great idea of inspiration in " the scattered societies of ancient Christendom — if we can " find it incorporated into dif.tinct systems and acknowledged " by the most incongruous minds — if the universal consent of " antiquity lead us to Scripture for the groundwork of our " creed — we shall surely acknowledge that tradition has " done for us a noble and necessary work by maintaining an " inspired Bible, a definite canon, and a general method of " interpretation."* That this is true, this author's learned essay abundantly attests ; though in conti'adiction of the one- sided and unfair representations of our JMontreal " dictator." A few quotations from the essay on ** The Primitive Doc- trine of Inspiration " may be given here. '' Barnabas uses such ))lirases as the following when quoting the Scripture : ' The l^ord said in the prophet ' ; ' the Spirit of the Lord prophesieth,' Again he tells us that * The prophets received their gift from Christ and speak of Him', and that ' Moses s])ake in the Spirit.' * And one rule of those who walk in the way of bght is : Thou shalt guard what thou hast re- ceived, neither adding nor taking away from it.' " *' Clement of Rome quotes many passages from Scripture, with the words: 'For the Scripture saith;' * the Holy Spirit saith.' He exhorts his readers to "look carefully into the Holy Scrip- tures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." Speaking of the Apostles, he says : "Of whose number the blessed Paul, at the beginning of the Gospel, in very truth wrote by inspiration." Polycarp, in his brief epistle, tells us with humility that " neither he nor any like him is able * On the Primitive Doctrine of Inspiration, p. 403. OR, 80CINIANISM UNMASKED. 17 to attain perfectly to tlie wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul ; " and declares that " he is the first-boin of Satan whoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to suit his own pas- sions." This term " oracles of the Lord " is a}»[)lied to the New Testament Scriptures. Ionatius says ; " I do not give you injunctions as Peter and Paul; tluiy were Apostles, I a condemned man." Papias, a contemporary of Polycarp, wrote on the synoptic Gospels ; and ap])ears to have written an exposition of them which he calls, " An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord." " The Sli(^pherd of Her- nias," says Westcott, " evinces by its form and recei> tion the belief of the primitive age in the nature and possibility of inspiration." In the post-Apostolic Fathers the prevailing belief in the inspiration of the sacred writings is more fully and definitely voiced. Only one example of these can be quoted here. Justin Martyr, born A.D. 103, tells us of the " history which Moses wrote through Divine inspiration," while " the Holy Spirit of pro phecy taught through him. " And also : " As Abraham be- lieved on the voice of God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, so do the Christians, too, believe on the voice ol God, which has been addressed again to them by the Apos- tles of Christ, and proclaimed by the prophets, whose writings - the memoirs of the Apostles, or the books of the prophets — were read each Sunday in the public assem- bly ; " for " we have been commanded by Christ himself to obey not the teaching of men, but that which hath been proclaimed -by the blessed prophets and taught by Him." These extracts prove conclusively that the primitive Chris- tians held strongly and clearly the doctrine of the inspiration of the Sacred Writings; and would, therefore, jealously ques- tion the claims of any book to a place in the canon of Scrip, ture. Mr. Roy knows very well that the real question is not whether the selection of the canonical books was by human 18 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; or Divine nutlioiity, but whether it was done by .sufTcient fintliority — wht^thor the evidence of tlie genuiiieneisH and autiiority of tlicse books is satisJ'actory and conclusive or not. If he l)elieves that pioprr (evidence of the j^ennineness and authority of any of tiicse books is not to)>e found, he shouhl in consistency reject such books and ]>rand tlicir chiinis as false. But if he is satisfied that this evidence is anqdy sutli. cient, then he does the work of an enemy to religion and truth by wantonly and unwarrantably setting himself to destroy the confidence of the peophi in the " oracles of God," as he has done in his partizaii and skeptical ])amphlet. Till-: ANIMUS AND PURPOSE OF Mil. ROY. I have dwelt at some length upon the illogical and unjust method of proving his assumptions, and the partial and in- correct representations of Mr. Roy about the unreliability of the Bible, not because they can have any weight with intel- ligent readers familiar with Christian apologetics ; but because they throw a very instructive light upon the motives and feel- ings which have inspired Mr. Roy in writing his work. The object which prompted this depreciation of the Bible, and made him willingto gather objections from the highways of infidelity to throw at what he denies to be " the Word of God," is quite obvious. This disparagement of the value of the Bible as a standard of doctrine is only on > of several arguments against orthodox doctrines. A Methodist minister who has become intoxicated with the speculations of the skei)tical Rational- ism of the day, grows restive under the resti-aints of the orthodox faith ; and therefore very much desires to persuade the people that John Wesley was as loose and indiflferent about doctrines as himself ; and that the Bible is so doubt- ful and defective that no one can be sure what doctrines it teaches. In short, all creeds and explicit doctrinal state- ments of Scriptural truths must take themselves out of the OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 19 way, to mnke room for Mr. l»ov nii I'ible, must in some way bo made to liarinoni/c witli Mr. Hoy. He ac- complishes this feat, by forriiiLj an inter] iretaiion on some of Wesley's words, which is utterly at variance with the main tenor of the teachini's of his life ; and bv recklessly and rudely denying the supreme authority of the Bible as a standard of faith. I et none be dec(>ived res])ectin<^' the con- sequences of accepting Mr. Roy's loose teaching about the Bible, because Mi*. Roy assures them he is (piite Wesleynn and Scriptural. Nothing is more common tluni to find men denying the conclusi(ms that necessarily follow from their premises. But, however he may labor to conceal it from those whom he has bewildered and mishul, the logical resnlt of his reasoning and speculation is to br-eak down and disparnge all doctrinal statements of truth, and to make each man a law unto himself. To test this practically, let us suppose that one of those mem])ers, whom he has by treachery to his trust drawn away from the Methodist Churcli, should be led to be- lieve some dogma that Mr. Roy holds to b(>, utterly false and pernicious in its influence on character, to what source of anthority, or standard of truth, could Mr. Roy turn to show such a one his error? He could not say, *' What you hold is contrary to the teaching of the Word of (lod." For the errorist might say : " My inner consciousness is all right ; and you have taught me, Mr. Roy, that we cannot tell ' what is Bible and what is not' ; and that the Bil)le is not the Word of God ; and that it contains so much that is incorrect, contradictory, and of ambiguous meaning that we cannot be sure what doctrines it teaches or condemns." The result of such " catholicity " must be to relax the grasp of faith on Divine truth, and also the obligations to Christian duty. If the foundations of faith be destroyed, and the people are left mammm 20 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; to the tender mercies of erratic and impulsive minds, who are unconscious whither they are drifting, the result must be ruinous to religion. But, notwithstanding the disparagement of the Bible and the destructive theorizing of the modern apostles of a creed- less "catholicity" that would allow every preacher of the Church to believe and do what pleases his fancy, without re buke or hindrance from Church authorities. Christians can still rejoice that they have " a more sure word of prophecy." Though " people imagined vain thing," yet, " The law of " the Lord is perfect, converting the soul ; the testimonies of " the Lord are sure, making wise the simple ; the statutes of " the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of *' the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord " is clean, enduiing forever ; the judgments of the Lord are " true and righteous altogether," IL Mr. Roy Rejects the Orthodox Doctrines of the Atonement, the Ircarnation and the Trinity ; and on these Points, as well as respecting the Au- thority of Scripture, Maintains Views that are Substantially Identical with the Socinianism of Modern Unitarians. AN old heresy repainted. Most people