The doctrine of the Trinity is one of those truths which settles the province of reason, and which marks the boundaries between it and faith. It is a matter of strict interpretation whether such a doctrine is revealed. And here we of course join issue with Unitarians. They say, it is contrary to reason, and cannot therefore be revealed; and we say, it is revealed, and therefore cannot be contrary to reason, though from the very nature of the case, beyond its comprehension.

But it is not our purpose to go into any critical examination of proof-texts, or to traverse a path which has been beaten by the giant feet of former days. We simply declare that the eloquent author of this discourse, in representing those who hold the doctrine of the Trinity as denying thereby the unity of God, does them gross injustice. Some difficulties and objections respecting the doctrine, showing as he thinks, that it could not have been preached by Christ and his apostles, are plausibly stated.

Why, he asks, if it be so important a doctrine, is it not stated in the New Testament with greater clearness and precision? We might answer, that, to other minds than his, it is clear enough. The faith of nearly all christendom for eighteen centuries has found it in the Bible, and still discerns it there. Every baptism announces it. Every benediction reiterates it. The first Christians, according to the testimony of a heathen magistrate, "worshipped Christ as God;" and he is still so worshipped.

Another difficulty is, "that if it had been a doctrine of Christ and his apostles, it would have been fastened upon by the Jews as an objection to the new religion; whereas no such objection appears. But in stating this objection, the author forgets that it was for this very doctrine, or for a claim on the part of our Lord which involved it, that the Jews took up stones to stone him; "Because," said they, "that thou being a man makest thyself God."

Another objection to the doctrine is, that it is unfavorable to devotion, distracting the contemplations by a multiplicity of objects. But, as this is a practical point, if orthodox Christians deny its application, that is enough. If, in their views of the divine character, they find no drawback to devotional feeling, but rather the greatest furtherance to picty; then all that can be said is, that Dr. Channing finds a practical difficulty where they do not. But when he talks of our taking from the Father the supreme

66

affection which is his due, and giving it to the Son," in the ears of considerate orthodox Christians he utters something worse than nonsense. As to classing the Orthodox with the worshippers of the Virgin Mary, and such like insinuations, they may go for what they are worth, and that, in the estimation of every judicious reader, will be less than nothing.

Dr. Channing next takes up the "Unity of Jesus," as he terms it; meaning of course to imply; that by believing in the divine and human natures of our Lord, we make him two beings instead of one. He calls the divinity of Christ "a corruption of Christianity." So repugnant does the doctrine of Christ's divinity seem to him, that he as much as says, if certain passages of Scripture do declare it, and certain other passages imply it, they ought to be explained so as to mean something different. At any rate, he thinks the admission of the Saviour's divinity "an hypothesis vastly more difficult," than the difficulty of explaining away the texts which assert it. Such a style of remark savors of a determination to place reason above revelation, and to declare that impossible, which God has revealed as true. We do not admit, what is here charged upon us, a belief that Jesus is two beings. Inferences of this kind may be thrust upon us; but we do not admit their legitimacy. To us, he is "the Christ of God." He is "God manifest in the flesh." He is "the Word which was God," and "was made flesh and dwelt among us." But he speaks of himself as "sent of God," and of "the Father as being greater than he." This we do not deny; for we who believe in the two-fold nature of Christ, and the relation in which, as mediator, he stood to the Father, can see a propriety in this language of subordination. But how can Unitarians do away with the numerous passages which so positively assert his divinity?

"We believe,"

In explaining

Let us pass to another topic of the discourse. says its author, "in the moral perfection of God." this moral perfection, it is insinuated that the views which Unitarians take of it, are more elevated than those of the Orthodox. We cannot see wherein orthodox Christians have less exalted views of the divine goodness than he had. They do indeed believe that the divine goodness is not inconsistent with the punishment of the wicked, and so does he; for his own language is: "God's justice has for its end, the highest virtue of creation, and it punishes for VOL. II.

3*

this end alone, and thus it coincides with benevolence." Do the Orthodox think differently? Dr. Channing remarks, in a style not the most modest or charitable, "that in all the various shapes which orthodoxy assumes, it casts dishonor on the Creator." In confirmation of his position, he adduces the fact that orthodoxy includes the doctrine of total depravity. And here a fine opportunity is offered for exhibiting in the most odious light a truth which is as clearly revealed in God's Word as any which Unitarians maintain to be there. He paints the loveliness of childhood, and evokes the prejudices which parental instinct would furnish against the doctrine. He slanderously insinuates that we hold to the damnation of infants. The alienation of the heart from God by nature is a doctrine which the history of mankind, as well as the plain teachings of the Bible, compels us to believe. Can Dr. Channing, with the Bible in his hand, deny this doctrine? Does he not believe that "folly," another name for sin, is "bound up in the heart of a child?" Does he deny that "by nature we are the children of wrath?" Is he able to answer the question: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"

