lation to man, this doctrine must excite in the mind the very interesting inquiry, whether our existence is a blessing? or, whether our existence is not, or may not prove, or probably will not become to us, of all possible calamities, infinitely the greatest? And is it possible, that views like these, can lead man to that reverence of God, and to those grateful sentiments towards him, in which religion essentially consists?

Not only in its relation to man, but this doctrine is of infinite moment as it refers to the moral character of God. For, if we admit this doctrine to be true, who can refrain from inquiring, with most extreme solicitude, Where are evidences to be found, that God is just, that he is benevolent, and, as we are taught to believe, that he has a "tender regard toward the work of his hands?" And why are we taught to call him our Father?

The doctrine of original sin according to the orthodox explication, is then evidently a doctrine of infinite moment, both in its relation to man and as it bears on the moral character of God. Were it, therefore, a doctrine of truth, it must have been perfectly known as such to that great Teacher, who came from God to shew unto man the way of salvation. Apprehending the, subject in all its magnitude and importance, he must, in his personul ministry, have treated the doctrine in the manner in which our orthodox brethren do. It must have been implied, and very strongly implied, in every sermon he preached. It must have been professedly the subject of many, and indeed of most of his sermons; and on the subject he would have employed the force of his divine reasoning and eloquence. But, 1 ask, was this the fact? No man, who is acquainted with our Saviour's sermons, if he have any regard to truth, or to his own reputation, will dare to assert, that the doctrine of original sin, agreeably to the orthodox mode of explication, is to be found in any of the sermons of our Saviour. And, if not taught by him, the doctrine most evidently is not a Christian doctrine.

In opposition to this statement, our orthodox brethren say, that there are several passages (they admit them to be few) in the sermons of our Saviour, which, agreeably to their exposition, make it evident that our Saviour admitted their doctrine of hereditary depravity. It may be replied, that the passages to which they allude, will very fairly bear a different interpretation from that which they give to them. But, not to contest with them the point, whether their interpretation, or ours, is the most correct, we will concede to them these passages in their own mode of explication. But, even in this case, what is the amount of their argument? It is simply this; that in the sermons of the great Teacher, two or three passages are found, which, by a New Series-vol. 11.

24

particular mode of interpretation, seem to imply that Jesus admitted the doctrine of hereditary depravity. But, can any person believe, if the doctrine of original sin according to the Calvinistic explication were true, that He who came into this world to "teach us of the Father," would have treated in so very cursory a manner a doctrine, which, if it is true, is evidently a doctrine of infinite moment, not merely as it relates to man, but also as it bears on the moral character of God?

Not satisfied, as it would seem, with this reason, in accounting for the fact that Jesus, in his sermons, treated the subject of original sin in a manner so very different from that mode which they adopt, our orthodox brethren assign another reason. Our Saviour, say they, in his personal ministry, did not intend to give to mankind a full view of his religion. He gave them the first part of christianity only, reserving further communication, which would complete his system of moral instruction, to be conveyed to mankind after his ascension, by the ministry of his apostles. And, although it should be admitted, say they, that Jesus in his personal ministry did not plainly and explicitly teach the doctrine of hereditary depravity, yet his apostle Paul explicitly taught the doctrine, and with great emphasis dwelt on the subject. In the view of this statement, the question will arise, Did this first part of christianity comprise so essentially the system, that a practical belief of it rendered men christians, and prepared them for heaven? Or, was this first part of christianity so defective, that men might yield to it a practical belief, and yet remain in the "gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity?" If it should be said, that a practical belief of that Christianity, which, in his personal ministry, our Saviour gave to mankind, will render men christians, and prepare them for heaven, they then admit that the doctrine of original sin, in their view of the subject, is not a christian doctrine, or at least that the inculcation of it is not necessary to the conversion of sinners. Or, should they assume the other side of the question, and say, that the christianity given to mankind personally by its author, was so partial and defective a view-partook so little of the essence of the system, that persons might believe in it and yet not be christians, they, in this case, reflect the highest reproach on the character of our Saviour, as the great Prophet of his church.

If our Saviour taught not the doctrine of original sin, in the Calvinistic sense of this article, it cannot be possible that his apostles taught the doctrine. Should we, therefore, by our explication of any of their writings, state them to have taught the doctrine, one of the following inferences must be true; viz. Either in the passages in question, the apostles spoke not in the name

and by the authority of our divine Master, but were impostors; or we have wholly misapprehended the true import of these passages in their writings; and which of these most probably is the fact, every man must decide for himself.

Of the very few passages in the sermons of our Saviour, which have ever been adduced for the purpose of giving support to the Calvinistic view of the doctrine of original sin, by far the most important is that passage in the gospel of John, 3d chap. 3d ver.Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again," &c. In view of this passage the question will arise, Was it necessary that Adam and Eve, after their fall, should have been. "born again" in order to enter into the kingdom of God? If it was, as I presume our orthodox brethren will admit, then persons may be the proper subjects of regeneration, who were not born with a corrupt nature; of course this passage of our Saviour constitutes no argument in proof of hereditary depravity; and, consequently, it could not have been intended by him, who, in point of accuracy as well as of force, "spake as never man spake," as an argument in support of that doctrine.

