Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

osity has been in a measure despoiled of its value through a mistake as to its motive. They, however unjustly, have interpreted this catholic disposition towards other sects into indifference. to our own. They tell of a country, somewhere in the East, where ecclesiastical politeness is carried so far, that, when two persons of different faith meet, one says to the other, "Tell me to what sublime religion you belong, that, when we are together, I may call myself by it; my own contemptible creed is, so and so." We do not wish, by this, to caricature a sentiment of broad toleration with which we so sincerely sympathize, but only to suggest. that a generous attitude towards other forms of faith is worth the more when it is coupled with earnest love for one's own independent convictions.

The recent meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York, which, with all its shortcomings, was one of the grandest ecclesiastical events of the year, found its best significance in the circumstances that so many different sects, each adhering to its own separate organization and form of worship and belief, had nevertheless come to recognize a common bond to unite them that was far more essential than the differences that divide — and thus were ready to own each other as parts of the Christian church, and to consult and labor together for God and man.

[ocr errors]

Rev. Dr. R. D. Hitchcock expressed this sentiment well, in his address before the Alliance, when he said,

"Each sect has its own errand. The doctrines are not yet settled. We have, strictly speaking, no cecumenical creed, not even the apostles' creed, for each one of us interprets it for himself, making it mean more or less. Controversy must still go on; but we are very foolish to have it do so bitter. Communion is one thing; intercommunion is another thing; just as national law is one thing, international law another. Into the family of nations. the door is wide, admitting some nations that none of us would like to belong to. But anything that governs at all is better than anarchy. In Palestine beyond the Jordan, among wild Bedouin men, Turkish troops are welcome to the traveller. So, in the church, Coptic Christianity in Egypt may be far enough beneath our idea, but after all the cross is over them and not the crescent, For myself, of course I prefer my own communion, or I would

leave it for another. But God forgive me if I ever looked or shall ever look into any Christian face without finding in it something of the old family look."

Perhaps, after all, the Unity of the Christian Church, for which we long, may not involve the merging of Christian sects, but only the filling them all with a spirit of harmony while each performs its separate mission a unity like that of the "body, with many members," every one of which, when properly adjusted, ministers to the welfare of the whole. We are glad to believe that one of the peculiar functions of the " Unitarian" member is, to cultivate a largeness of sympathy; and we hope, at any rate, in the conduct of this Review, to make it appear that we labor for the efficiency of our own denomination, with no narrow sectarianism, and that we shall never exalt the interests of the denomination above the interests of the Truth.

Again, we have been urged, in case we adopt the title "Unitarian," to use also the word" Christian," in a second title. In rejecting this counsel, we wish to explain that it is certainly not because we fail to accept this word as larger and better than Unitarian, but because it is necessarily implied, and needs not to be repeated. "Unitarian" means "Unitarian Christian," as much as "Baptist," means "Baptist Christian," or "Orthodox," "Orthodox Christian," or "Protestant," "Protestant Christian." To be sure, there was a dispute, some years ago, in connection with a bequest to one of our large institutions, by the terms of which the money was to be applied to the support of "Protestant Teaching," and some claimed that an atheist was a Protestant, and that "atheistic teaching" ought to be maintained. But the courts decided that law as well as common opinion assumed the word "Christian" as part of the word "Protestant," fixed there by the authority of three centuries of use. Certainly the word "Protestant" itself has not been more distinctly identified with "Christian," than has the word "Unitarian," by all the acts and declarations of the denomination as well as by the tacit assumptions of its members. Sometimes, because "blood is thicker than water," our feelings of personal attachment for those whom we hold in close regard has made us all glad, if possible, to avoid any exaction of our conditions of fellowship on those who can no longer call themselves

by the Christian name, and this has perhaps given an appearance of looseness. But it will be noticed, that, after the point has been actually raised, even those who argue against the need of withdrawal, do so only on the ground that the persons named have not abandoned Christianity, but only some notions of Christianity which they have feared were inevitably implied in the name. Therefore we have felt no necessity for further proclaiming, by our title, our Christian status, and, out of a regard for the past history of this journal, we have taken for our second title, "Religious Magazine."

