« ForrigeFortsæt »
he hesitate to deplore and condemn it. We have no doubt ourselves that Dr. Jarvis is a good scholar and an attentive clergyman; but we should very much doubt both the soundness of judgment and the propriety of feeling of any man, situated as he is, who could send abroad such an account of the religious state of Boston as he has done; and if we do not deceive ourselves, Dr. Jarvis will repent of that letter to the latest day of his life. It was altogether unworthy of him as a clergyman, a christian, a scholar, and one who had experienced the courtesy and hospitality of those whom he has so ungenerously reviled.--He has not lived long in Boston; but was called a few years ago to that place from New York. In New York, professed unitarians constitute a very small, though a very respectable part of the population; and unitarianism is looked on as rather an insignificant and unfashionable affair; while the Episcopalians have great churches in Broadway, and say their
prayers on velvet cushions. When Dr. Jarvis got to Boston, he found that the scale was turned, and that the weight of respectability and influence was quite on the side of those very opinions, which were so lightly regarded in the place that he had left. Not that we mean to say that the Episcopalians are not as respectable as any other denomination there, but they are not as numerous; for while there are but three Episcopal churches, there are nine out of the eleven Congregational societies, whose ministers are unitarians. He found too, that though he was as much respected in Boston as the other clergymen, he was not more so, and that if he met them at all, he must meet them on terms of perfect equality. This was a condition of things, which, it is very likely, he did not approve; and so, because he could not be placed up in a high chair, while the unitarians were kept below the salt, he imagined there was an alarming degree of “religious indifference” in the city, and complained to an English editor, that there was no “respect paid to the clergy;"—that is to say, no more to him than to any one else.
So the world goes;-in one place we find a particular denomination up, and in another place we find it down, and in yet another we find it on a level with the rest. In our humble opinion, wherever there is charity and good feeling between the ministers and the members of different religious societies, together with a regard to the ordinances and obedience to the laws of religion, there is manifested the spirit of Christ and the power of the gospel; but wherever there is arrogance and spiritual pride, wherever religion is made a matter of fashion and of form, wherever the different sects regard each other with aversion or contempt, and wherever the clergymen of one denomination fold their garments about them, and stand aloot in surprising dignity and infallibility from the clergymen of another, there is a spirit which Christianity condemns—whether it be at Boston, New York, Philadelphia or Baltimore;—and we would say it with equal boldness to a Unitarian minister, a Methodist lay-preacher, a Presbyterian clergyınan, a Catholic priest, or a mitred bishop.
Discordancies of Trinitarianism, We have heard Trinitarians complain that they cannot find out what Unitarianism is; that we disagree among ourselves, and that if we will only condescend to fix on one system in which we can all unite, they sball then feel themselves able to examine it.
Such speeches we have always considered as barmonizing remarkably well with the modest self-complacency which distinguishes the orthodox, and which makes them so quick sighted to the mote in a brother's eye, and so innocently unconscious of the beam which is in their own.
But we will now undertake directly to answer this ill-timed sneer, and to prove, in the first place, that Trinitarians disagree among themselves, and secondly, that with regard to the Supreme Being, Unitarians do not disagree at all.
In proving the first position, we shall not deem it necessary to bring forward the different opinions of the fathers, because every scholar knows how discordant they are, and because our business is rather with the trinitarianism of later days. We will however begin with the ATHANASIAN CREED, as that formula is acknowledged by all the established churches of christendom. It speaks thus of the doctrine of trinity.
“The Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighıy; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.- The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
We will now bring church against church on a very important article of this creed. THE GREEK CHURCH holds, that the Holy Ghost “is from the Father only, and not from the Father and the Son," and therefore takes the liberty of altering the creed on that point.
And as an American church has as good a right to contradict the Athanasian Creed as any other church, the New HAMPSHIRE GENERAL Association have said that “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are names of office, not of essence; these three are self-existent persons in one God.” This appears to be no trinity at all;—but far be it from us to anathematize as heretics so respectable a body; or to tell them on the authority of the Athanasian Creed, that without doubt they shall perish everlastingly."
Neither would we lay the venerable BAXTER under that curse, though he advises us to be none of those who shall charge with heresy all who say the three persons are God understanding himself, God understood by himself, and God loving himself.” This likewise is no trinity at all.
"What are my admiring thoughts of God?” says DOOLITTLE on the Assembly's Catechism, “one single
essence, yet three in subsistence; of three, that one cannot be the other, yet all three are one, that really are distinct, yet really are the same.”
As if on purpose to disturb the good man's admiring thoughts,” comes Dr. South, and asserts that there is “one infinite eternal mind, and three somethings that are not distinct minds.”
And then comes Dr. SHERLOCK to refute Dr. South, by insisting that “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are as really distinct persons, as Peter, James, and John; each of which is God. We must allow each person to be a God. These three infinite minds are distinguished, just as three created minds are, by self consciousness.”
We next introduce our friend Dr. HOPKINS, in opposition again to the Doctor last named, assuring us that "it must be carefully observed, that when this word (person) is applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three distinct persons, it does not import the same distinction as when applied to men.”
DR. WATERLAND's idea of the trinity was that of "three proper distinct persons, entirely equal to, and independent upon each other, yet making up one and the same being."
But Dr. Wallis, who called himself a trinitarian, and perhaps with about as much reason as any of the above Doctors, says, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are no more three distinct intelligent persons, than the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, are three Gods.” He further says that “the three persons are only three external relations of God to his creatures, as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier;" while Dr. South had said that the