66 are so powerful in behalf of Unitarianism. But wherefore not adopt it, since it is taught in language so clear and unambiguous? Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." John vi, 53. Mr. Pope shrinks with abhorrence from the literal interpretation of these words, " to avoid the idea of cannibalism being a tenet of Christianity," " and adduces arguments against it from that very reason, which so many vilify as carnal, whenever it speaks against any favourite tenet. Mr. Maguire will, of course, think him as obstinately prejudiced, and as wilfully blind to the truth, as Mr. Pope thinks the Socinian, for not adopting his interpretation of the passages which he quotes in favour of the Trinity. Strange perversity! may he exclaim. Here is a great advocate of the free use of Scripture, who refuses his assent to its plainest dictates; one who, being alike ignorant how body and soul are united, and how a blade of grass springs, dares, notwithstanding, to controvert a doctrine, which the old, long-established motherchurch has deemed essential to salvation; and all, forsooth, because it is beyond comprehension and irreconcileable to reason! Does he not know that it is a mystery ?-a mystery too, much less profound than that of the three in one; and which may be supported by Scriptural arguments, far more analogical than those derived from our ignorance of physical secrets in support of Trinitarianism. What greater difficulty in supposing bread to be converted into real flesh and blood, than water into wine, at the marriage-feast of Cana in Galilee ? This, however, may be a point in which no great difference. subsists between Mr. Pope and Mr. Maguire. The catechism which the former has been taught, most assuredly expresses itself as strongly in favour of transubstantiation, as any thing in the mass-book, when it affirms that the faithful do verily and indeed take the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. But transubstantiation, though a fine-sounding word, was rejected by Luther, and consubstantiation substituted in its place. What is the real and essential difference? The former doctrine is rejected with horror by the Church of England Episcopalians; and what can we thence infer, but that the catechism expresses one thing, and that they are taught another? Would it not be wise to reform the language of the catechism, and make it, if possible, declare what is the real belief of the church, on so important a subject ? It seems strange and paradoxical, that those who are so ready to adduce arguments from men's ignorance, should assume such superiority of knowledge and discernment, in speaking of doctrines avowedly inexplicable and incomprehensible. Strange, that he who cannot tell by what imperceptible ties his body and * Rammohun Roy's Final Appeal, p. 380. soul are united, shall yet speak, with perfect confidence, of the union of two natures in Christ, a subject of which the Scriptures say nothing! That he who knows not the essence of his own mind shall, notwithstanding, dogmatize about consubstantialities in the Godhead, and its composition of persons, contrary to the clearest deductions of reason, and the plainest declarations of Scripture that God is one! Strangest of all, that he should, with perfect complacency, solemnly declare, in his religious services, that whosoever does not believe his inexplicable creed, must perish everlastingly! Mr. Pope accuses Unitarians of reasoning from a priori speculations on the character of the Deity. How justly might it be retorted on Mr. Pope, that he forms his ideas of God from creeds and theological systems, which are founded neither on reason nor Scripture; nay, that are contrary to all that the blessed Saviour has taught us of his paternal, gracious, and benignant nature? The Unitarian cannot believe that any revelation from heaven contradicts reason and common sense. It is from the exercise of reason, in the first place, that he admits the truth of revelation at all; and this being once admitted, he adopts from it those doctrines which it clearly teaches. He interprets its language by the aid of the understanding which God has given him; receives with gratitude and cheerfulness all the discoveries which it makes of the divine perfections, of the way to felicity, and the life to come. He rejoices to find its doctrines accord so much with the dictates of reason, though far beyond her own unassisted efforts to discover. But, if any tenet be proposed for his adoption, which contradicts all those natural principles of thought and judgment which God has bestowed, he must pause. The inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding as well as revelation, to man. Both are his gifts; and the one is not intended to supersede, but to enlighten, direct, and aid the exercise of the other. "Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit," is a good maxim in theology, as well as in other subjects. To the Unitarian the Scriptures appear in perfect harmony with all the conclusions of reason on religious topics; and to imagine otherwise, would be a reflection on the wisdom of the Creator. When, therefore, any article of faith is proposed for his adoption, irreconcileable to reason, he contends, that it has not Scripture for its basis. He admits that its incomprehensibility may be no just ground of rejection; but its self-contradiction, or opposition to some demonstrable tenet of true religion, may. Though an angel were to preach the doctrine of three in one, the Unitarian could notdurst not receive it, till such angel produced his commission from heaven-confirmed its truth by miracles-and so proved that he was authorised to abrogate the first commandment given by Moses, and corroborated by the Son of God himself, who came "not to destroy, but to fulfil." SECTION FOURTEENTH. General Reasons for Rejecting the Doctrine of the Trinity. THE UNITARIAN REJECTS THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, not because it is beyond, but because it is contradictory to reason, as much as transubstantiation. The Apostle Paul tells us (Rom. i. 20,) That the invisible things of God from the creation of the world; even his eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. But the existence of three persons in one God was never clearly, nor even dimly seen in any of the works of creation. They all exhibit proofs that the supreme omnipotent contriver and fabricator is one. The Unitarian REJECTS the doctrine of the Trinity, because as Priestley has justly observed, "There is no fact in nature, nor any one purpose in morals, which are the object and end of all religion, that requires it." He REJECTS it, because it subverts the fundamental principle of revealed, as well as of natural religion. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," a truth confirmed by the blessed Saviour, who, when solicited by the Tempter to worship him, replied, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve." In vain do the advocates of the Trinity contend, that the unity of design apparent in the creation, argues unity of counsel and not of cause. This is a sophism and a salvo for a plurality of persons in the Godhead, unworthy even of Paley, whose words are re-echoed by shallow critics, and whose principles, however closely they "symbolize" with those of orthodoxy, are not always consonant to gospel integrity and truth. Paley should have learned better of the honest Unitarian Lardner, to whom his "Evidences" are so much indebted; and in a chapter on the Divine Unity, he ought not to have introduced an observation calculated to mislead the unreflecting, without giving it a proper explanation. But to aim a blow at natural religion, seems preferable with many to the admission of a principle by which the doctrine of the Trinity must be overturned. Paley's observation is exactly such as would become a heathen, anxious to open the gates of heaven for the re-admission of the mythological councils of the Dii majores et minores; though even a heathen might be brought to allow there is ONE SUPREME, the Father of gods and men. Now for the argument :-the author affirms, that the unity of design apparent in the creation, declares the unity of the great first cause; nay, that the unity of all such designs, whether it be our own solar system, or any other in the expanse of the universe, which could be formed only by omnipotence, leads to the same conclusion. There may be millions of subordinate causes, but all must be under the controul of one directing mind, to which none can be equal, and from which all power must be derived. For suppose, with the Manichæans of old, and with such semi-Christians as invest the devil with the attributes of Deity, that there are two omnipotent beings, the one good, and the other evil; each might exhibit proofs of almighty power-the one in creating, the other in destroying; but we should behold no beauty and harmony, under the government of two such rival potentates. Suppose both of them, however, to be as good and wise as they are powerful, might they not act in perfect concert, and exhibit in their works all the order which we admire in the world around us? Granted. But is it not plain, even to a demonstration, that if one of two beings has as much power as the other, neither of them is omnipotent? The sum total of power is divided between them;-each is deficient by a half, and being so deficient cannot be the great first cause of all. The great first cause can have no rival-no equal-no counsellor. "With whom took he counsel ?" asks the Prophet Isaiah, as if indignant at the thoughts of that plurality of persons, which it is the misfortune of so many to hear advocated in place of the plain Scriptural truth, that God is one. "Who hath stood in the counsel of the Lord ?" asks Jeremiah, xxiii. 18.-" Who," reiterates Paul, "hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor P" Rom. xi. 34. Instead, therefore, of making concessions, of which the Polytheist and Atheist may take an unhappy advantage, it would be more wise of such "examiners," as are really Christian, to symbolize with the Apostle Paul, and say, "To us there is but one God;" and leave it to the disciples of Vigilius Thapsitanus, the supposed author of the notorious creed ascribed to Athanasius, to expatiate on a plurality of persons. It has been laid down by one, from whom few will have the hardihood to dissent, that in the investigation of nature, two causes are never to be admitted, where one will suffice. If one self-existent, all-powerful being, be a cause adequate to the creation of the universe, it is unnecessary and unphilosophical to admit two. Therefore, God is one; and thus does true philosophy* • Not the "insaniens sapientia" condemned by Horace, nor the apos Copia of Greg. Naz. but that which is cultivated by such minds as Newton's and Milton's. This is that true philosophy, which "looks through nature up to nature's God," and through Scripture to the glorious perfection of the eternal ONE; symbolize with the Scriptures in proclaiming the unity of God, that philosophy which, like wisdom, cometh from above, though so much decried by the advocates of old wives' fables," and of that spurious philosophy which the gospel condemns and classes with "vain deceit, the tradition of men, and the rudiments of the world." Col. ii. 8. The Unitarian REJECTS the doctrine of the Trinity, because it contradicts all that we are taught, and all that we are capable of comprehending of the infinite perfections of Jehovah. It contradicts his Self-Existence, by identifying him with Christ, whom it acknowledges to be begotten: His Immensity, by confining in a human form, him whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain : His Simplicity, by representing him as compounded of three persons: His Spirituality, by making him incarnate: His Invisibility, for he was seen: His Immutability, for he was in the form of a slave : His Immortality, for he died: His Omnipotence, for there were things not his to give : His Omniscience, for some things he did not know : Consequently, it denies the infinite perfection of all the other attributes of Deity. For, if any being falls short of infinitude in any one perfection, he falls short in all. Our Lord positively affirmed, that none is good but ONE, and that is God-if none supremely good, then none supremely wise-none supremely just. In vain do the defenders of the Trinity try to escape the force of this argument, by the clumsy invention of the " two natures;" an invention which, like that of transubstantiation, seems designed to try the extent of human credulity, and which, as has been already shewn, would bring such impeachments on the character of our Lord as the Unitarian shudders to express. He REJECTS it, because it confounds attributes with persons-qualities with substance-humanity with deity. It materializes our ideas of the eternal mind; and by teaching, that it can be essentially connected with corporeal forms, yields an easy introduction to image-worship. Hence we need not be surprised, if the great majority of those who embrace the doctrine of the Tri the opposite of that wisdom which springs from below, which is characterised by an Apostle as "earthly, sensual, devilish;" and which, instead of presenting to the mind "a perpetual feast of nectar'd sweets" set before it the everlasting crambe repetitia, the horny indigestible husks of the five Calvinistic points. How long will men suffer their understanding to be "mocked, insulted, and abused ?” |