There is yet another point to which we will briefly refer. It is objected" that, after all, the word' Unitarian' does not adequately express the position of our denomination and the precise attitude it assumes in reference to religious thought." In reply we would ask if ever a name does completely describe the thing it is chosen to represent? Is "Protestantism" the best name to designate the movement for which it stands? The word "Protestant," by itself, is suggestive chiefly of antagonism, of negation, of conflict; whereas it has its affirmations, its reverent attachment, its repose in well-established convictions, as much as Catholicism with which it is contrasted. A name often originates, as in this case, in some historical incident, more or less essentially connected with the object named, and sometimes very imperfectly describes it. And indeed, the principle of "lucus a non lucendo" is as often to be observed in nomenclature as is that of perfect adaptation. So that we instinctively come to disregard etymology, and allow a name to represent for us that with which it has become associated, as this object may, in other ways, have been made to shape itself in our minds.

The word "Unitarian " has attached itself, we need not inquire how, to a distinct and well-established system of Christian faith, which has its organized activities, and its well-recognized place among the religious systems of Christendom. We cannot wipe it out, if we would, from the history of religious progress; and, while we would willingly consent to abandon it and the organization which it denotes whenever this shall be desirable, either for a better progress towards truth, or for the sake of the greater unity of the Christian world, yet, meantime, while there appears to be

still a need for the service of this denomination as a member of the Christian body, with a distinct work of its own, we rejoice in a name, which however, confusing it may be if we consult only a dictionary for its meaning, has clearly enough defined itself in the intellectual and social and religious struggles of the last half century, and has gathered about itself memories and associations of which we have such reason to be glad.

We will only add that this journal will have no official authority of any kind, and that it is entirely independent of any organization and we repeat that we shall rejoice in feeling that we are working in co-operation with all, who, under whatever name, are helping to advance the cause of Truth and to promote the interests of Christian faith.

CHARLES LOWE.

"THE TWO GREAT PROBLEMS OF UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY."

A SHORT article, with the above heading, appeared in the last number of the Religious Magazine, and read so much like a wail from a sad heart that we have been prompted to write a reply.

In the opening paragraph the writer says, "We believe that Unitarian Christianity is a universal gospel; that it is for the masses as well as for the cultured few, capable of stirring men to greater action, and giving them a more ample religious growth than previous forms of Christian truth. But, before it can become the supreme gospel of the race, two problems must be solved." Before considering those two problems, I would like to say a word on this opening paragraph.

That"Unitarian Christianity is a universal gospel, intended for the masses as well as for the cultured few," I devoutly believe : understanding by Unitarian Christianity, simply the Christianity of Christ. That is, so far forth as Christianity can be put into words, into propositions, into philosophical statements. But are we not in some danger of forgetting, that the vital part of Chris

tianity is not susceptible of statement in words? It is a spirit of life. We can make statements concerning this spirit of life; we may hold a philosophy about it, and that philosophy may be susceptible of logical explication, but the vital thing which Christianity, the Spirit of Life, is, cannot be formulated. Now, our Unitarian Philosophy and statements about this vital life-giving spirit, seem to me to be true, and I believe will prevail so far and so fast as men shall be able to appreciate logical and philosophical statements about anything. But the masses are not now able to appreciate. So that acceptance of our statements about Christianity may not, for a long time to come, be very general. But (and here is our salvation as religious teachers) the masses, however lacking in ability to appreciate our philosophy, have no difficulty in appreciating the thing about which we philosophize and make statements. The spirit of divine life, when manifested in us, it requires little or no philosophical acumen to see and appreciate.

Our present thought concerning the vital thing which Christianity is, and our present statements of our thought, may both be modified, it would be strange if they were not; but the thing itself is ever the same, and is not in the exclusive keeping of any sect, or party, or school of thinkers.

[ocr errors]

But to advance to the next, the third belief stated by the writer in the opening paragraph, namely, that Unitarian Christianity is "capable of stirring men to greater action, and giving them a more ample and religious growth than previous forms of Christianity." I do not believe the first part of this statement, that Unitarian Christianity is capable of stirring men to greater action than previous, or many prevailing forms of Christianity, unless we are to define action to be something quite different from what it is usually understood to be in this relation. This is almost too evident to require illustration; yet, at the risk of being prolix and commonplace, for the sake of simplicity let me offer an example of "action," produced by other forms of belief and teaching, and which Unitarianism is not competent to produce. Take an audience of evangelical (unconverted) believers, if the expression may be allowed, under the manipulation of any well-known powerful revivalist preacher. He evidently believes that all before him are in danger of eternal burning, and by his earnestness (for in

« ПредишнаНапред »