know something of the practice of taking an old steamer that has become unpopular, or actually unsea- worthy, painting her afresh, giving her a new name, and putting her on a new route as a, staunch vessel. Many never know, till she sinks in the storm, that she was the old worm-eaten craft. Something very similar to this frequently takes place in the theological world. An old heresy, that has been tried, rejected, and bianded with a fitting name, OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKRD. 21 often crops up in some new quarter, gaily painted in glow- ing colors, and called by some fine-sounding and attractive name. The unwary and credulous are misled for a while ; until practical experience reveals the concealed unsoundness and insufficiency of the high-sounding remedy for mortal woes. Another striking example of this method is fur- nished in Mr. Roy's case. He holdly avows Socinian heresies ; but he does not like the vnme. It might disturb his Methodist followers if they believed his teaching was really Socinian. That feeling is very common. You must not call an infidel an infidel ; nor an Atheist an Atheist; nor a Ritualist a Ritualist; nor a Rationalist a Rationalist ; nor a Unitarian a Socinian ; because the meaninsr of these names is well understood ; and their use unmasks the false theories of those who do not want the true drift of their teaching to l^e unveiled. Mr. Roy complains that ''the 'mad dog' cry of 'Rationalist and Socinian'" has been wrongfully raised against him to preju- dice the evangelical IJhurches against him. The question can only be satisfactorily settled by carefully examining and correctly answering the two questions : In what particulars do Socinians, or Unitarians, difier from tlie orthodox Churches I Do Mr. Roy's views agree with the Unitarians on these points of difierence from the evangelical Churches 1 THE DOCTRINE OF ANCTENT AND MODERN SOCINIANS. As Unitarians are congregational in their Church polity and opposed to explicit creeds — and as the difterent sections extend all the way from orthodoxy to atheism, it is scarcely possible to give a complete account of their doctrines, such as might be given in the case of Churches with well-defined doctrinal systems. Unitarians are more distinguished for what they do not believe than for positive faith in definite truths. In this, Mr. Roy's pamphlet, with its negations and 22 SPURIOUS catholicity; '" flestmctive criticism, very miicli resembles Unitarian teach- ing. All that can be done here is to indicate the main points in which Unitarians differ from the orthodox Churches, without noticing points of agreement or minor peculiaiities. They, in common with the older Socinians, reject the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the Personality and Godhead of the Holy Ghost, the God- head of Christ, the doctrine that the death of Christ is an atonement for sin, the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures as the infallible standard of appeal respecting religious truth ; aud they generally exalt ns the supreme arbiter human reason, and plead for freedom from all au- thority in matters of belief. Ever since before the time of Arius, in the early part of the fourth century, there have been teachers or sects that have wholly or in part held the views to which those Avho now call themselves " Unitarians" arc the natural heirs. Indeed, as early as the second century, we find the germs of the later Arianism and Socinianism. Of one of these early sects of anti-Trinitarians, Prof. Sliedd, in his History of Doctrine, says they were " denominated Patripassiaiis and " Monarchians because they asserted the Monad and denied " the Triad. They asserted the deity of Christ, but held " the Church doctrine of three [)ersons to be irreconcilable " with that of the unity of God. Hence, they atlirmed that " there is only one Divine person. Tliis one only person, " conceived of in his abstract simplicity and eternity, was " denominated God the Father ; but in His incarnation He was denominated God the f^on."* The manner in which this and similar subtle anti-Trinitarian heresies were refuted and rejected by the anti-Nicene Church, proves conclusively that the theologians of that period held a clear and definite doctrine of the Trinity in unity ; and not merely indefinite * History of Christian Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 254. OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 23 and indistinct germs of trutli, as Mr. Roy would have us believe. Unitarianism, since its oiigin with the obscure sect of the Alogians in the second century, has appeared with more or less strength in difl'erent periods and countries, till it merged in the more fully developed Socinian theories of Faustus Socimis, in the sixteenth century. Wel^ster tersely and comprehensively defines Socinianism as " the tenets or "doctrines of Faustus and Lielius Socinus, Italian theo- " logians of the sixteenth century who denied the Trinity, " the deity of Christ, and the personality of the devil, the " native and total depravity of man, the vicarious Atone- " ment, and the eternity of future punishment." It main- tains, also, " that Christ only preached the truth to mankind, *' set before them in Himself an example of heroic virtue, " and sealed His doctrines with His blood." Nearly all these characteristic features i-e-appeai- in the teaching of those who usurp the name of " Unitarians"; as if they alone held the unity of God. A few extracts from the article on *' Unitarians" in Chambers' Encydojxtidia will sulhciently show this. Speaking of the old or more conservative Unitarians, it is said : " They adopted the old rule of the " suHiciency of Scripture, though with many such qualifica- " tions as the scientific criticism of the Bible has rendered " indispensal)Ie. The most conservative Unitarians, for " example, w^ould not contend for the literal truth of the " first chapter of Genesis, nor for the doctrine of verbal in- *' spiration in any shape. The Bible is not, but it contains, " the Word of God, is the form which best expresses their "position on this subject." " Holding that inspiration is a " quality which is not peculiar to the Bible, but common to " all the most elevated religious literature, and that it in no " case implies immunity from error, they maintain that the " Scripture must be subjected to the same rules of criticism 24 SPUBIOUS CATHOLICITY ; * and interpretation as any other book, and that each book ' of Scripture is to be studied, not as a collection of infal- ' lible oracles, but as a record of the mind of the ages in * which it was produced." " It will, of course, be under- ' stood that the Unitarians of all shades of opinion are ' agreed in rejecting the entire orthodox scheme — including' ' the doctrines of the Trinity, the vicarious Atonement, the ' deity of Christ, original sin, and everlasting punishment — ' as both unscriptural and irrational." " In recent years the * Unitarians have given renewed prominence to the prin- ' ciples of comi)rehension and of free inquiry, apart from * the restraints of theological creeds, conceiving that in ' this ihey are conforming to the spirit of their Presbyterian ' forefathers ; and many even object to the name Unitarian * as one which might be held to imply a doctrinal bond of ' union, and to be, to that extent, inconsistent with the ' fundamental principles of the body, which both now and ' in former times have always included unrestricted freedom ' of religious thought." Let us now turn to Mr. Roy's pamphlet, in order to ascer- tain whether its teaching is, or is not, in substantial har- mony with these salient points of the Socinianism of Uni- tarians. For the present, I am not dealing with the truth or falsehood of these views. I simjily want to find out whether it is true, or not, that Mr. Roy has been teaching to the people, as Methodist doctrines, the theories of this well- known heresy, against which the great body of Christian be- lievers have in all ages steadfastly protested as something hostile to the Gospel of Christ. HIS BITTER ANTAGONISM TO ORTHODOX DOCTRINE. We have seen that Unitarians of all shades of opinion reject the orthodox scheme of doctrme. Mr. Roy does not leave us in doubt as to what he means by the term " ortho- OK, SOCINIANISM UNMARKED. 