SIR,

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.

I HAVE read with considerable interest the successive Historical Sketches of the Trinitarian Controversy in the Christian Reformer.

I am convinced, however, that Unitarians will never successfully attack the scholastic doctrine of the Trinity, till they have shewn, not only that it contradicts reason, Scripture, and the doctrine of the early fathers, but that, as it is now held by the Catholic Church, it differs in words only from simple Unitarianism.

The doctrine of the Catholic and Roman Catholic Church, and, consequently, of the Church of England, is, that God is "una naturalis, seu essentialis mens una voluntas, una operatio," (Cardinal Perron,) which is, demonstrably, only one person, in the philosophical and ordinary sense of the word

person.

Secondly, the doctrine of the Catholic Church and of all denominations of Christians in the present day, is, that the man Christ Jesus has a different mind, will and operation from God, and, consequently, that, though styled in creeds and articles of faith one person with God, he is in the philosophical and ordinary sense of the word Person, really a distinct person from him. It therefore follows that the doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the Catholic Church and by most Christians, however defined in words, in creeds and articles of faith, differs not in the least from simple Unitarianism.*

One reason why, as I think, modern Unitarians have met with less success in their attacks on the scholastic doctrine of the Trinity, (which, understood in its literal sense, equally contradicts reason, Scripture, and the real doctrine of the Church in all ages,) is, that, contrary to the sense of Scripture, as interpreted by the rules of criticism universally applied to other books, they have denied the pre-existence and maintained the simple humanity of Christ. Again, I think that Unitarians have greatly injured their cause in the estimation even of many Christians who reject the supreme divinity of Christ, by denying the doctrine of the Atonement, which seems to be so clearly taught in the literal sense of Scripture, and has been held by the great majority of Christians in all ages.

By the atonement, however, I do not mean the gross doctrine of an infinite atonement, made for finite offences by the divine nature, which all Christians hold to be incapable of suffering. Neither do I mean the pacification, in any sense, of the wrath of an infinitely merciful God by the death of his Son, which has been held by many, though not by all Trinitarians. But I mean the doctrine or fact, expressly asserted in Scripture, that God, of his free, unpurchased love and mercy to mankind, appointed the voluntary death of his Son as the means of bestowing upon them the remission of sins and eternal life and happiness; which voluntary death of Christ is called in Scripture, an offering, sacrifice or propitiation-terms, to the use of which, therefore, in discoursing on religious subjects, there can be no reasonable objection.

These two doctrines, that of the pre-existence of Christ, and that of the remission of sins through his voluntary death, originating solely in the appointment and love of God to mankind, so exactly accord with the most natural and obvious sense of Scripture, and the latter doctrine is found to be in general so full of consolation to the human mind under the sense which it has of its great moral imperfections, that I am persuaded that no system of divinity which rejects them, however it may agree with the sentiments of a

In a pamphlet I sent you some months ago, entitled "Brief Remarks on some of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church," (Cradock and Co.,) I have employed the arguments here used.

few philosophical minds, will be generally adopted by serious Christians who derive their religion immediately from the Holy Scriptures.

In the doctrine of the atonement, understood in its Scriptural simplicity, I can discern nothing more mysterious or incomprehensible than in many acknowledged facts of God's ordinary and natural government of the world, in which it is appointed that innocent persons should often suffer for the benefit of the guilty. (Vide Butler's Analogy.) In the pre-existence also and ante-mundane glory of Christ, and his subsequent humiliation, as understood in the literal sense of Scripture, there is nothing which appears to me contrary to the nature and possibility of things. The sufferings of the most glorious created being are not more mysterious and inexplicable by human reason than those of an innocent infant. Both are equally reconcileable to the moral attributes of that God, to whom "there is no high, no low, no great, no small," in whose sight all other beings are equal, and who will finally render to all his creatures according to their works, and can more than compensate the innocent for all their sufferings.