The preacher next pounces upon the doctrine of election, a doctrine as clearly and definitely stated in the Word of God as is that of repentance or faith. This is a doctrine which, in some form, must be admitted by all who believe in God's special providence, and in his converting grace. Hence the apostle Peter addresses Christians as "elect according to the fore-knowledge of God," and the apostle Paul speaks of them as "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world." We cannot see how Dr. Channing could find it in his heart to pour out on this great truth such a tirade of abuse; or that he should have felt, in view of it, "such a horror as words could not express." He admits, indeed, that the religious system which includes it does not produce all the disastrous fruits which might have been expected; but this, he thinks, is owing to the counteracting circumstances found in "nature, common sense, conscience," and the like.

Next in order comes the mediation of Christ. "We believe," says the preacher, "that Jesus was sent by the Father to rescue men from sin and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting purity and happiness." This statement, so well and truly made, has the approbation of every orthodox Christian. Such was indeed the great object of Christ's mediation. But

when the author comes to explain the relation of the death of Christ to man's forgiveness, he takes ground unsupported by the Word of God. He admits that Unitarians are not agreed on this subject; some supposing that the death of Christ was a mere martyrdom for the truth's sake; and others, himself among the number, referring our forgiveness to it in some uncertain way. For his part, he thinks, that, so emphatic are the apostles in connecting our forgiveness with the death of Christ, he is bound to believe in some such connection; though of its nature he is wholly ignorant. It must, of course, be inexplicable on the supposition, that the sufferer was a mere man. Dr. Channing rejects, as absurd and unscriptural, the view which the orthodox entertain of Christ's death as the procuring cause of forgiveness. "This doctrine," he then adds, "seems to carry on its front strong marks of absurdity; and we maintain that Christianity ought not to be encumbered with it, unless it be laid down in the New Testament fully and expressly." Such language is exceedingly objectionable. For Christianity, so far from being encumbered with the atonement, owes to it all her vitality and beauty. It is the very sap that reaches from the root to the top-most leaf, without which she would soon become a withered and death-stricken trunk. As to proof-texts, which the author of the discourse so triumphantly calls for, we could occupy pages in enumerating them. Was not Christ "wounded for our transgressions; when the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all ?" Did he not "make his soul an offering for sin?" Was not He "who knew no sin, made sin for us?" Are we not "redeemed by his blood?" "Are we not justified by his blood;" and thus "saved from wrath through Him?" How then can it be said, that the doctrine of a vicarious sacrifice is "the fiction of theologians?" Or that there is not one word" in favor of it; "not a text that hints at so strange a doctrine?" Talk as Unitarians will of the absurdity of this grand "equivalent," whereby the law is sustained and the believing sinner justified; yet, when such is the doctrine of the Bible, the absurdity is in rejecting, not in receiving it. The atonement, like the doctrine of the Trinity, may be exhibited in terms which shall strongly prejudice undiscriminating minds against it. Dr. Channing, on another occasion, took the liberty so to represent it. He erects a great gallows in the centre of the universe; makes God the hangman and his Son the culprit, and when he has got

up a picture so revolting and blasphemous, he insinuates that such are the views of orthodox Christians. We would tread lightly over the graves of the dead; yet we cannot suppress the belief, that when Channing's spirit was about to take its flight to the tribunal of God, he must have regretted this dreadful caricature of so affecting a doctrine; and that if there was any part of his writings which "dying he would wish to blot," it must have been this.

The discourse upon which we have thus freely commented is one of its author's greatest efforts. It shows the man of talents, the fervid orator, the fine writer, the impassioned though fallacious reasoner. Our taste would be gratified, if our faith were not undermined. But the beautiful chalice cannot be purged of the poison which it contains. How many lips have tasted the fatal ingredients! Dr. Channing has no successor. The love of truth obliges us not to regret it. The Unitarian system lost in his death its central column. It was then hopelessly marred and weakened. His writings, popular as they are among the sect, which is taking active measures to give them the widest circulation, can never be in lieu of his spirit-stirring eloquence. The vitality of Unitarianism is feeble. The light on its altars is faint and flickering; and is liable amid the stormy impulses of the age, to be suddenly and forever quenched.

RELIGION OF WINTER.

ALL the works of God are pleasing to a mind at peace with him. "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time:" the blushing spring, the bright summer, the sober autumn, and winter with its sleet, and storm, and cold. Around this rugged season, social duties and comforts are clustered. There is little domestic bliss where winter never reigns. But when the sun shortens his journey, and hastens westward on his declining path, we find more room for enjoyment in "those added hours of social converse and instructive ease."

Winter gives birth to vigor, physical, mental and moral.

For

this, we turn not to the tropics, nor to regions of perpetual bloom;

but rather to Scotland's rigorous clime, or to New England's rock