Part 4 (2/2)

3 Our reverend opponents affect to have labored under a great disadvantage, fronized standard of Unitarian belief ”We give you,” they say, ”our Articles and Creeds, which we unanimously undertake to defend, and which expose a definite object to all heretical attacks In return, you can furnish us with no authorized exposition of your systee of it from individual writers, for whose opinions you refuse to be responsible, and whose reasonings, when refuted by us, you can conveniently disown”

Plausible as this complaint may appear, I venture to affirm, that it is vastly easier to ascertain the common belief of Unitarians, than that of the members of the Established Church; and for this plain reason, that with us there really is such a thing as a colican Church there is not, though articles and creeds profess it The characteristic tenets of Unitarian Christianity are so siuous, that little scope exists for variety in their interpretation: to the propositions expressing them all their professors attach _distinct and the same_ ideas;--so far, at least, as such accordance is possible in relation to subjects inaccessible both to demonstration and to experience But the Trinitarian hypothesis, venturing with presuy, presents us with ideas confessedly inapprehensible; propounded in language which, if used in its ordinary sense, is self-contradictory, and if not, is un, and ready in its emptiness to be filled by any arbitrary interpretation;--and actually understood so variously by those who subscribe to them, that the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Tritheist and the Sabellian, unite to praise thelish Church, so visible is the sweep of the centre of Orthodoxy over the whole space froe of Unitarianisy is measured by its oscillations Our respected opponents know full well, that it is not necessary to search beyond the clergy of this town, or even beyond thein one and the say, than could be found in a whole library of Unitarian divinity What mockery, then, to refer us to these articles as expositions of clerical belief, when the moment we pass beyond the words, and address ourselves to the sense, every shade of contrariety appears; and no one definite conception can be adopted of such a doctrine as that of the Trinity, without so up to rebuke it as a misrepresentation! How poor the pride of uniformity, which contents itself with lip-service to the sys about the reality!

In order to test the force of the objection to which I a, let us advert, in detail, to the topics which exhibit the Unitarian and Trinitarian theology in e of unity lies, in this instance, on the side of heresy; and that, if multiformity be a prime characteristic of error, there is a wide difference between orthodoxy and truth There are four great subjects comprised in the controversy between the Church and ourselves: the nature of God; of Christ; of sin; of punish on our part denials of previous ideas, ative_ elements of our belief) all our modern writers, withoutdoctrines:--

UNITARIAN DOCTRINES, _opposed to_ CHURCH DOCTRINES

1 The Personal Unity of God 1 The Trinity in Unity

2 The Simplicity of Nature in 2 Two Distinct Natures in Christ Christ

3 The Personal Origin and 3 The Transferable Nature Identity of Sin and Vicarious Removal of Sin

4 The Finite Duration of Future 4 The Eternity of hell Suffering Torments

Now no one at all familiar with poleuities of doctrine comprised in this Trinitarian list are more numerous than can be detected in the parallel ”heresies” I a, indeed, to admit an exception in respect to the last of the topics, and to allow that the belief in the finite duration of future punishle doctrine of everlasting torments But when the syste points, the boast of orthodox uniformity instantly vanishes Since the primitive jealousy between the Jewish and Gentile Christianity, the rivalry between the ”Monarchy” and the ”Econoh often severed by ages from each other, have held that majestic truth in one unvaried form Never was there an idea so often lost and recovered, yet so absolutely unchanged: a subli us of the perpetual oneness of our own nature, as well as the Divine We can point to no unbroken continuity of our great doctrine: and if we could, we should appeal with no confidence to the evidence of so dubious a phenoains possession of society, and attracts to itself cos, many causes may suffice to insure its indefinite preservation But we can point to a greater pheno and repeated extinction of our favorite belief, to its submersion beneath a dark and restless fanaticism; and its invariable resurrection, like a necessary intuition of the soul, in tiht, with its features still the same; stamped with imperishable identity of truth, and, like him to who Meanwhile, ill undertake to enumerate and define the succession of Trinities by which this doctrine has been bewildered and banished? Passing by the Aristotelian, the Platonic, the Ciceronian, the Cartesian Trinity,--quitting the stormy disputes and contradictory decisions of the early councils, shall we find a even the modern fathers of our National Church any approach to unanimity? Am I to be content with the doctrine of Bishop Bull, and subordinate the Son to the Father as the sole fountain of divinity? Or must I rise to the Tritheis the famous decision of the University of Oxford, descend, with Archbishop Whately, to the modal Trinity of South and Wallis? Are we to understand the phrase, three persons, to s united by ”perichoresis,” three ”mutual inexistences,” three ”modes,” three ”differences,” three ”conte told that this is but a vain prying into a mystery, shall we be satisfied to leave the phrase without idea at all? It is to the last degree astonishi+ng to hear from Trinitarian divines the praises of unifor that it is one of the chief labors of ecclesiastical history to record the incessant effort, vain to the present day, to give so to the fundamental doctrines of their faith

