The Trinity [II]

The Trinity.—Having lost sight of the progress of the Bill upon this subject, I do not know what state it is in; but, in the meanwhile, we have forced out the Unitarians to an open avowal of their creed.— The author of the anonymous essay, noticed in my last Number, has, in an article, which I insert below, given us his name and place of abode. This is right, and, though he affects to treat the request lightly, I continue to think that it was quite proper.¹⁰⁴—However, what is more material, is, that he has come to the open confession, that he does not believe, that the Old and New Testament are the Word of God.—Very well, this, so far, is manful. But, then, what does he mean by calling people infidels? What does he mean by his charges against me of craftily attacking all revealed religion, by saying that we must believe the whole or none? What does he mean by talking about hostility to Christianity? He says, that the writers of the several parts of the Scriptures were not inspired; except, perhaps, in certain cases. That is to say, I suppose, when they wrote those parts of the book that it suits him to believe. The rest he treats as the offspring of the brains of mere men, unaided by any single ray of divine light.—In short, this is his creed: that the Scriptures are not the word of God; that they were written by men, as other books have been: that they were a parcel of histories, moral essays, poems, and letters, the mere offspring of men’s brains, and which have been collected together and published in one volume; and that, of this volume, we ought to regard as true only those parts which the Unitarians believe to be true.—Did I not say, that the Bill which would give a sort of sanction to this creed, would strike into the very bowels of the Christian system; and what becomes of that system, if the Scriptures be not the word of God? What other foundation than this has the Christian system?—Ask any man, why he is a Christian; why he believes in original sin; why / he believes in the redemption; why he believes in the resurrection. Ask him this: and what is his answer? Does he show you, or pretend to show you, how nature or human reason led to the circumstance of the fall of man on account of his eating of an apple? Does he pretend to show you the necessity or justice, upon any principles of our feeble human reason, of a most virtuous man being executed as a malefactor, in order to appease the wrath of his own father towards those, who, in addition to their other manifold sins, were guilty of that of murder, and that, too, of the most atrocious kind, being veiled under the garb of legal justice? Does he go to nature, does he attempt to show you facts or human reasoning, that dead bodies will re-assemble their scattered dust, re-assume corporeal shape and substance, and be re-animated with life?—Does the believer in original sin, in the redemption, and the resurrection, do any of this?—No, he attempts no such thing. He tells you that frail human reason is out of the question. He tells you, that it is above the reach of the human mind to know how things are thus. But, he says he believes they are thus, BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES SAY THEY ARE THUS.—And, then ask him, why he believes what the Scriptures tell him. His answer is, that THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE WORD OF GOD, and, therefore, what they contain must be true.—Now, then, is it not a necessary conclusion from these premises, that, if the Unitarians believe, that the Scriptures are not the word of God, they are not, and cannot be, Christians? They cannot believe in original sin, in the redemption, or the resurrection. I say, they cannot; because they have no foundation for such belief other than the word of God; and as they deny there to be any word of God, they cannot entertain the belief necessary to constitute a Christian.—These opponents of mine treat my Theological knowledge with great contempt: and I am very glad that they can do it with justice; for, I should think my time very shamefully wasted, if I had spent it in / reading the wranglings of Theologians; or in endeavouring to settle points of faith; and the more especially, as there are settled laws, and, indeed, express acts of parliament, to regulate my faith and my worship.—Aye, say the Unitarians, but every rational creature ought to think for himself. Well, and so do I; but, of what use is it for me to waste much thought upon a subject that has split the whole world into sects, who, not unfrequently, have cut each other’s throats, for the sake of a pretended love of God?—It is much better for me to hold my tongue as to the matter; and, I should not now have meddled with it, if it had not, as I have shown, been so closely connected with political consequences.—But, now again, as to Mr. Smith’s Bill. It will be remembered, that the Gentleman said, that the Unitarians had no objection to the other act of parliament, which required a declaration of belief in the Holy Scriptures generally. We see, however, that my antagonist does not believe in the Holy Scriptures; and that he speaks, too, in the name of his sect.—I knew I should bring this out. He was compelled to deny the Scriptures to be the word of God; or, he must have laid down his arms at once before me, who, by the help of Crutwell’s Concordance, could have poured out upon him such broadsides of texts as would have reduced him to his native dust in a minute.—Well, here he is, then. Here is one of the High Priests (for such I am told he is) of the sect, in whose behalf Mr. Smith’s Bill was to operate, or is to operate, declaring that he does not believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, while Mr. Smith, in the introducing of his Bill, says, that they have no objection to the declaration of a belief in the Scriptures generally; so that, it appears, that the “tender consciences” of this sect only wanted to be released from all prohibition to deny, in fact, the divine origin of the Scriptures.