« PreviousContinue »
image of God-brought down to earth and embodied in one object of love, confidence, and imitation.
EXHIBITION OF A SCHOOL OF YOUNG LADIES.
How fair upon the gazer's sight
In learning's sacred fane,
With cheek of bloom, and robe of white
Which deems its vows untrue.
There is a bubble on your cup
By hope and fancy nursed,—
On budding joys a blight,—
There is a wreath around your brow
Love gives its flowers their radiant glow,
And yet 't were better there to bind
That plant so lowly wise,
Whose root is in the contrite mind,
For who o'er Beauty's brow can hang
We have recently met with a pamphlet containing a charge delivered by Bishop Hobart of New York to the Clergy of his diocese, which we deem too curious to be suffered to pass into oblivion without notice. We call it curious, not that it exhibits anything novel either in matter or manner. The same things have been said a hundred times, and have been as many times refuted. But we hardly expected them to be repeated, at this time of day, by any intelligent advocate for the doctrines of Orthodoxy. What we deem extraordinary about the Bishop's performance is, that such a species of argu
mentation, if argument it can be called, should be resorted to in this age of research and inquiry. If anything were wanting to convince us that the doctrine of the trinity could not stand the test of examination, the sort of artifice employed to prop it up would be sufficient. When a person, instead of attempting to refute the arguments of an opponent, is satisfied with crying out, impious,' shocking, profane,-reason, ' proud, carnal' reason has nothing to do with the matter, you must submit the understanding to faith,—we suspect at once that his cause is a bad one. 'I find every sect,' says Locke, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, it is matter of faith, and above reason.'
Bishop Hobart seems to think that the diffusion of Unitarianism, at the present day, affords serious cause of alarm, and the object of his charge is to urge the clergy of his diocese to exert themselves 'with faithful diligence to banish and drive away from the church,' so false and pernicious a doctrine, the 'folly' of which, is only 'exceeded by its blasphemy.' 'Among the " roneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word," which from the first has infected the christian church, and which is propagated at the present day in our own country, with no small portion of talent, and doubtless of honest zeal,' he observes, is that which assails the very foundations of gospel verity, and demolishes the best hopes of frail, sinful, and guilty man, by denying the trinity of persons in the Godhead.'-Such in his view is Unitarianism, a doctrine than which,' as he is
pleased to assert in the next sentence, ‘none is more contrary to God's word,'-a very convenient mode, surely, of establishing the truth or falsehood of any doctrine. Throughout the whole Charge there is no attempt to combat the argument so often urged by Unitarians, that the trinity is an unscriptural doctrine, that the current language of the whole Bible teaches the strict personal unity of the divine Being in opposition to all trinitarian distinctions and refinements. The author sets out with the assumption that the trinity is a doctrine of the Bible-that the scriptures reveal it.' This he asserts over and over again, but without quoting a single text, or offering a single argument to sustain the assertion. He who denies the trinity,' he tells us, in the passage just quoted, 'assails the very foundation of gospel verity.'
Now we know not precisely to what degree of deference a Bishop's assertion is considered as entitled, by his clergy, but with us it passes for no more than the assertion of any other man. On questions of this kind we are not satisfied with bare assertion, we ask for reasons. We care not what sentiments any man, or body of men have entertained; we profess to derive our religion from the Bible, and we claim the right to decide for ourselves what it teaches. The decisions of human guides may stand in the place of reasons with those who regard those guides as infallible, but the Protestant world, the thinking part of it at least, we suppose are now very nearly cured of their belief of human infallibility. Hereditary and time hallowed
prejudices are fast falling away. There is a growing disposition, more and more visible every day, to bring opinions to the test of examination, and those which will not endure the test will be thrown aside. The doctrine of the trinity we regard as one of these. It has been hitherto upheld by prescription, and a sort of timid shrinking from inquiry, by a propensity to receive on trust doctrines which have long formed part of the popular belief. But these props are now giving way, and the doctrine must stand on its own merits, and its correspondence with the language of the sacred writings, or it must fall. Sturdy assertions, unsupported by argument, will not long answer the purpose of its advocates. They are not the weapons with which it must be defended.
After some assertions, of the character of which we have given a specimen above, the Bishop proceeds to state what he conceives to be the principal source of every objection to the doctrine of the trinity,' which is,
a reprehensible desire to be "wise above what is written," ' in other words, a wish to subject the doctrine to the test of reason. This is not stating the matter correctly. It is true, that Unitarians are opposed to doctrines which they deem irrational and absurd, and they have too much reverence for the scriptures to suppose that they teach such doctrines. But had the Bishop been at the pains to read only a small part of what Unitarians have written, he would have discovered that they do not think their views wholly unsupported by the Bible; that, on the contrary, they con