26 doxy." He defines it thus : " Orthodoxy, then, as held by most Protestants, may be grouped under the four heads — Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and Retribution, "» He evidently intends that we should understand that, when he uses this term *' orthodoxy," he means by it the views re- specting these great central tiutlis which are held and taught in the Protestant churches. There is no room for misappre- hension on this point. Now, what is Mr. Roy's attitude, in his pamphlet, towards these truths which have been for ages the watchwords and inspiration of Christian faith and hope, and around which have gathered all that was noblest and holiest in the Christian life 1 It is one of extreme an- tagonism and bitterness. This " orthodoxy " is constantly used by him as a term of reproach— as something that has no claim to confidence. According to Mr. Roy, the doctrine it represents has no solid foundation on which to rest. It cannot rest on the Bible. It cannot rest on Church autho- rity. It cannot rest on Christian consciousness. It cannot rest on history ; for history, he says, shows that there was a time in the life of the Church when it did not exist. " The time of its commencement is definitely fixed." " It leads to sacerdotalism." It is a human invention. It is " a mass of speculative dogmas " which, " during the early centuries, accumulated in the minds of thinking men, and assume the name of * orthodoxv.' " He argues that it became so re- pulsive to Wesley that he abandoned the whole scheme ! Mr. Roy calls it " the scholastic theology of the sacerdota- lists," implying, I suppose, that it was manufactured by or for priests. It muzzles freedom, promotes numerous evils, and *' stabs the very heart of Christianity "! This is by no means the whole of Mr. Roy's indictment against " ortho- doxy "; but it is enough to show that he fully meets the Unitarian requirement on this point. 26 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY HE CONTEMNS AND REPUDIATES THE TRINITY. ^VJ Biii; the Uiiitariiins do not merely oppose the orthodox scheme as a whole. They discriminate against its particular doctrines. They deny the doctruie of the Trinity — or three l)ersons in one God. On this point Mr. Roy complains that the " conventiona' orthodoxy," which he repudiates, "defines " the three agents in redemption as hyj)ostases, or persons, *' in the essence of one Deity, thus leading men into the sub- '*ject of essences of si)irits, a subject of which we know but " little, and which can have Init a remote bearing on the " cpiestions of practical life. The term hypostasis, or person, " it (orthodoxy) defines at times as an individuality having "distinct consciousness and will; and at other times, to " avoid tri-theism it loses itself in an in^Jectual attempt to "give any intelligible definition of the term, urging its ac- " ceptance as a mystery to l)e believed, without ai^y clear " ide{i of what it is. It represents the incarnation as tlie " eml)odiment of one of these hypostases in the human form " of Jesus of Nazareth." There is no statement of positive belief here, lint some things are clear enough. It is clear that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is caricatured and despised ; that three persons in one Deity is contemned ; and that the incarnation, as ordinarily understood, is held up as one of the objectionable points in orthodox teaching. Speaking of the terms of the Athaiiasian creed, he says : " Take, however, '■ s\d)stance ' in the conventional sense of essence or * person ' as hypostases or distinct consciousness and will, and you have three Gods." He argues at some length that " three individuals must be three Gods." He maintains that the majority of orthodox people hold a theory essentially tri-theistic. He asks, evidently with the sugges- tion that a negative answer alone is possible, " Doe? the " Bible teach the hypostatic theory of the Logos V " The , OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 27 The •* Apostles* creed," he says, " knows nothing of these hypos- " tases, or the unity of the three agents, Father, Son, and " Holy Ghost." " Back further we tind but one hypostases." " Unity in the personality of God was the first Ciiristian, as ** it was ever the Jewish orthodoxy." " The time when " duality in the Godhead became the prevailing opinion is " definitely fixed in Church history." " It is enough to " know that there is no unanimity of view in Christianity " on the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity, even among "those who call themselves 'orthodox.'" On page 79 he maintains that there is no c?ioice but between tri-theism and a theory which is really the old monarchial Unitarianism of Praxeas. He says : *' If we recognize Father, Son, and " Holy Spirit as three phases assumed by God in the work " of redemption, these phases are but masks — the old and ** true sense of ' persons '—assumed by the one Deity ; and " we have no real Trinity in Unity at all. If we recognize " Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being ' persons ' in the " modern sense of the word, having each a distinct intelli- " gence, consciousness, and will, these are but attributes of " beings so distinct that they are really three Gods." The results indicated by the words I have italicised are con- trasted as the only alternatives. Again, he says : " How- '• ever, then, we may translate this word (uTroffTatfji:), so far as "Scriptuie testimony goes, there is but one hypostasis in God; " and all that mass of speculative contusion which has been " imposed upon the Church for so many centuries is utterly " without Scriptural foundation." These extracts, though explicit enough, being necessarily given in the briefest form, do not at all represent the full force of Mr. Roy's opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity ; because on this point, as well as others, he chooses to suggest by quotation and objec- jection, rather than by candid speech, what he approves. But it must be borne in mind that he regards the Trinity as 2 28 SPURIOUS CATHOI TCITY ; the central truth in that system of doctrine which he so bitterly assails under the name of "orthodoxy." Any in- telligent person who can read Mr. Roy's pamphlet carefully, without being convinced that he strongly combats and re- pudiates the doctrine of the Trinity, must be removed by passion or prejudice beyond the reach of argument. MR. ROY REPUDIATES THE ATONEMENT. Unitariaris deny a Vicarious Atonemeid — the doctrine that the death of Christ was a necessary piopitiatory sacri- fice for the sins of men. This also Mr. Roy distinctly re- pudiates. I do not here refer to Mr. Roy's rejection of the Calvinistic, or commercial, view of the Atonement, by who- ever taught. I have as little sympathy with that unscrip- tural and unreasonable theory as he has. On page 21, he says : " As to the Atonement being an expedient, it must '* be said that such removals of obstacles always argue a want '* of foresight somewhere ; and in God's government there is " no room for expedients, but only for laws founded in His " own nature and in that of creation." This is weak reason- ing. For, in our judgment, 9 provision to meet and supply a want before it occurs argues foresight. But I quote this to show that Mr. Roy urges a general objection against any such provision as the Atonement is understood to be. The " Atonement," without being specially defined, is included in that " orthodoxy," against which he hurls his sharpest con- demnation and his most disparaging epithets. As I do not wish to do Mr. Roy any injustice I give the principal passage in his pamphlet on this point in full : " But, in view of this presentation of Christianity, where is the necessity for that complicated * scheme ' or ' plan ' of suppositions and ' expedients ' which has usurped the sacred name of ' orthodoxy "? The government of God totters not by the spread of insubordination, and needs no prudential OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 29 props to maintain its integrity. The offences of millions can never affect the supremacy of God ; and those schemes which may be necessary to preserve human authority and law from anarchy can never find any place in the government of Him who changes not. In no human government is the punish- ment of an oflence necessary to the pardon of that offence. How then, in view of what has been said of Wesley's hiter views and their logical consecpiences, can we persist in ai)i)ly- ing to the divine goveinment princijjles conceived in a day when the basis and laws even of human govei-nment were little understood — principles which modern ex[)eri('nce j)roves to be founded in no facts of nature, human or divine 1 If pardon con be granted where the penalty of offence is not exacted, but where it is found that justice and mercy are both satisfied without the infliction of punishment — if we find this the case in earthly governments, domestic and political, every day and every year of our lives — if the ends of government are secured by the return of the offender to obedience, and if this return can be secured, as it often is, nay, as it most frecpiently is, by other means than punish- ment either of the offender or his substitute — wherein lies the necessity for an ' infinite sacrifice' to secure tho pardon of one who needs but to realize the love of Him whom he has offended in order to meet in penitence at His feet 1 If the antecedent necessity for such an ' infinite sacrifice ' is a fallacy, then wherein lies the necessity for such an infinite divine ' hypostasis ' to