— What is believing in the Scriptures? What does the phrase mean? Does it mean that the believer thinks that there are such writings? Does it mean, that he believes that they are the works of mere men, and that some part of them are true and some false? If this be the meaning of the phrase, it is of no more amount than to say that he believes in Hume, or any other historian.—No. This is not the meaning of the phrase, as contained in the Act of Parliament which Mr. Smith did not want to be repealed. The phrase, as / there contained, means, a belief, that the Scriptures were written under the influence of divine inspiration; that they are the word of God conveyed to men by his command; and, of course, that they are, in all their parts, true.—That is the meaning of the Act of Parliament, which Act would still remain in force; and, then, I should be glad to know what relief the “tender conscience” of this gentleman will receive from a repeal of the Act relative to a belief in the Trinity. If their consciences require that they should be at full liberty to ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity because they disbelieve in that doctrine; will they not also want liberty openly to deny the divine origin of the Scriptures altogether?—I said that it must lead to this. To this it has led; and, for my part, I can see nothing now to be done, but, to put down such publications as deny the Scriptures to be holy; or, to pass an Act to do away all penal statutes whatever relative to religion, or to discussions relative to religion.—It ought to be borne in mind, too, that our Judges have uniformly laid it down, that Christianity is a part of the law of the land; and that it was not under any statute, but under the interpretations of the Common Law, that Mr. Eaton was found guilty and punished.— Now, what did Mr Eaton do? Why, he published a book, denying the truth of the Scriptures generally; and, does not the Unitarian do the same? This Gentleman, who attacks me in so rude a manner, does not, indeed, deny the truth of the whole of the Scriptures, neither did Mr. Eaton’s book. It did not deny the truth of those assertions, that men ought to love one another; that we ought to do as we would be done unto; that we ought not to lie or steal, or covet our neighbour’s goods; that we ought to be charitable and forgiving; that servants ought to be faithful to their masters, and wives obedient to their husbands; that we should abstain from shedding innocent blood; that, in short, we ought to be kind and just.—Mr. Eaton’s book denied none of this; if it had, it must have quarrelled with the religion of the Bramins, and with all other religions in the world, as well as with that of Jesus Christ. But, it did no such thing. It denied the divine origin of Christ, and that was all. It attempted to support this denial by endeavouring to prove that the prophecies in the Old Testament, relative to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, apply to quite other matters, and not at all to those events / and circumstances.—Now, pray, what did this book do more than the Unitarians do? And, why should an act be passed to enable them to do with impunity that which Mr. Eaton has been so heavily punished for doing?—As being intimately connected with this subject, let me notice the petitions now before parliament, from divers religious sects, to be at liberty to go and teach the people, under the sway of the East India Company in Hindostan. Church-people, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, and I know not how many more, are running this race of conversion.—If these petitions were granted, it must, of course, be with a view of giving effect to the prayers of the petitioners; and, can it possibly enter into the head of any wise legislator, to lay, thus, the foundation of everlasting divisions and feuds in a country, for which he has to make laws? It is one thing to tolerate these several sects, in a country, where, for the sake of its peace and happiness, it is unfortunate that they already exist: this is one thing, but to create such divisions is quite another thing.—What is to become of the souls of all the Hindostanians, who have heretofore died, if a belief in Christianity be necessary to the salvation of those who are now alive, and of those hereafter to be born, is a question which I must leave for theologians to settle. But, if Christianity be necessary to the Hindostanians now, and that it is so the petitioners assert, will any man say, that, before missionaries are sent to convert them, it ought not be settled what Christianity is? It is well known, that the sects, which have petitioned Parliament, differ as widely from one another in their belief as it is possible for men to differ. The Calvinists will tell their hearers, that it was decreed, by an all powerful being, before they were born, that they should either go to heaven, or to hell: and, that, though it was so decreed, their going to hell, if they do go thither, will be their own fault.—The preachers of free-will will tell their hearers (who may be the same persons), that this doctrine was hatched in the brain of a morose, savage, treacherous, tyrannical, bloody-minded man of Geneva,¹⁰⁵ who seems to have fashioned his God after his own image, and cursed with the same disposition and passions.—The Protestants will tell the Hindostanians, that the Catholics are idolaters’, and the Catholics will tell them that the Protestants are heretics. Yet both will be sent to convert them to Christianity. / The Catholics will tell them, that they act under the authority of the Pope, who is God’s vice-regent upon earth; and the Protestants will tell them that this Pope is no other than a poor decrepit old man, and withal, not much better than a cheat. The Catholics will tell them, that each of their wafers contains the real body and blood and limbs of Jesus Christ; and, if this should be too much for them to swallow, the Protestants will quickly open their throats by most solemnly assuring them that each wafer is really nothing more than a little innocent flour and water.