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 polemical literature can deny that the
modes and ambiguities of doctrine comprised in this Trinitarian list
are more numerous than can be detected in the parallel "heresies." I
am willing, 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 punishment has opposed itself, in two forms, to the single
doctrine of everlasting torments. But when the systems are compared at
their other corresponding 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
"Economy," the believers in the personal unity of God, though 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 sublime but occasional visitant of the
human mind, assuring 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 phenomenon; for if a system of ideas
once gains possession of society, and attracts to itself complicated
interests and feelings, many causes may suffice to insure its
indefinite preservation. But we can point to a greater phenomenon: to
the long 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 times of
purer light, with its features still the same; stamped with
imperishable identity of truth, and, like him to whom it refers,
without variableness or shadow of a turning. Meanwhile, who will
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 among 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 Tritheism of
Waterland and Sherlock? or, accepting 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 mean three beings united by "perichoresis," three "mutual
inexistences," three "modes," three "differences," three
"contemplations," or three "somewhats"; or, being 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 astonishing to
hear from Trinitarian divines the praises of uniformity of belief;
seeing that it is one of the chief labors of ecclesiastical history to
record the incessant effort, vain to the present day, to give some
stability of meaning to the fundamental doctrines of their faith.
The same remark applies, with little modification, to the opposite views
respecting the 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 human or angelic.
But, for this solitary variety among these heretics, how many doctrines
of the Logos 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 ambiguity was removed by the magic phrase
"hypostatic union"? Since the monophysite contest was at its height, has
the Virgin 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 mystic and technical phraseology, the substitute rather
than the expression for precise ideas,--which has become the vernacular
dialect of orthodox divinity. The jargon 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.
From the high doctrine of satisfaction to the very verge of Unitarian
heresy, every variety of interpretation has been given to the language
of the established formularies respecting Christian redemption. Nor is
it yet determined whether, in the lottery of opinion, the name of Owen,
Sykes, or Magee 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
Messiahship 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 communion
with God. These great and self-luminous points, bound together by
natural affinity, constitute the fixed centre of our religion. And on
subjects beyond this centre we have no wider divergences than are found
among 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 not more unsettled among us, than are the
relations between Scripture and Tradition in the Church. Nor is the
perpetual authority of the "Christian rites" so much in debate among our
ministers, as the efficacy of the sacraments among the clergy. In truth,
our diversities of sentiment affect far less _what_ we believe, than the
question _why_ we believe it. Different modes of reasoning, and
different results of interpretation, are no doubt to be found among 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 from the sacred writings, that scarcely a text can be adduced
in defence of the Trinitarian scheme, which some witness unexceptionably
orthodox may not be summoned to prove inapplicable. In fine, we have no
greater variety of critical and exegetical opinion than the divines from
whom we 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 whimsical exception to the general
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 worship; that they have
maintained the unity of the spirit, without insisting on any unity of
doctrine; that Christian liberty, love, and piety are their essentials
in perpetuity, but their Unitarianism an accident of a few or many
generations,--which has arisen, and might vanish, without the loss of
their identity. We believe in the mutability of religious systems, but
the imperishable character of the religious affections;--in the
progressiveness of opinion within, as well as without, the limits of
Christianity. Our forefathers cherished the same conviction; and so,
not having 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 Christendom,--a
commonwealth of the faithful,--by the binding force, not of
ecclesiastical creeds, but of spiritual wants and Christian
sympathies; and indulge the vision of a Church that "in the latter
days shall arise," like "the mountain of the Lord," bearing on its
ascent the blossoms of thought proper to every intellectual clime, and
withal massively rooted in the deep places of our humanity, and gladly
rising to meet the sunshine from on high.
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 worship beneath
its shelter. They tell you it is not the true faith. Perhaps not; but
then you think it so; and that is enough to make your duty clear, and
to draw from it, as from nothing else, the very peace of God. May be,
we are on our way to something better, unexistent and unseen as yet,
which may penetrate our souls with nobler affection, and give a fresh
spontaneity of love to God and all immortal things. 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 materialism hide the heaven from us;
red gleams of fanaticism pierce through, vainly striving 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 embrace us again. 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.