constitute such a sacrifice, and any combination of * hypostases,' at all in the being of the One God and Father of alH" (page 72.) This passage requires no comment, to prove that it neces- sarily rejects every orthodox view of the Atonement, It is not an objection to some questionable theory of the Atone ment. It is a protest against the assumed need of any such thing as is commonly understood by the Atonement of Christ, I must do Mr. Roy the justice to say that he else- where says : " Real orthodoxy acknowledges that, in and " through Jesus Christ, a reconciliation is produced between *' God and man ; this it calls the Atonement." But this in 30 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; no way contravenes the argument, quoted above, against the Christian idea of the Atonement, indeed, the vague- ness of this language, and the absence of all reference to the death of Christ, oidy corroborate the explicit denial of the need of an Atonement, expressed in the passage quoted. The word " atonement " is retained ; but the term is emptied of all the profound meaning that has for ages clothed this word with power, and made it the symbol of the central truth in the glorious galaxy of Christian doctrines. I would not plead for any metaph3'sical defini- tion of the Atonement, not based on the Word of God, as essential. But, assuredly, there must be some clear recog- nition of the truth that, as Mr. Dal'e expresses it, "there is a direct relation between the death of f/hrist and the Ibrgiveness of sins.'" This truth is expressed b}' every writer in the New Testament, with almost endless variety of language and figure. Yet, it has no recognition in Mr. Roy's book. How is it that Mr. Roy publicly denied the correctness of a repoi't of one of his sermons in the Witness, in which the moral view alone was presented ; and now he writes a book to explain his views, and the book "gives no sign" that he holds anything even as definite as Bushnell's theory 1 Rejecting the atoning death of Christ is like cutting the heart out of the New Testament. This truth implies human guilt and weakness. It expresses God's mercy and justice. It is the sure pledge and token of the everlasting love of our Father in heaven. Deny that " Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures," and a large portion of the New Testament is robbed of its meaning. No Church that has denied, or ignored, the vicarious sacrifice of Christ's death, as the ground of a sinner's justification, has ever evinced a practical adaptation to accomplish the work for which the Church was called into existence. This gospel of Christ crucified, though to 11 OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 31 Jewish Ritualists a stumbling-block, and to Greek Rational- ists foolishness, is still, to those who believe, *' the power of God unto salvation." If Christ's lift? and death are merelv exemjdary displays of unselfish benevolence, then, why did the Master himself say : " Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again the third day, that repentance and remissions should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem ] " I may just say, before leaving this point, that in his intense eagerness to fling reproach at the committee which investigated the charges against him, Mr. Roy declares that, in condemning his views of the Atonement, they commit themselves to Calvinism. It must be accepted as a sign of grace in him, that he is so anxious thtit they should be sound in the faith. But Mr. Roy is surely theologian enough to know that the substitution of Christ's suflferings as a legal equivalent for the infliction of the penalty upon the sinner — i.e., the vindi- cation of God's regard for His law, and the display of His fatherly love by the death of Christ — is not Calvinistic. This view of the Atonement is not Calvinistic ; because it is something, in its very nature, done foi* the whole race ; whereas the Calvinistic theory assumes that Christ's sufiering and righteousness are imputed to all for whom He has made the atonement, as if it were their own, and thus render their salvation certain. HE ADOPTS UNITARIVN VIEWS OF INSPIRATION, ETC. There is only one other distinguishing feature of Unitarianism, with which it is necessary to compare Mr. Roy's theology, or neology. I mean its " free inquiry, apart from the restraints of theologic creeds ; " and the free treat- ment of the Bible as not being the Worspoke for them, fought for them, and died for them. OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 33 But the new "catholicity" holds all that as folly. Dis- believing and rejecting the truth, as expounded and expressed by the Protestant churches, is the cardinal virtue in Mr. Roy's code. Unbelief is better than ffxitli, because it is more " catholic." Not only must " orthodoxy " be unjustly reproached ; every shelter and resting-place must be taken Jiway from it. The Bible on which it rests, by fair or foul means, must be battered down from its high place of infallible authority. Its revelation is declared to be supernaturally given, only in the sense in which " the deepest facts of our experience are supernatural." Church authority, also, must be hammered down into the dust, lest " orthodoxy " should receive any support from that quarter. The statements of historians must be unfairly quoted, so as to depreciate theology as a comparatively recent human production — a thing without authority, manufactured by priests to fetter men. Like the evil thoughts of the ancients, Mr. Roy's pamphlet is only destructive, " and that continually." Any one that reads it without that thought misses its real aim. As a correspondent of the Witness justly puts it : " The pamphlet is in fact a plea for latitu- " dinarianism, an attempt to show that Mr. Wesley, in the " most remarkable charity of his spirit, thought well of " Unitarians, of ' Materialists, Heathens, and Deists,' etc., " and therefore all latitude must be allowed under the " authority of Methodist standards for teaching any " doctrinal speculations whatever." Not only are the spirit and teaching of Mr. Roy's pamphlet in essential agreement with the Socinianism of Unitarianism, but a special partiality and admiration for Unitarianism breaks out repeatedly. Mr. Wesley's catholic and tolerant utterance about Mr. Firmin, a reputed Uni- tarian, is made by Mr. Roy to do duty repeatedly in favor of Unitarianism, in a way that recalls Shylock's exulting 34 SPURIOUS catholicity; — " A Daniel come to judgment ! " Mr. Roy actually intimates that Wesley abandoned the doctrine of tlie Trinity ! He unjustly magnifies everything which can in any way tend to disparage Trinitarianisrn. He complains that " a frank endeavor to do justice to the history of the Unitarian movement " exposes a man to censure. " Who,'' he contemptuously asks, " pronounces tlie Unitarian or the Quaker a heretic ] A certain body that assumes to itself the title of ' the Church.' " On page 53, he extrava- gantly eulogizes, without naming them., the Unitarians of all ages who " have protested against the meaning put on the Bible by those who assumed the title of orthodox." " They are more saintly than their accusers ; " and are models of the Christian virtues. His masked reference to the appoint- ment on the Kevision Committee of Dr. A^ance Smith (a Uni- tarian), as an acknowledgment of the learning of " these men," shows plainly enough for whom these extravagant eulogies are intended. In the face of all this, whatever Mr. Roy may deem it prudent to say in the way of denying his heterodoxy, can any one, at all competent to judge, deny that the whole drift and teaching of this pamphlet is what we have called the Socinianism of modern Unitarians 1 The same conclu- sion is forced upon us by three separate lines of thought in tliis ])amphlet : (1) He constantly eulogizes Unitarians and their views, and persistently stigmatizes Trinitarians ; (2) He adopts the same Rationalist views, against the authoiity of the Bible and all definite statements of doc- trines, which distinguish Unitarians ; (3) He assails and repudiates the very same orthodox doctrines, which have been constantly denounced and caricatured by Unitarians. If theie are any persons by whom this evidence is deemed insufiicient to establish the charge of Socinianism against Mr. Roy, they must belong to that class of people whose OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 86 opinions, having been received without reason, cannot be driven out by reason. This essay is not intended for that class. .s. jd Jt ■I WHAT RECORD HAS UNITARIANISM IN HISTORY 1 Before quitting the subject of Unitarianism, a few words upon the influence this heresy has exerted may be permitted. It will be seen, from what has been written, that the pecu- liarities of that system have been adopted by some erratic minds in past ages of the Church. It has been known in the history of the Church simi)ly as a disturbing and ob- structive element ; antagonistic, rather than helpful, in the accomplishment of the work of human salvation. For while it has charged orthodoxy with being a human i)hilosophy of Christianity, it has always thrust aside the simple verities of the Gospel, denied human depravity and the need and reality of regeneration, and become the teacher of that dangerous error, wliich the Apostle Paul characterizes in the Epistle to the Colossians as, " Philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ^ Mr. Roy appeals to the history of the primitive Church, for the purpjse of 'showing thi>t the main doctrines of the orthodox Churches were not explicitly taught by the Fathers ; and that the definitions and creeds which now prevail were framed lon*^ after the apostolic age. He does this evidently to depreciate the Scriptural authority of the doctrines of the Churches, and to make out that his lax anti-Tiinitarian teaching would not have been accounted heresy in those "good old times." I shall presently show that Mr. Roy does not correctly represent tl (^ f icts — that he would liave been condemned as u heretic by the anti-Nicene Council of Antioch, as well as by the (.