66

and intimately united with Trinitarianism. They take from us our Father in heaven, and substitute a stern and unjust Lord." Urge not upon us a system which makes existence a curse and wraps the universe in gloom." p. 27. "Trinitarianism".... is "a melancholy system." "It is a narrow, technical, artificial system, the fabrication of unrefined ages." p. 33. Man "owes no allegiance to such a Maker," as he had charged Trinitarianism with representing Jehovah to be, "and cannot, of course, contract the guilt of violating it." "The severity of this system places him,” man, "on the ground of an injured being. The wrong lies on the side of the Creator." p. 41. "Did I believe what Trinitarianism teaches....I should feel myself living under a legislation unspeakably dreadful, under laws written like Draco's, in blood; and instead of thanking the sovereign for providing an infinite substitute, I should shudder at the attributes which render this expedient necessary." "He who framed all souls and gave them their susceptibilities, ought not to be thought so wanting in goodness and wisdom, as to have constituted a universe which demands so dreadful and degrading a method of enforcing obedience as the penal sufferings of a God." p. 44. In another place he compares the Orthodox doctrine of the crucifixion of Christ as a propitiation for the sins of the world, to the execution of an Infinite Being, a partaker of supreme divinity upon "a gallows erected in the centre of the universe;" and then says, in reference to the teacher whom he supposes to announce such a transaction, which Dr. Channing pronounces less " ignominious," than that presented by the Orthodox doctrine of atonement, "Would you not tell him that he calumniated his Maker? Would you not say to him, that this central gallows threw gloom over the universe; and that the spirit of a government, whose very acts of pardon were written in such blood, was terror, not paternal love; and that the obedience, which needed to be upheld by this horrid spectacle, was nothing worth? "Would you not say to him....that the angels, those pure flames of love, need not the gallows and an executed God to confirm their loyalty?" p. 45. Again, he represents the Trinitarian as compelled to defend his faith by the plea,....that God is honoured by our reception of what shocks the intellect." And he

adds, "Trinitarianism, as we have seen, links itself with several degrading errors; and its most natural alliance is with Calvinism, that cruel faith, which stripping God of mercy and man of power, has made Christianity an instrument of torture to the timid, and an object of doubt or scorn to hardier spirits. I repeat it, a doctrine which violates reason like the Trinity, prepares its advocates in proportion as it is incorporated into the mind, for worse and worse delusions. It breaks down the distinctions and barriers between truth and falsehood. It creates a diseased taste for prodigies, fictions, and exaggerations, for startling mysteries and wild dreams of enthusiasm." p. 50.

We wish sincerely, that fidelity in the work we have undertaken would permit us here to end our quotations under this head of remark. But the unpleasant task is not yet completed. It is not only of the sentiments of the Orthodox, that the author of the discourse has suffered himself to speak in a manner so reprehensible. He has said things not less severe of their intellectual and religious characters. He had indeed remarked, pp. 10, 13, "The object of this discourse requires me to speak with great freedom, of different systems of religion. But let me not be misunderstood. Let not the uncharitableness which I condemn, be lightly laid to my charge. Let it be remembered that I speak only of systems, not of those who embrace them. In setting forth with all simplicity what seem to me the good or bad tendencies of doctrines, I hare not a thought of giving standards or measures by which to estimate the virtue or vice of their professors.” “I shall speak freely, and some may say severely, of Trinitarianism; but I love and honour not a few of its advocates: and in opposing what I deem their error, I would, on no account, detract from th rth." But these reso

lutions seem to have been forgotten in the progress of the discourse, and he has suffered himself to speak "of those who embrace" the Orthodox system, as follows:

"I see indeed superior minds, and great minds, among the advocates of the prevalent system; but they seem to me to move in chains, and to fulfil poorly their high function of adding to the wealth of the human intellect. In theological discussion, they remind me more of Sampson grinding in the narrow mill of the Philistines, than of that undaunted champion achieving victories. for God's people, and enlarging the bounds of their inheritance." "It," the system of Trinitarians, "tends to generate and nourish a religion of a low, dull, melancholy tone, such, I apprehend, ،، Multitudes, 99 as now predominates in the christian world." meaning Trinitarians, "seem to prize pardon more than piety, and think it a greater boon to escape, through Christ's sufferings, the fire of hell, than to receive, through his influence, the spirit of heaven, the spirit of devotion." pp. 34, 37.

C

Of such language, in reference to any class of persons of respectable standing in the community, we hesitate not to say,—and we know we shall have the concurrence of every dispassionate reader in the assertion,–that there can be no justification or palliation. What then shall be thought of its being used, as it is by Dr. Channing, of a class men, not a few of whom, he has acknowledged, deserve from him honour and love; many of whom have been the benefactors of the world; of a class of men which embraced the great body of our venerated Fathers? Is it said, that some Orthodox writers have employed expressions equally severe in reference to the sentiments and characters of Unitarians? And what if they have? Is their offence any justification or palliation of the same conduct in one, by whom they have been uniformly and pointedly condemned ?

H. THE MODE OF REASONING EMPLOYED IN THE discourse, AS RESPECTS BOTH THE SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH OF" UNITARIAN "VIEWS," AND THE SHOWING OF THE SUPERIOR TENDENCY" OF UNITARIANISM TO FORM AN ELEVATED RELIGOUS CHARACTER,'

66

66

IS OBJECTIONABLE.

The ultimate object of the discourse is to furnish proof of the truth of Unitarianism. And the proof furnished is, the alleged superior tendency of Unitarianism, to form an elevated religious character, without any reference to the testimony of Scripture. This alleged superior tendency of Unitarianism is not, it is true, advanced as the only proof, but as "no weak argument, in support of the truth of" Unitarian "views." Nor is it admitted that Unitarianism is not supported by the testimony of Scripture, but claimed that it is in harmony with the great and clear principles of revelation." p. 49. But in the argument in support of its truth to be furnished in this discourse, reference to" scriptural authorities" is expressly disclaimed. p. 9.

Now we do not question the right of an author to employ whatever mode of argument he pleases, in attempting to establish the truth of his opinions. Nor will any one question, that every reader has an equal right to judge, whether the mode he has employed was judiciously chosen. And we must say that, in our view, the mode of reasoning employed in this discourse in proof of the truth of Unitarianism is far from being satisfactory. The Bible, all Protestant denominations agree, is the only ultimate standard of religious doctrine.

"To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is

because there is no light in them." With consistent Protestants, an argument for the truth of a religious system which contains no reference to Scripture, can be of little weight.

What if a plausible, and an apparently conclusive argument should be framed, in favour of certain religious doctrines, as eminently calculated to produce honourable views of God, and from this it should be inferred that those doctrines are true, while they are contradicted by the plain testimony of Scripture ; would the argument be of any avail? Suppose a person should state, as a part of his religious creed, that there is no sin or suffering in the universe; and should then attempt to show, that these opinions have a "superior tendency to form an elevated religious character;" and suppose he should reason in some such manner as the following: It is derogatory to the paternal character of God, and wholly inconsistent with his infinite benevolence, to suppose that he can have permitted any of his intelligent creatures to sin, and by sinning to incur suffering. He who made the mind, and has access to it at all times, is certainly able to prevent so unhappy an event; and if he is able to prevent it, will not his unbounded goodness secure its prevention? If you say, the permission of sin, and the consequent infliction of suffering were necessary to exhibit fully the divine character, and form his intelligent creatures to the highest degree of moral excellence and of happiness, or could not have been prevented without interfering with human freedom, you limit the perfections and degrade the character of the Infinite One. Will an earthly parent permit his child to commit a fault, and by committing