In the case of our first parents it is seen, that actual transgression, without any previous corrupt nature, reduced them to such a state of moral ruin, as rendered them the proper subjects of that grace which is displayed through a Mediator; and of divine energy, employed on the powers of their understanding and heart, to be indispensible means of preparing them for heaven. It is not, therefore, necessary to suppose, that our entrance on life in a state of moral depravity is requisite to render us the proper subjects of his power, who is "mighty to save." voluntary transgression produces that derangement of our intellectual and moral powers, which renders it absolutely necessary to our future happiness, that we become the subjects of that moral process, which, in the very figurative language of the scripture, is sometimes termed a "new birth;" but which is often designated by the plain, simple, easily-comprehended word, "repentance."

Our

If the foregoing remarks are just, it is submitted to you, whether that very celebrated passage of our Saviour is not fairly wrested out of the hands of our orthodox brethren.

UNITARIAN EXPOSITOR.

No. III.

"I SUPPOSE," says Wardlaw, "it will readily be admitted, that if there be a plurality of persons at all in the one Godhead, that plurality is a trinity. For although the views of the doctrine of the trinity, held by those who have attempted to explain it, have been various, yet trinity and unity (taking the latter term in the sense affixed to it by antitrinitarians) are properly the only two hypotheses on the subject. All who believe the doctrine of a plurality to be taught in the scriptures, believe that plurality to consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. None have believed in more, none in fewer. Plurality and trinity may, therefore, on this question be considered as convertible terms; and consequently every proof of a plurality as proof of a trinity. On this principle, as the whole of the evidence of the divinity of Christ, is evidence of a plurality, it might all be considered as bearing on the point, which it is now my object to establish-the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit."

According to this writer,* then, whoever becomes convinced by any means of the existence of two beings, agents, or persons, (however denominated) in the Godhead, is bound to admit without further proof, the existence of a third. That is, he is to acknowledge an object of worship without any particular proof of his existence.

How conclusive such reasoning is, appears from this, that it will prove to equal satisfaction the affirmative or the negative of the same proposition. In the arguments quoted above it is implied, that in order to the reception of the doctrine of the personality and deity of the spirit, no particular proof direct to that point is needed. Suppose, then, that in examining the evidence of the trinitarian doctrine, one attends to the proof of the deity of the spirit before that of the sou. If he finds that no sufficient evidence is given for the former, why may he not reason thus :-There are only two opinions on the subject of the Godhead; that there are three persons in it, and that there is but one. The deity of the Holy Spirit (one of the three alleged persons) is not proved. There is therefore but one person, and the evidence of the deity

66

And according to Professor Stuart, "All difficulties, in respect to the doctrine of the trinity, are essentially connected with proving or disproving the divinity of Christ." (p. 45. 3d ed.) When this (the divine nature of Christ) is admitted or rejected, no possible objection can he felt to admiting or rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity." p. 59.

of the son needs not to be examined.-The argument is equally good on either side of the question. A notable one then doubtless it must be.

We are not so much surprised that according to the false modes of interpreting scripture which prevail, some persons should believe themselves convinced that Christ is the supreme God; but we are surprised that the opinion should be professed, with scarcely a shadow of evidence in its support, that there is a third person equally supreme God with the Father and Son,-the Holy Ghost. It would seem that the existence of a Being for whom divine. honours are claimed, was a subject of primary consideration. Yet the proof of the personality of the Spirit is scarcely touched on by orthodox writers. In that budget of blunders, Jones on the Trinity, not the slightest reference is made to it. The author actually proceeds as if the existence of a living Being, distinct from the Father, called the Holy Spirit, was not called in question, and as if the only dispute was whether this person were 'divine.* Nay, what is very remarkable, the identical texts which prove that the words Holy Ghost, when spoken of a person, are used, not of a distinct person, but of God the Father himself, this writer assuming that they are separate persons, employs to prove that both are equally God.

We do not say that the phrase Spirit of God, and others similar, never stand for a divine person. We think it certain that they do;-for God THE FATHER. (1 Cor. ii. 11. Ps. cxxxix. 7. Comp. Is. Ixiii. 10. with Num. xiv. 11. and Ps. lxxviii. 56.) We are not now to point out the various meanings of the phrase, but refer for them to an essay on the subject in the fourth number of this work. The ground we maintain is, that whenever it means a living Being, it means God the Father, and herein we dissent from the orthodox. It is indispensable to the defence of their belief, that they should prove that the phrase is used in scripture to denote a person in places where it is not applied to God the Father. To the support of this proposition, though of vital importance to the doctrine of the trinity, they have not always given any attention. When they have, it has been principally by the use of texts, in which the figure of personification, so common among the sacred writers, is applied to divine influences on the soul. For the explanation of these texts, as we should not be able to give it in a shorter compass, nor with equal force and clearness, we refer to the essay just named. (Disciple, New Series, Vol. I. p. 260.)

*He not only implies but affirms this, discovering a disgraceful ignorance, or a singular effrontery. "The church affirms the spirit to be in God, as a person of the same divine nature; the Arians deny it, and will understand him to be out of God, not a person of the divine nature, but one inferior to, and distinct from it."