-anadian Methodist Church, I am a little surprised tluH h^ has ventured to appeal to 2* 36 SPURIOUS catholicity; • the primitive Church for support. This cannot help his cause. For if the fact of the orthodox doctrines being only mentioned in general terms during the first three centuries, and receiving theii* more full and definite form at a period considerably after the apostolic age, is something that can be ui'ged to disparage the claims of the (Jhurcli doctrines, Mr. Roy's Unitarian speculations, "tested by history," have a fai* worse record. They are not even named in the apos- tolic period. They are not sanctioned by the apostolic Fathers. They find no recognition in the literature of the primitiA'c Church, except as heresy and false doctrine. In the uncoi'rupt period of the primitive Church, they •vovh, einpliatically condemned as human speculations, contrary lo the Gospel of Christ. And the very definitions of doctrine, that have become so hateful in Mr. Roy's eyes, were the interpretations of the Holy Sciiptures, given by the noblest men and greatest Christian tldnkers of the Church, for the express purpose of guarding both clergy and people against just such Unitarian heresies as Mr. Roy is now promulgating. The use of the " historical test " cannot help Unitarian neology. Mr. Roy professes great regard for the testimony of facts. But I fear he has not much regard for any facts that cannot be made to harmonize with his [)rejudices and speculations. But, tried by the '' historical test," how do Trinitai-ianism and Socinianism compare 'I Both have been in the field of the world for a period long enough to fairly test their claims to confidence. Trinitarianism has been from the beginning ; Unitarianism for sixteen or seventeen cen- turies. Can any man, acquainted with the history of Chris- tianity, deny that the work of Christ in the world has been achieved almost wholly l)y Trinitarian Chi-istianity 1 I do not wish to deny any good there is in Unitarianism. Con- sidered as a society for intellectual culture, it has its good points. Though some one has said : " A tc wn meeting, s OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 37 opened with prayer, is a Congregational Church." This description would still better suit a Unitarian Church. For any love of freedom, of thought, or generous human sym- pathy it has displayed, I give it full credit. But, tried by the standard of spiritual influence and practical usefulness, I have no hesitation in saying that all history te.stities that the Socinian speculations, of which Mr. Roy has become the champion, have been a miserable failure. They hy,ve been tried and " found wanting." " What is the evidence of ' facts ' Avith respect to the " efficiency of ' Liberal Christianity ' as a spiritual force in " the world 'I Has its teaching taken any strong hold upon " the conscience and spiritual nature of men 'I Has it " practically evinced its adaptation to satisfy the soul-hunger " of sufiering, guilty humanity ] Has it been successful in " lifting the masses of sinful, ignorant men \i\) into the joy "of bin forgiven? Can it point to tribes, redeemed by its " agency from barbarism and idolatry, as the seals of its " Churchship 1 " — Christian Guardian, jlpril 25th. Only one truthful answer can be given to these questions : viz., that the work here indicated has Ijeen accomplished— not by Unitarians, but by the Trinitarian Churches which they denounce as priest-ridden, illiberal and enslaved. Are we then to thrust out of sight the emphatic lessons which the whole histoiy of Ch)-istiaiiity cleai'ly teaches on this point and start oft" on a crusade against the orthodox Churches, at the bidding of Mr. Roy 1 As an able writer in the last British and Foreign Evangelical Review forcibly says : " Philosophy should have taught us, by this time, that opinions, however strange, which have swayed masses of our fellow-beings for generations must have been something more than the selfish inventions of priests and statesmen, or the visionary dreams of unregulated fixncy." I am no blind worshipper of human authority in religion ; but there 38 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; are some authorities I deem better than others ; and I have noticed that when a man takes to railing against Synods, Conferences, and Church authorities, he generally does so because they are against his notions ; and what he really wants is that people should prefer his authority and his opinions to those of Churches or Councils. In re[)ly to the coarse and hackneyed objections against the Trinity, wliich Mr. Roy has brought forward, I shall only offer two brief quotations, with which I shall close these remarks on Unitarian' L'^m. The tirst is from F. W. Robertson, of Brighton, it i : "There are those who are inclined to "sneer at the .i aitarian ; those to whom the doctrine " ap[)ears merely a contradiction, a puzzle, an entangled " labyrinthine eniyina in which there is no meaning wliat- '* ever. But let all such remember that though the doctrine "may appear to them absurd, because they have not the '* proper conception of it, some of the profoundest thinkers, " and some of the holiest spiiits among mankind, have " believed in this doctrine ; have clung to it as a " matter of life or death. Let them be assured of this, " that whether the doctrine be true or false, it is not "necessarily a doctrine self -contradictory. " My second quotation is from Anselm, of Canterbury, whose scheme of the Atonement, though imperfect, vindicates his claim to rank as one of the greatest thinkers of any age. Speak- ing of the objector to the Trinity, he observes : " But if he " denies that three can be predicated of one, and one of " three, let him allow that there is something in God which " his intellect cannot penetrate; and let him not compare the " nature of God, which is above all things free from all condi- " tion of place and time and composition of parts, with things " which are confined to place and time, or composed of parts ; <* but let him believe that there is something in that nature " which cannot be in those things.' (Quoted by Bishop Huntingdon.) OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 39 III. Mil. Roy gives a Partial and Incorrect Represen- tation OF the Facts op Chur'^h History, and by Unfair Quotations Conveys a False Impression of the Historic Evidence. I have already mentioned the questionable method pur- sued by Mr. Roy, of picking out from histoiians such one- sided selections as suit his purpose ; and wholly omitting everything that does not harmonize with his theory and object. Almost anything can be proved from Scripture or history, if a man selects only what favors his theory, omitting all unfavorable facts and statements ; and then takes the liberty of basing his conclusions on these partial and mutilated statements, as if they were the whole case. This is Mr. Roy's method throughout. I have given an instance of this in the case of Canon Westcott. I am con- fident that every author quoted in Mr. Roy's book, if he could speak, would testify that he had used his words so as to convey a meaning different from what he intended. I do not say that Mr. Roy is deliberately and intentionally dis- honest in these quotations. But if this is not the case, he must have been impelled by an impetuous and warping purpose to break down all doctrinal authority that s|)eculation may have full swing. He comes before the public in the character of a sincere and judicial seeker for truth. Those who are familiar with the literature from which he quotes will see, in the partial character of his quotations, evidence that he is really a partizan advocate, who neither sees, nor wants to see, anything which does not favor the skeptical theories that have destroyed his mental equilibrium. One