Page images
PDF
EPUB

it presents. I intend to touch on those points only, on which the hinge of the controversy seems to me to turn; and on these, in a manner as summary, as the nature and difficulty of the case will permit.

The statement which you make of your own faith in regard to the unity of God, and your account of the doctrine of the Trinity, are as follow :

"First. We believe in the doctrine of GOD'S UNITY, or that there is one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite importance, and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it by vain philosophy. The proposition, that there is one God seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand by it, that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom underived and infinite perfection and dominion belong. We conceive, that these words could have conveyed no other meaning to the simple and uncultivated people who were set apart to be the depositaries of this great truth, and who were utterly incapable of understanding those hair-breadth distinctions between being and person, which the sagacity of latter ages has discovered. We find no intimation, that this language was to be taken in an unusual sense, or that God's unity was a quite different thing from the oneness of other intelligent beings.

"We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of properties, and acts, and consciousness which leads us to the belief of different intelligent beings, and if this mark fail us, our whole knowledge fails; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more, than represent to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those, which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, different minds?." pp. 8, 9.

My object in this letter is not to controvert your creed;

but to consider your representation of the doctrine of the Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended by those with whom I am accustomed to think and act.

Admitting that you have given a fair account of our belief; I cannot see, indeed, why we are not virtually guilty of Tritheism, or at least of something which approximates so near to it, that I acknowledge myself unable to distinguish it from Tritheism. But I cannot help feeling, that you have made neither an impartial, nor a correct statement of what we believe, and what we are accustomed to teach and defend.

It needs but a moderate acquaintance with the history of the doctrine in question, to satisfy any one, that a great variety of explanations have been attempted by inquisitive, or by adventurous minds. All acknowledge the difficulty of the subject; I regret to say, that some have not refrained from treating it, as though it were more within their com prehension than it is.

But among all the different explanations, which I have found, I have not met with any one which denied, or at least was designed to deny, the UNITY OF GOD. All admit this to be a fundamental principle. All acknowledge that it is designated in characters of light, both in the Jewish and Christian revelations; and that to deny it would be the grossest absurdity, as well as impiety.

It may indeed be questioned, whether the explanations given of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some who have speculated on this subject, are consistent with the divine unity, when the language which they use is interpreted, agreeably to the common laws of exegesis. But, that their represen tations were not designed to call in question the divine unity, is what I think every candid reader of their works will be disposed to admit.

Now when I consider this fact, so plain and so easily established; and then look at the method in which you state the doctrine of the Trinity, as exhibited above; I confess it gives me pain, to think that you have not conceded or even intimated, that Trinitarians do, or can admit the Unity of God. You have a right to say, if you so think, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as they explain and defend it, is at variance with the divine Unity; and that these two things are inconsistent with each other. But to appropriate to

those solely, who call themselves Unitarians, the belief that there is but one God; or to construct an account of the Trinitarian creed, (as it seems to me you have done, in the paragraph on which I am remarking,) so as not even to intimate to your hearers or readers, that your opponents admit, or advocate the divine Unity; is doing that which you would censure in an antagonist, and which cannot well serve the interests of truth.

But let us examine your statement of our creed :—

"We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious like the Son, of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations and if these things do not imply, and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed." p. 9.

Is not this account a very different one, from that which many of your brethren are accustomed to give of us? By them it is said, that there is great discordance, and contradictory statements and explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity, among those who embrace it. Do not you amalgamate us all together; make us harmonious Tritheists; and then give us over to the reproach of Tritheism, or at least of glaring inconsistency?

After all; the statement which you exhibit of our views, is very far from that which we, (or at least, all Trinitarians with whom I am acquainted,) make of our belief. I do not deny, that some writers have given grounds for a statement not very diverse from yours, as it regards the doctrine of the Trinity. Even some great and good men, in their zeal to defend this doctrine, have sought to reduce the whole subject to human comprehension. How vain the attempt, experience has demonstrated. Efforts of this nature, however well designed or ably conducted, never yet have led to

any thing but greater darkness.

"Who can by searching find out God? Who can find out the Almighty to per fection ?"

But though I readily admit, that efforts to explain what in the nature of the case is inexplicable, may have misled some in their exertions to acquire religious knowledge, or given occasion to others of stumbling; yet I am not prepared to admit, that the great body of Trinitarians have given just occasion to charge them with a denial of the Unity of God, or with opinions subversive of this. You certainly ought not to deny them the same liberty, in the use of terms, which all men take on difficult subjects, for the accurate description of which, language is not framed, perhaps is not in its nature adequate. They must discuss such subjects by using figurative language, by using terms which, (if I may be indulged the liberty of speaking thus,) approximate as nearly to the expression of the ideas that they mean to convey, as any which they can select. If there is any obscurity in these general observations, I hope it will be cleared up in the remarks that are to follow.

Since I refuse assent to your statement of our belief; you will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, that you may compare this with the doctrine of divine Unity, and judge for yourself, whether it is subversive of it, or not. I cannot refuse my assent to a proposal so reasonable; nor do I feel any inclination to shrink from the task of stating our belief, and then to proffer the excuse, that every thing respecting the subject is too mysterious and recondite, to be the object of distinct contemplation. What we do believe can be stated; what we do not profess to define or explain can be stated, and the reasons why we do not attempt definition or explanation: and this is what I shall now attempt.

I must not, however, be understood as pledging myself, that those, in general, with whom I am accustomed to think and act, will adopt my statement, and maintain that it exhibits the best method of explaining or defending the great doctrine in question. Notwithstanding we are so often charged, with adherence to forms and modes of expression contained in creeds, we use as great a variety of language, in giving instruction with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, as with respect to the other doctrines of religion. In

C

regard to the statement which I shall make, I can say only, that it is not the result of concert, in any degree, with my clerical brethren, for the purpose of making a statement to which they will adhere. It is the result of investigation and reflection on the subject, as it appears to be exhibited in the Scriptures, and in the writings of the leading divines, whom I have been able to consult.

I believe, then,

I. That God is ONE; numerically one, in essence and attributes. In other words; the infinitely perfect Spirit, the Creator and Preserver of all things, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, has numerically the same essence, and the same perfections, so far as they are known to us. To particularize; the Son possesses not simply a similar or equal essence and perfections, but numerically the same as the Father, without division, and without multiplication.

II. The Son, (and also the Holy Spirit,) does in some respect, truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, differ from the Father.

I am aware, as I have hinted above, that you may find writers upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have stated the subject of my first proposition, in a manner somewhat different. But after making due allowance for inattention to precision of language, the difficulty of the subject, and the various ways which men naturally take to illustrate a difficult subject; I am not aware that many of them would dissent, substantially, from the statement now made. Certain it is, that the Lutheran Confession exhibits the same view. The words are, "The divine essence is ONE, which is called and is God, eternal, incorporeal, indivisible; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Creator and Preserver of all things visible and invisible." Art. I.

The Confession of Helvetia (written A. D. 1566,) declares, that "God is ONE in essence or nature, subsisting by himself, all sufficient in himself, invisible, without a body, infinite, eternal, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, &c." It adds, "We detest the multitude of Gods, because it is expressly written, The Lord thy God is one God, &c."

The Confession of Basil (A. D. 1532) declares, that there is "ONE eternal, almighty God in essence and substance, and not three Gods."

« PreviousContinue »