The same remark applies, with littlethe person of the Saviour It is true, that Unitarians, agreed respecting the singleness of nature in Christ, differ respecting the natural rank of that nature, whether his soul were hu these heretics, how os and the Incarnation does Orthodox literature contain? Can any one affirm, that, when the Council of Ephesus had arbitrated between the Eutychian doctrine of absorption, and the Nestorian doctrine of separation, all doubt and aic phrase ”hypostatic union”? Since the in Mary been left in undisputed possession of her title as ”Mother of God”? Has the Eternal Generation of the Son encountered no orthodox suspicions, and the Indwelling scheme received no orthodox support? And if we ask these questions: ”What respectively happened to the two natures on the cross? what has become of Christ's human soul now? is it separate from the Godhead, like any other immortal spirit, or is it added to the Deity, so as to introduce into his nature a new and fourth element?” shall we receive from the many voices of the Church but one accordant answer? Nay, do the authors of this controversy suppose that, during its short continuance, they have been able to maintain their unanimity? If they do, I believe that any reader who thinks it worth while to register the varieties of error, would be able to undeceive them If the diversities of doctrine cannot easily and often be shown to amount to palpable inconsistencies, this must be ascribed, I believe, to the y, the substitute rather than the expression for precise ideas,--which has becoon of theology affords a field too barren to bear so vigorous a weed as an undisputed contradiction

It is needless to dwell on the numerous forms under which the doctrine of Atonement has been held by those who subscribe the articles of our National Church; while its Unitarian opponents have taken their fixed station on the personal character and untransferable nature of sin One writer tells us that only the human nature perished on the cross; another, that God himself expired: some say, that Christ suffered no more intensely, but only more ”meritoriously,” than many a martyr; others, that he endured the whole quantity of torment due to the wicked whom he redeemed: some, that it is the spotlessness of his manhood that is imputed to believers; others, that it is the holiness of his Deity

Froe of Unitarian heresy, every variety of interpretation has been given to the language of the established for Christian redemption Nor is it yet determined whether, in the lottery of opinion, the naee shall be drawn for the prize of orthodoxy

And if, from those parts of our belief to which the accidents of their historical origin have given a _negative_ character, we turn to those which are _positive_, not the slightest reason will appear for charging them with uncertainty and fluctuation All Unitarian writers maintain the Moral Perfection and Fatherly Providence of the Infinite Ruler; the Messiahshi+p of Jesus Christ, in whose person and spirit there is a Revelation of God and a Sanctification for Man; the Responsibility and Retributive Immortality of men; and the need of a pure and devout heart of Faith, as the source of all outward goodness and inward coreat and self-luether by natural affinity, constitute the fixed centre of our religion And on subjects beyond this centre we have no wider divergences than are found a those who attach themselves to an opposite system For example, the relations between Scripture and Reason, as evidences and guides in questions of doctrine, are notus, than are the relations between Scripture and Tradition in the Church Nor is the perpetual authority of the ”Christian rites” soour y In truth, our diversities of sentiment affect far less _what_ we believe, than the question _e believe it Different , and different results of interpretation, are no doubt to be found a our several authors We all make our appeal to the records of Christianity; but we have voted no particular commentator into the seat of authority

And is not this equally true of our opponents' Church? Their articles and creeds furnish no textual expositions of Scripture, but only results and deductions from its study And so variously have these results been elicited fros, that scarcely a text can be adduced in defence of the Trinitarian scheme, which some witness unexceptionably orthodox may not be sureater variety of critical and exegetical opinion than the divines from e dissent; while the system of Christianity in which our Scriptural labors have issued, has its leading characteristics better determined and more apprehensible than the scheme which the articles and creeds have vainly labored to define

The refusal to embody our sentiments in any authoritative formula appears to strike observers as a whieneral practice of churches The peculiarity has had its origin in hereditary and historical associations; but it has its defence in the noblest principles of religious freedom and Christian communion At present, it must suffice to say, that our societies are dedicated, not to theological opinions, but to religious worshi+p; that they haveon any unity of doctrine; that Christian liberty, love, and piety are their essentials in perpetuity, but their Unitarianisenerations,--which has arisen, and ht vanish, without the loss of their identity We believe in the ious systeious affections;--in the progressiveness of opinion within, as well as without, the limits of Christianity Our forefathers cherished the sa been born intellectual bondsmen, we desire to leave our successors free Convinced that uniformity of doctrine can never prevail, we seek to attain its only good--peace on earth and communion with Heaven--without it We aim to make a true Christendo force, not of ecclesiastical creeds, but of spiritual wants and Christian sye the vision of a Church that ”in the latter days shall arise,” like ”theon its ascent the blossoht proper to every intellectual clime, and withal ladly rising to h

And now, friends and brethren, let us say a glad farewell to the fretfulness of controversy, and retreat again, with thanksgiving, into the interior of our own venerated truth Having come forth, at the severer call of duty, to do battle for it, with such force as God vouchsafes to the sincere, let us go in to live and worshi+p beneath its shelter They tell you it is not the true faith Perhaps not; but then you think it so; and that is enough toelse, the very peace of God May be, we are on our way to so better, unexistent and unseen as yet, which ive a fresh spontaneity of love to God and all is Perhaps there cannot be the truest life of faith, except in scattered individuals, till this age of conflicting doubt and dogmatism shall have passed away Dark and leaden clouds of lea to reveal it; and not till the weight is heaved from off the air, and the thunders roll down the horizon, will the serene light of God flow upon us, and the blue infinite eain Meanwhile we must reverently love the faith we have; to quit it for one that we have not, were to lose the breath of life and die

FOOTNOTES:

[3] Conference with Fisher, -- 15; quoted in Tracts for the Times, No

76 Catena Patru without Baptism, p 979; quoted in _loc cit_ pp 19, 20

[5] History of Popish Transubstantiation, Chap IV; printed in the Tracts for the Tie, delivered at his Triennial Visitation in August, September, and October, 1836, pp 44-47

[7] Tracts for the Times, No IV p 5

[8] Ibid, No V pp 9, 10