author quoted has already repudiated the use made of his words. He quoted from Mr. Withrow's " Catacombs of Rome," to show, of course, that the art of the Catacombs testifies 40 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; against the terrible "orthodoxy." The unfairness of the quotation may be seen fi'om the following remarks of Mr. Withrow : — " In endeavoring to prove the alleged vagueness of primi- ' tive belief on the sul)iect of the Trinity, Mr. Roy does us ' the honor to make several quotations from, our book on the ' Roman Catacombs, and makes the assertion that " the ' earliest records in the Catacombs show an utter ignorance of ' this scholastic theology, if they do not contradict it." Now, * in his very citations Mr. Roy seems entirely to have misap- ' prehended our purpose, which was to show, not that the ' doctrine of the Trinity was not held, but that the idola- ' trous, carved, or painted representations of the Trinity ' which disgrace later Roman Catholic art, had no counter- * part in tne art of the early Chui'ch. With regard to the ' doctrines of the Trinity, of the Godhead and the Divinity * of Jesus Christ, we expressly say : ' We know from eccle- ' siastical history that numerous heresies sprang up in the ' early centuries with reference to these august themes ; but ' no evidence accuses the Church in the Catacombs of ' departure from the primitive and orthodox faith in these ' respects. Frequently, indeed, the belief in these car- * dinal doctrines is so strongly asserted as to suggest that it * is in designed and vigorous protest against the contem- ' porary heretical notions.' Then follow a selection of * examples in proof of these statements. The believer is ' said to ' sleep in God, in Christ, in the Holy Spirit.' * Quintilianus is descril^ed in his epitaph as ' holding fast the ' doctrine of the Trinity.' The divinity of Christ is most ' strongly asserted, as in the formulae, ' God, Christ Al- ' mighty,' ' God, Holy Christ,' ' Christ, the one holy God.' ' An engraving of a seal is also given, on which, doubtless ' in protest against the Arian heresy, it is expressly ' declared * Christ is God.' The earliest doxologies, benedic- OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 41 " tions, baptismal formulae, and liturgies of the Church all " give evidence of the firm holding of these vital doctrines." — Can. Meth. Mag. for June. Mr. Withrow adds that it could be shown that the quota- tions from other authors, and from Wesley himself, equally fail to corroborate the views on behalf of which they are quoted. We may illustrate the truth of this by his quota- tions from Kurtz and Hagenbach. Mr. Roy quotes from Kurtz, as giving evidence against the doctrine of the Trinity, the following : " The real essence of the Deity was rather ascribed to the Father ; and all the attributes of divinity were not assigned to the Son in the same manner as to the Father." In the same paragraph, it is previously said: " The Chu7'cit firmly mmntained the indej^endent ^^eTsonal existence of the Son (Hypostasianism) ; but various errors and difficul- ties arose when it Avas attempted to bring this view into har- mony with the Monotheism of Christianity." The words Mr. Roy has quoted give an example of one of these " errors and difticulties," Again he quotes: '*Tlie views entertained about the Holy Ghost were even more vague. His i)erson- ality and independent existence were not subjects of settled, or deep conviction ; it was more common to subordinate him." But he omits these words following : " But this pi'o- " cess of subordination appeared to some of the Fathers not " onh/ to endanger the fundamental doctrine of the unity of " God, hut also that of the divinity of Christ." And in the very same paragraph from which this is taken, after refer- ring to two classes of Unitarians, the historian says : *' Either of these forms of Monarchianism was regai^ded as ^^ heretical, aiul the hypostasian view as alone orthodox.""^ These views, which Mr. Roy quotes as the views of the Church, were opinions that temporarily emerged in the course of controversy ; and the meaning of these quotations, as I * Kurtz, p. 142. 42 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; have shown, is materially modified by other statements of the historian, which are conveniently omitted by Mr. Roy. The same unjust method is pursued with Hagenbach. He appears to have merely gone through the work to cull out and wrench off from its natural connection any fragment that would appear to help his spurious '' catholicity." His animus against the Trinity is visible in these mutilated quo- tations. For instance, on page 36, he gives a quotation from Hagenbach beginning, — "The belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, &c.," apparently quoting it for the statement that the belief in the Trinity appeared in the Apostles' Creed *' without being summed up in a unity," as he puts these last words in italics. But what he quotes is the latter pai-t of a short pai-agraph, the first part of which he omits ; which is as follows : " The doctrine of God the Father, tSon, " and Holi/ Ghost, is the doctrine of primitive Christianity ; " but has in the New Testament only a herring upon the " Christian economy, without any pretension to speculative " significance, and therefore cannot be rightly understood " but in intimate relation with the history of Jesus and the " work which He accomplished."* On page 34 he quotes as from Hagenbach these words : " The apostolic Fathers made no use of the doctrine of the Logos, but adhere to simple aphoristic and undeveloped declarations about the Divine dignity of Christ." Now, this is part of a foot-note, the latter part of which, aflirming the beginning of a doctrine of the Trinity, he cuts off". The words of Hagenbach in the text are : " The apostolic Fathers hold fast to this practical religious interest ; though they do not make any use of the peculiar doctrine of the Logos, yet there are single scattered declarations which offer the outlhies of au immanent doctrine of the Trinity. "i I leave it to others to characterize this method 'I \ Hayenhach, p. 128. t Hagenbach, p. 119. OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 43 urch were not fully formed and established " ; and it is suggested that as these dogmas, in their orthodox form, were moulded by human speculation, this fact largely destroys their authority. It is true, indeed, he admits that this development of doctrine does not necessarily prove that the orthodox doctrines are false. But unquestionably he gives these partial quotations avowedly for the purpose of "testing orthodoxy" by his- tory — or more strictly s])eaking, to show that the history of the time and way in which these doctrines received a scientific form discredits their claims to general belief. T fully admit this development of doctrine as to form, though T question Mr. Roy's use of it. There is a difference between "the underlying truth " and the form of words in which it may be Slated. But though Mr. Roy, admits this distinction he prac- tically ignores it in a very misleading manner. He constantly speaks as if the expression of a doctrine in definite terms was equivalent to the invention of the doctrine. The impression his statements and quotations are adapted to make, on ordin- ary Christian readers, is that the orthodox doctrines did not exist till after they were scientifically defined. Though, in fact, the belief of the truth must, in all cases, have preceded the scientific definition of it. Had there been no accepted truth to define, there could have been no definition required. Forgetting his own distinction, between the truth and its external form, he makes war on the orthodox faith ; not upon faulty definitions or conventional expositions, as he would have us believe. Under the pretext of striking at the form , he deals his hardest blows at the substance. Under cover of 44 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY , disparaging the rude casket, he despises the precious jewel of Divine truth. Professing that his quarrel is only with the human definition, lie stabs the Divine idea. Under preten«^e of repudiating the symbols of "orthodoxy," he rejects the thing signified — rven "the faith once delivered unto the saints." It cannot escape the notice of the thoughtful reader that Mr. Roy bends his energies to prove that, in all cases, before the Churchly formulation of each orthodox doctrine, it existed only in the most rudimental and chaotic form. In this he is true to his one overmastering purpose of breaking down the authority of doctrines ; though not true to facts. Whatever want of unity there may be in his pamphlet, there is no want of unity in his design. His quotations from Hagenbach are nearly all given for this purpose. But, if my space would allow, I could easily show that, although some prevailing heresy was the cause that created the need for a more exact