In short, there is no doctrine or fact in Scripture, understood in its most natural and obvious sense, more mysterious or inexplicable on principles of reason than the whole moral and natural system of this world, which is, in fact, a complication of inexplicable mysteries. He who will not believe any religious doctrine till it is freed from inexplicable mysteries, must, upon the same principles, equally reject natural and revealed religion. The attempt to contrive a religion destitute of mystery, must always prove as hopeless to a finite being, as to comprehend all the works of that God, whose " "judgments are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out."

London, May 8, 1846.

A. T.

SIR,

OATHS.

YOUR entertaining and instructive miscellany visits me on its monthly appearance, but it soon passes to others, and I have not then an opportunity of seeing it again for some time. In consequence of this, I forget whether you noticed, what several journalists did at the time of its occurrence, the refusal of a Miss Ashby, who was a material witness on a trial at the late assizes at Lewes, to take an oath. Baron Alderson, the presiding Judge, explained to her, that she, by her refusal, rendered herself liable to imprisonment; but she persisted, saying that she was aware of the consequences and was prepared to meet them; that she was of the Unitarian persuasion, and thought that oaths were forbidden by Christ.

The Judge consulted with Lord Denman, who was in the Criminal Court, and then said, he had but one course to adopt, which was to commit the witness, unless the counsel engaged in the cause would consent to a reference, and thereby extricate him from the unpleasant dilemma of having to commit to prison a respectable, conscientious lady. The suggestion of his Lordship was acceded to; but it remains for the Legislature to adopt another suggestion of the learned Baron, who hoped that an affirmation might be substituted for oath; and to this matter I am somewhat desirous of calling the attention of the religious world, particularly the Unitarian portion of it, as Miss Ashby ranks herself with that class of religionists, and as she deserves our praise for the spirit of martyrdom and attachment to principle she evinced, in an age in which a liberty or a candour bordering on licentiousness palliates all sorts of acts of conformity, and almost bids fair to laugh out of countenance any zealous or decided exhibition of a love of truth.

The following Petition to the Legislature has been respectably signed in our city, and I send it to you, not only in the hope that other of our societies 3 B

VOL. II.

may assist us in our object, but being wishful of giving a sort of permanence to our testimony-which, though it may be in influence not very great, is in itself sincere-to the value of such examples of conscientious heroism as that which Miss Ashby has set; and it may also be regarded as a tribute of respect to the learned Judge and the Counsel, who, whatever they thought of the grounds on which the witness refused compliance with the legal form, recognized the impropriety of subjecting a fellow-creature to punishment for the rigid adherence to what she deemed a religious duty.

"To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled: the following Petition of the undersigned Inhabitants of the City of Chichester,

"Sheweth-That your petitioners read with great interest an account of a trial at the late assizes for the county of Sussex, held at Lewes, in the said county, at which a Miss Ashby, a chief witness in one of the causes at Nisi Prius, refused to take an oath. That while they admire the conscientious firmness with which this witness was ready to endure incarceration, which the presiding Judge, Baron Alderson, explained to her would be the probable consequence of her refusal, they cannot but also express their entire satisfaction at the liberal and courteous manner in which the refusal was treated by the learned Judge, and in which his suggestion to refer the case to arbitration was received by the Counsel. And your petitioners most fully concur in the wish, also expressed by the learned Judge, that the Legislature might at once be induced to admit an affirmation, instead of requiring an oath, thereby to respect the conscience of an honest witness, and to free the presiding Judge from the disagreeable alternative of committing a respectable witness for contempt of Court.

"That your petitioners with the less hesitation urge the consideration of this subject on your Honourable House, because the boon hereby solicited has been already granted to certain religionists; and if it be a boon fit to be conceded to bodies of persons, it must be fit for individuals; and further, because, in the present state of the law, much injustice might be done by the refusal of a witness to take an oath; and, still further, because the security against the tendering of false evidence does not even now rest upon the supposed sanctity of an oath, but upon penal enactments against perjury, which enactments will equally well apply to a false affirmation. That your petitioners further conceive that any act bearing in the slightest degree a religious character, performed irreverently, tends to lessen the importance of religion on the public mind; and such they think is the tendency of the hurried manner in which oaths are administered and taken in our Courts of Law.