—The Trinitarians will tell them, that, on account of the original sin in eating of the forbidden fruit, all the people of the whole world, the progeny of the original sinners, became worthy of damnation; but that the Almighty Father and Maker of all things, in pity to mankind, sent his only begotten Son into the world, who offered himself as a sacrifice to appease his Father’s wrath; that he, being God himself too, was executed between two thieves; and that this operated as a redemption in favour of the people in the world, and also in favour of those that had died and were to be thereafter born.—But, if the Unitarians get amongst them, they will tell them, that the whole of this is a ridiculous story from beginning to end; and that they are not to believe in any of those parts of the Bible which relate to it; though, by the bye, I see that the Unitarians are joining with other sects in the printing and circulating, without any commentary, the whole of this same Bible.—The Churchmen will teach them that Bishops derive their office from those men whom Christ himself set over his people; and the Presbyterians will declare to them, with equal positiveness, that this office is a remnant of the trappings of the old scarlet whore of Babylon.—Amongst them all, let us suppose, that there will be men, animated with real benevolence, and under the guidance of sound sense, who will, as a good and sensible man in the Church always does, endeavour to wean their hearers from those notions and prejudices which lead to the commission of cruelty and injustice; who will teach them, that the road to happiness, here and hereafter, is the road of good works; that to be well is to do well; and that the reward, in the case of either good or bad, is pretty certain to follow the desert.—Let us suppose, that some such men will find their way to India; and, if I could be assured that no other sort of men / would go, I should be for granting the prayer of the petitioners; but, on the side of such men, and, indeed, before them in the race of proselytism, would go the ranting, roaring, canting, bellowing Methodist, who would tell them, that good works, that honesty, sobriety, industry, benevolence, were nothing at all; that faith was every thing; that good works, in place of saving them, might tend to their damnation; that the blacker the sinner the brighter the saint; that, in the words of one of their favourite leaders, a man, to be regenerated, must first be more than nine tenths damned; that they need not trouble their heads about what they do, so that they get grace, which they will feel come into them by the agitation of their bodies.—Now, reader, I put it to your good sense, whether any member of parliament, in his sober senses, can reconcile it to his conscience to let loose such a scourge upon a people? I, for my part, would as soon consent to let loose upon them, if I could have the power, all the plagues of Egypt.—I should say to these petitioners, before I let you go to India to teach Christianity, let me see that you are of one mind as to what you propose to teach. First agree amongst yourselves as to what Christianity is; and then I may let you go on the work of conversion.—Aye, say they, but we all agree as to the morality of the Christian system. Gentlemen, you cannot separate the morality from the dogmas; and while the Indians hear you abusing each other; accusing each other of folly, and of deception; while they hear you, who are all come to them upon the same errand, calling each other all manner of vile names, is it probable, nay, is it possible, that they will listen to your morality, even supposing it to be better than that which they now have amongst them?—Suppose, for instance, that Mr. Wilberforce and Mr Belsham¹⁰⁶ were to go, and were to choose, as the scene of their operations, some Indian village, and, in a friendly way, were to take turns in teaching the same audience. Mr. Wilberforce tells us, and, of course, he would tell the Hindostanians, that Mr. Belsham is half an infidel, and that his doctrine tends to a laxity of morals; while Mr. Belsham would, doubtless, retort upon his antagonist, as he is doing here. Mr. Wilberforce would tell them that Jesus Christ was, and is, God. Mr. Belsham would tell them that he was a mere man. If the Hindostanians believed Mr. Wilberforce to assert the truth, they must believe Mr. / Belsham to be guilty of falsehood. There, then, is the morality of the latter done for at once. If they took the side of Mr. Belsham, away would go “vital Christianity” in the character of its preacher.—But, the probability is, that some of the audience would believe one, and some of them the other. There are, then, two hostile sects to begin with; and, as people are usually violent in proportion to their ignorance, quarrels and bloodshed might reasonably be expected.—Now, then, I ask, can there be any good arise from yielding to the prayers of these petitioners?—Infinitely worse would it be, when the contending parties came to talk of the Bible. Mr. Wilberforce would say, that it is the word of God. The Unitarian would deny the fact. This passage, says Mr. Wilberforce, means thus and thus; and the other would tell them that it meant no such thing. This is spurious, says one; that it is an interpolation, says another. And, yet, this is called teaching of Christianity!—The worse sect of all, however, is that of the Methodists, and, for that very reason, they are increasing the fastest.