definition of truth, the truth itself, in its substantial integrity, previously had secured the faith of the great body of Chris- tians. The quotations already given from the apostolic Fathers, respecting their view of the inspiration of Scripture, correct Mr. Roy's representations. A few quotations, show- ing the faith of the Church in tlie Tri-unity of God, in the period when, according to Mr. Roy, human speculation had not yet invented this dogma, may help to show many the utter untrustworthiness of Mr. Roy's appeals to history. I select the doctrine of the Trinity for this purpose : because it is regarded by Mr. Roy as the most irrational and unscriptural, premising, at the same time, that similar testimony could be shown in favor of other doctrines, before they were scientifically defined by theologians. I intend these extracts to show that Mr. Roy does not correctly represent the historic facts ; and that he is altogether too regardless of truth, in saying that there was a time (in the history of the Church) when " orthodoxy " — i.e., the orthodox ' OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 45 ' doctrines— "did not exist" except in " elements of thought." It is true that elaborate doctrinal theories and definitions did not exist ; but tlie truth whicli these statements expressed and symbolized did exist in the primitive Church, much more definitely than Mr. Roy intimates. Prof. Shedd, in his IJistor// of Chrisftaii Doctrine, api)ositely says : " The foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the primitive Church was the ))aptismal Kormula and the epistles, together with the /^o^/o^'-doctiine of the Apostle John." "The catechumen, upon his entrance into the Chris- tian Church, professed his faith in ' (iod the Fatiier A.lmighty, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.'" " The highly metaj)hysical doctrine of tlie Trinity, as Guericke remarks, 'had its origin i)rimarilv in a livinjir belief; namely, in the practical faith and feeling of the primitive Christian that Christ is the co-ecjual Son of God.* For, if there is any fact in history that is indis- putable, it is that the apostolic and pi-imitive (Jhurch loorshipped Jesus Christ." "The earliest liturgies are full of adoration towards the saci-ed Three, and second and middle person. The liturgy of the Church of Alexandria, which, in the opinion of Bunsen, was adopted about 200, and the ground plan of which dates back to the year 150, teaches the 'people' to respond : 'One alone is holy, the Father ; one alone is holy, the Son ; one alone is holy, the Spirit.' The actual and reverent worship of the believer was constantly going out towards the Son, equally with the Father ; :iJ the Spirit; and in this 'condition of things metaphysical terms and distinctions were not required."* The following extracts from the apostolic Fathers indi- cate the freedom with which they applied the term 0«oy to Christ. " Brethren," says Clement of Kome, " we ought * History of Christian Doctrine, Vol. I., p. 261. 46 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; " to conceive of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the judge of " tlie living and the dead." Ignatius used the words, " According to tlie will of the Father and of Jesus Oiirist " our God." Polycarp closed his prayer at the stake with the ascription, " For this, and for all things, I praise Thee, " I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, together with the eternal and " heaveidy Jesus, Thy beloved Son ; with whom to ^J , and " tlie Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all succeeding " ages. Amen." In his epistle to the Magnesians, Ignjitiiis says : " Study, that whatsoever ye do, ye may prosper both in body and si)irit, in faith and charity, in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Holy Spirit." Barnabas s})eaks of the [)re-existence of Christ, whom he calls "the Loi'd of the whole earth." Justin Martyr, who wrote in the early part of the second century, also speaks of Christ as " the Creator of the Universe." And, speaking of the Father of Righteousness, he says : '' We "« "ship and adore Him, and his Son, who came out from Hi and the prophetic Spirit ; honoring them in reason and truth." Clement of Alexandria, who died more than a centuiy before the Council of Nice, speaking of the Father and Son, says, " The two are one, namely, God." Again : " There is one Father of the universe ; there is alio one Word of the univeise ; and one Holy Spirit, who is every- where." " Let us give thanks to the only Father and Son, Son and Father, our Teacher and Master, together with the Holy Spirit, one God through all things, in whom are all things, by whom alone are all things, ... to whom be glory now and forever. Amen."* The manner in which the ante-Nicene apologists dealt with the subtle Gnostic heresies proves conclusively, that Christian theolog}- was not in the nebulous and chaotic con- dition, which it suits Mr. Roy's doctrinal laxity to make his * Shedd, Vol. 1., p. 266. , OR, 80CINIANISM UNMASKED. «T i disciples believe. The eminent French histoiian, Dr. Pres- sense, in hi.s Heresy and Christian Doctrine, says : " We ** have already seen fVoni th<' plan of Jienanis' l>ook against " the heretics, with what logical })Ower he refutes Gnosticism, " pursuing it under all its disgniscs, tefiring away the arti- " ficial veil of its Scripture synd)ols, confuting it by ttsxt " after text restored to its true moaning, and enforcing in " opposition to it those great piincii»les of conscience so in- " solently trampled ujjou by fatalistic speculation."* Of this eminent Father who had conversed with those who had seen the Apostles, Pressense says : '* He believes in the Trinity, " distinguishing clearly between the Father from whom all " proceeds, the Word, who has received all from the Fatlier, "and the Holy Spirit, who is before the world." " He also " admits that the Word assumed human flesh in order to give " us the manifestation of Oi d." Again : " He who was in- " comprehensible has made liimself visible and come down to " the com])rehension of men." Still more strongly Irena?us *' says : " The Word was made man in order that He might " accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man."t As theological literature increases, the testimonies become more full and explicit. Hut this will be sufficient to show — not, indeed, that there existetl com}dete formularies of Chris- tian doctrines — but that the ante-Nicene Church was ntiither so loose nor vague in its theological teaching, as Mr. Roy's garbled quotations would lead those who do not know for themselves to bolieve. The Church did not change her ancient doctrines, or invent a new Gospel at the time of the Council of Nice ; though she did give a more definite ex- pression to her faith. It is a significant fact, which it would not have suited Mr. Roy to notice, that however incomplete may have been * Pressense, p. 376. t Pressense's Heresy and Christian Doctrine, p. 386. 1 r 48 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; the doctrinal foimulas of the Ante-Nicene period, every ap- pearance of Unitarianism, during that period, was promptly condemned as heresy by the authorities of the Church. Pressense pro})erly deems it very suggestive that " in an age '* when ecclesiastical authoritv was far more lax in its consti " tution than after the Council of Nice, and when the theo- " logical cieed was in many i)oints still unformed, Christianity " did not hesitate to give em])hatic rej^udiation to syt V. Mr. Roy's Allegation, that he has been Perse- cuted AND Denied Liberty of Thought, is Based on Erroneous Assumptions, both with Respect to Principles and Facts. A cry for liberty is always popiilav. It awakens a response in every heart. For that reason, it has been made the battle-cry of many a cause which did not deserve its prestige. Even the Ritualistic Mr. Tooth, who wanted the privilege of being paid by the ('hurch of England to imder- min'3 her Protestant doctrines, is legarded by himself and his admirers as a martyr of lil)erty. Mr. Roy's complaint that his liberty was violated, and that he has been treated with unjust severity, has no justitication in the facts of tlie case. It will be admitted that Mr. Roy's personal liberty to believe and publish whatever he pleased w^as not, and could not be, interfered with. That has never been called in question. It was his alleged right to retain the full authority of a minister of the Methodist (Jhurch, while he preached views, respecting the central truths of Christianity, which that Church has always held to be false and iniscriptural, that has been denied by the Methodist Church and claimed by Mr. Roy. This claim, on his part, assumes that a Church should renounce the right to guard the doctrinal soundness of those she appoints to }»reach the truth. All his arguments on this i)oint are in favor of each minister being free to preach anything he chooses, without