"They therefore, for these several reasons adduced, earnestly hope that without delay your Honourable House will, by substituting an affirmation for an oath, render the obtaining of evidence more certain, and the giving of it less morally injurious and objectionable."

The points alluded to in this petition, as reasons for abolishing oaths, appear, Mr. Editor, to me unanswerable; and they receive strength from a charge which was a few days ago dismissed by Mr. Jardine, because the complainant, when about to be sworn, confessed himself an unbeliever in future rewards and punishments, and could not, therefore, be prosecuted for perjury, as the solicitor for the defendant suggested, even had he given false evidence. Now if, instead of having the form of an oath, we had the penalty now attached to false swearing annexed to making a false statement or affirmation, the evil which occurred in the above case would be prevented. And it may be a question whether the unblushing unbeliever who acknowledges that he has no faith in a revealed hereafter, is a less honest man, at least for practical pur poses, than half the persons who readily take the oaths required in our courts of law, or in our commercial transactions. I am not justifying unbelief; I wonder that the Christian miracles are rejected; I do not sympathize with the transcendental doubters of the present time; but I confess that I think there was a great deal in what an avowed unbeliever once said to a late excellent medical friend of mine, on returning a copy of the New Testament which my friend had lent him, begging him to read it-"I have read your Testament

over twice; and if what it contains is Christianity, I can only say, I have never yet met with a Christian."

This remark was, perhaps, rather too sweeping; but making an immense deduction from its literal import, it is to be feared that there is a very large number of unbelievers professing Christianity-if, indeed, Christianity has any respect to the inculcation of reverence towards God, or of common justice between man and man. Yet the oaths of such persons as these are taken without scruple; any benefit that taking an oath can give them, they can procure; while Deists, who, however much their sentiments may be deplored, honestly avow their opinions, are deprived of this benefit.

Let us convince the sceptic by argument; but let us not attempt to induce him to pretend to receive our faith, through the hope of gaining on the one hand, or from the dread of losing on the other, any political or social privileges; for thus to act is very much to adopt the principle of Mahomet, which we sometimes condemn, of giving those he conquered the alternative of the sword or the Koran.

Besides, it is to be borne in mind that the calling of God to witness our testimony is no oath in law, unless the oath be taken before one qualified by law to administer it. The sanctity thus of the appeal to Heaven is lost in the technicality of the law-a legal arrangement this, which is hardly compatible with the feeling that God is every where equally present.

But to return to the unbeliever. The remark of the late discerning Mrs. Barbauld is well known-" that few are the instances, comparatively speaking, in which Dissent continues in any family for more than three generations.' In the course of that time, some of the members become opulent, and infected with what often accompanies wealth, worldly-mindedness. The church and the clergy are deemed more respectable than the conventicle and the Dissenting minister, however nearly his opinions may approximate to truth. Parental example is lost sight of: attachment to religious truth no longer binds the party. The State religion is adopted as the genteel way to heaven, if indeed arriving there at all is ever seriously thought of, which may be doubted. Indeed, it is possible to conceive a case in which a magistrate, who scorns the evidence of the avowed Deist, and may even lament his error, may in his own separation from the good old path in which his father taught him to walk, have shewn as little practical influential belief in revelation as does the complainant or defendant before him. The Law List for the last forty or fifty years brings to our notice wonderful changes in this respect: and while the careless religionist we must leave to the judgment and tender mercies of his God, we ought to remove every difficulty or annoyance from the path of the consistent and conscientious votary of the Cross, or even of the religion of Nature. JOHN FULLAGAR.

Chichester, May 14, 1846.

SIR,

DR. ARNOLD'S MONUMENT.

IN my translation of Dr. Arnold's Epitaph (p. 217), I wish to supply an alteration of the sixth and seventh lines, so as to be more in accordance both with the arrangement of the lines and with the idiom of the Latin. I would read, therefore,

"He asserted the liberty and dignity, and confirmed the faith, of the People of Christ by his writings and his life."

The twelfth line also with the thirteenth should be read thus

"His soul, at the Father's call, entered into its abode,

Undaunted, devout, and happy."

R.

INTELLIGENCE.