¹⁰⁷ It is a religion which dispenses with every virtue. It preaches up grace, as the sovereign healer of all wounds; as the coverer of all sorts of wickedness; and is beyond all measure more mischievous in its effects than the Catholic doctrine of forgiving of sins, because it dispenses with oral confession. The Catholic must tell his priest the truth of his crime before he can be forgiven, and, in case of theft, or other reparable wrong, he must make restitution before forgiveness. But the Methodistical robber or murderer may keep the secret and the wages of his sin, and still obtain full remission for all by the means of grace, which every ruffian, who is terrified into a praying fit, easily imagines that he has got. To proclaim, that good works are of no avail; that faith alone is of any use in the ensuring of salvation; that the greater a man’s sins are, the greater hope there is of him when he repents; that the blood of Christ instantly washes away all crimes from any one who chooses to call upon his name, without any restitution or previous open confession of such crimes; what is this but to invite all the ignorant part of the people to commit robbery and murder?—And these, amongst others, are the sects, that wish to go to convert the Hindostanians!—The Methodists call it “coming to Christ,” when any one, after no matter what crimes, begins to turn up his eyes and / to groan in their meeting-houses. His blood they have at hand to wash out all stains in an instant; and, as far as religion has any influence on the actions of men, there can be no doubt that this doctrine must have a terrible effect. It is remarked, that the Methodistical congregations consist of those, generally, who have been amongst the most profligate and wicked of men and of women. In an hour of fear, they fly thither for salvation; and, in a short time, if they do not get the better of their fears, and relapse into their former practices, they usually become Saints, setting themselves down as of the number of the elect.—Such notions as these must produce bad effects. They must encourage robbery and murder. And yet, this sect would fain go to convert the Hindostanians!— This, too, is the sect, in which a man, who cannot read, may become a teacher, and, by that means, escape from his fair share of service in the militia!—Amongst all the rest of mankind, that I have ever heard of, every one takes as much care as possible to keep out of sight the sins of his past life. He is content to behave well now, without talking of the change in his deportment. Not so the Methodist. He openly boasts of his wicked acts, except, indeed, such as would put him in jail. He relates what a state Christ, as he pretends, found him in. Whence his hearers are to infer, that he has been favoured with a large portion of grace, and are to look up to him accordingly. I once heard a Black man preaching at Frederickton, in New Brunswick, who treated us to a catalogue of his sins, under their several heads of theft, fornication, adultery, and desertion; and told us, that his soul was blacker than his face, till Christ came with his precious blood and washed it till it was as white as the river St. John, which was then covered with snow. An old Yankee farmer, who stood near me, said, in a low tone of voice, “I would not trust you in my barn, for all that, Cuffee.”—Cuffee told us the particulars of all his amours; and I have heard the same of some of the impudent pretenders to heavenly gifts in this country. It is notorious that this sect are less honest, less sincere, and less industrious than other working people. They are taught to believe (a belief very flattering to their pride), that they are vessels selected for salvation; whence they very easily go on to believe that it is little or no harm to cheat the reprobate vessels, whose sufferings they think may as well have a little / beginning in this world.— And this is a sect, is it, to be sent out to convert the Hindostanians!—I have thus stated, in plain terms, my objections to granting the prayer of these petitioners. I do not know precisely what is the religion or what the morality of the inhabitants of Hindostan; but, I am quite sure, that they can never be mended by sending amongst them missionaries from these numerous hostile sects, who would be more anxious to defeat each other than to overcome any injurious prejudices that they might find existing in the country.—Missionaries from some one sect might possibly do good; but, from them all, mischief of some sort must be the consequence. I feel no interest at all in the matter as affects our political power, thinking the possession of India to be an injury to England; but, in addition to all the rest that we have done to that unoffending people, I do hope that we shall not sow the seeds of everlasting religious discord.— I want to see no laws passed to put down by force any of these sects in England; but, as I said before, it is one thing to tolerate, and another to create, a nuisance.—I am well aware of what a correspondent reminds me, namely, that to publish these and the like remarks is to expose myself to the “animosity and execrations of great numbers of knaves and fools;” but, being convinced of the truth, and of the public utility of such remarks, I am resolved to make them whenever the occasion appears to me to call for them. There are, I know, persons who look upon the Methodists, for instance, as friends of freedom. It is impossible they should be. They are either fools or tricksters, or so nearly allied thereto, as to be worthy of no consideration. Their heavenly gifts, their calls, their inspirations, their feelings of grace at work within them, and the rest of their canting gibberish, are a gross and outrageous insult to common sense, and a great scandal to the country. It is in vain that we boast of our enlightened state, while a sect like this is increasing daily. It would seem, that, at last, men had fallen in love with ignorance of the most vulgar kind. The very sound of the bellowings of one of these pretended sons of inspiration is enough to create disgust in a hearer of sense. The incoherent trash, the downright balderdash, that these gifted brethren send forth surpasses all description, and it really is a stain upon the national character, that they should find such multitudes to follow at their heels.