let or hindrance. His i)et " catholicity " requires tliis. In other words, his idea of liberty is unlimited license. And in respect to Churches, he evidently desires a state of things which can never exist, until there is complete indifl'ei '"nee respecting the value of religious truth. None but those who think nothing so true as to be worth contending for, 3* 56 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; can accept such " catholicity " as this. Mr. Roy's theory wouhl commend the emj)loyment as preachers, in the same Church, of men who preach the most contradictory doc- trines — a state of thin<^s that couhl not be justified by any, except those who deem it of no consequence what is preached. " Catholicity and Methodism " is a stilted exposition of Pope's misleading words : — " For forms of faith let senseless bigots fight ; He can't be wrong whose life is in the right." The Christian Church maintains the standard of Scriptural truth, because right convictions of vital truth are necessary to mould and inspire a right life. If men have false notions of their own character and God's character, of their duty and their destiny, their lives cannot be " in the right." A false belief may direct all life's energies to false issues. If a man does not believe that he is sinful and dejiraved, he will not seek for salvation. It is true, a profession of faith may be a mere formal thing ; but a man's life is what his deepest convictions make it. We might as well expect blossoms and fiuits without roots, as right character without right principle^ and beliefs. Good principles are the roots from which good deeds grow. Pope's doctrine suggests what is not true. It is singular, that while Mr. Roy has ransacked all periods of Church history to gather up everything that could be used as evidence of docti'inal laxity, or to disparage faith in Christian doctrines, it does not seem to have occur- red to him to examine the testimony of an old book that used to be held in high esteem by his Scottish ancestors, and " whose word is law " with his late Methodist friends — I mean the bible. It might be worth while asking, as a matter of interest to many : " Do the Holy^ Scriptures favor this disparagement of the value of doctrine ? " The result of that examination would show that the Bible is most con- OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 57 ► clusively on the other side of the question. That may account for Mr. Roy's pieferring to quote Hagenbach rather than Paul. To l)egin with the Master himself — Jesus says : "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." St. Paul exhorts his ** son Timothy " to '' hold fast the form of sound words " ; and wai-ns him " that the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine." He also tells Titus that a l)ishop must be one " holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers." He also says : '' A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject." St. James says : " Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth." St. Petei* also ascribes regeneration to " the word of God, which liveth and abidetli forever." St. John declares: "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath l»oth the B'ather and Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed." St. Jude says : " It was needful for me to write you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." The Bible clearly gives no countenance to the sentimental latitudinarianism of Mr. Roy. Every Church is recreant to its trust that does not jealously guard the truth. We must not be indifferent as to whether our people are fed wdth wholesome food or poison. Libei-ty is not lawless license. There can be no organized action, for any })urpose, without some mutually accepted principles of action. Has a man a right to com- plain, because he cannot remain a trusted member of a total abstinence society after he has become a drunkard ? Has a member of a political cabinet n. right to raise the cry of persecution, because he is not allowed to remain in the cabinet to oppose the policy of his colleagues 1 And has a 08 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; minister of a Church a right to complain that he is perse- cuted, because ho is not allowed the liberty to remain in a Church to oj)])Ose and denounce its doctrines and discipline'? A man should not ex))ect the benefit of a contract, after he has broken its conditions. This is not a demand for free- dom, but for tyranny. It is a demand that when a minister drifts away from the faith of his CJhurch, the Church should still be bound to endorse hiin, on pain of being denounced as a persecutor if it refuse. The cry of freedom in all such cases is really a false issue. The cant of liberalism is quite as desjiicable as the cant of " orthodoxy." " The freedom " which the// seek is freedom to remain ivithiu the Church " atul labor for the sidjversion of her faith. We cannot satisfy " them except by saying that we have no definite beliefs, ** and that v/e hardly wish to have any; and that the liberty " to indulge speculation in religion is of more importance " than the attainment of that knowledge of the Father and " of the Son, which the Saviour has declared to be * life '' eternal.' " (Dr. Caven.) I do not say that a man should at once leave a ChurcJi with which he is not in all respects in perfect harmony. There may be expedient modifications, demanded by changes of circumstances, which it is the duty of wise men to promote. But there is a wide difference between loyal efforts from within to revise creeds, or modify rules, in a lawful manner, and the preposterous claim of one who maintains that the ministers of a Church should still be clothed with its sanction and authority, while they employ all their opportunities to overturn the faith and order they have solemnly vowed to uphold. The reform and progress that liave taken place in the Methodist Church owe nothing to men like Mr. lioy. Real reform requires dis- passionate judgment and a comprehensive estimate of the difficulties to be met, and of the best method of overcoming them — not the reckless impetuosity of ill-regulated impulse. OR, SOCINIANISM UNMASKED. 59 I know that Mr. Roy, finding that his heresies have shocked Christian sentiment more than he expected, is very anxious to ])ersua(le people that his views are not Unitarian. He seems to forget that it is tl)e verdict of the jury, and not that of the prisoner, tliat settles tlui question of guilt or innocence. When a man who lias gathered up every avail- able objection, by which he could weaken popular confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bil^le, turns round and tells us that he has not ini])Ugned its supreme authority, we must be very easily satisfied if we ascribe any importance to such a plea in arrest of judgment. In the same way, when he rakes up every possible objection against the Trinity — from Scripture, from history, from metaphysics — and in explicit language denies that there are three persons in the God- head, — and then pretends to think himself misrepresented, because he is classed with Unitarians, we must question either his sincerity or his sanity. And all this, too, in the face of the fact that when he was before the committee, he explicitly declared that he knew of only one hypostasis in the New Testament ; and also distinctly rejected the first article in " the Articles of Religion " ; which declares that " in unity of this Godhead there are three persons of one sub- stance, iiower, and eternifi/ ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." There must be some want of frank dealing in all this. If Mr. Roy has been misre]>resented, why does he not come out of the obscurity of " scholastic " terminology, and say plainly to the people that he believes in three per- sons in one God 1 It looks very like as if he thought he had given the well meaning people, who have been mystified by his sophistry, as much '' catholicity " as they can swallow for the present ; and that he recoils from fully unmasking his Unitarianism to their sight, lest it should be more than those who have been defending his Methodist orthodoxy could bear. I cannot conceive how Mr. Roy can possibly li 60 SPURIOUS CATHOLICITY ; persuade hiiiiH(^lf that the committee did him an injustice in lindiiig liis teachings contrary to Methodist doctrine, unless he has lost the power of discerning between things which differ. Why, even the llev. A. J. Bray, who has endorsed his " catholicity," showing thereby that he is as heterodox as Mr. Roy himself, admits that this pamphlet is " a very strong attack on the so-called orthodoxy of the evangelical Churches " ; and that from their standpoint the Methodists could not have done othei'wise. Did Mr. Roy, then, really expect that any Ohurch luider heaven would treat teaching, , which it tirmly believed to be false and dangerous, just as if it were thought true and wholesome ? Did he for one moment