صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

regard to the word substance, which he understands in a sense that never could have been intended by the author of the Athanasian creed, or any other rational Christian.

But let us examine his words: The Trinitarians,' he says, 'should establish, first, that the soul, will, and perception, are three substances.' Now, had the usual distinction between matter and spirit been present to his thoughts while writing, he never could have been guilty of the absurdity of imagining that those who hold the doctrine of the Trinity could mean, by the word substance, to express a material being, or even could expect any one so to interpret it. The Greek word for substance ουσία, or being, (whether used as explanatory, or originally so written, is of little consequence,) and unity of substance is ομο-ουσία, or together-ness of being; and it is evident that nothing more is meant by the use of the word substance than to give that analogy from matter which might be applied to assist our conception of the divine nature.

is

Another common point of the Unitarians, and which Rammohun Roy mentions, is the appli

cation to Jesus Christ of the word 'sent'; which, he says, implies the subordinate nature of him, a messenger, to the nature of God, by whom he was sent.' This error again arises from a forgetfulness, on his part, of the very first condition under which we form a notion of the Divine Nature, namely, that it is every where present. If the word 'sent' were to be interpreted as we use it with regard to ourselves as material beings, it would be as he states it; but we ought to read the expression under an idea of the universal presence of God; and therefore sent' cannot, whether applied to Christ or to the Holy Ghost, be capable of being construed after his fashion. Sent' is not sent as men would send, but is spoken in allusion to the character of the Godhead. We must add, however, that when the phrase is used with regard to Christ in his character of man, it becomes literal in its application; that is, so far as his humanity is concerned; but this is all that can be said.

[ocr errors]

Most of the difficulties, if not all, that Rammohun Roy meets with in the expressions of the New Testament, arise from his not duly

distinguishing between them when applied to Christ in his human character, and when they are so in his spiritual: which, if the attentive reader of Scripture hold in mind, he will easily unravel much of the sophistry of the Unitarian.

The unfortunate divisions that so long have existed upon this subject, have arisen from the attempt, on the part of mankind, to define and describe, with too much precision of language, those things and relations of which we have, in this our present state of being, but an imperfect idea; and the pushing analogies from earthly things,' which are only used in condescension to that imperfection, to an extreme to which they never are meant to be carried. The cases, however, which are stated in this publication, are not of a very difficult nature; we have light enough even of ourselves to discover where the error lies, and to explain the pretended mystery of the objector.

As to the rest of this work of Rammohun Roy, it is written certainly with great industry and ingenuity; and during the earlier part of the correspondence which he maintained with

the Missionaries in the East, with much appearance of candour. If he subsequently departed from the strict impartiality which he originally prescribed to himself, it is no more than might be expected from human nature. And it must be said that the argument which he has constructed upon his view of a variety of passages selected from the New Testament, is not very formidable even to the unlearned. I will venture to say, that let any man, after their perusal, sit down with the New Testament in his hand, and read attentively ten chapters following one another, taken from almost any part of the book indiscriminately, he will then find Rammohun Roy's seven hundred pages fully answered, and a conviction the very opposite to that which he has drawn, to be fairly established in his mind.

Still, however, Rammohun Roy's unbiassed opinion as to the superior excellence of the morality of the Christian religion remains; and it is this with which we have at present chiefly concern. But of him enough has been said. It is time now to turn to another point relative to the general idea of religion, which may seem otherwise to have been neglected.

332

CHAPTER IX.

Superiority of the Christian Religion-Effects of the same in an Historical point of view-Mohammedan Religion — Dupuis and Volney Ilume

Freret-Boulanger-Lord Byron, &c.

Paine-

We must now revert for a moment to the question which we entertained in a former chapter, as to the superiority of religion to a system of plain morality; when we showed that it was entitled to this preference in our estimation, from possessing a real power and influence over mankind, to which the other could in no way pretend. We have, since that time been engaged upon the subject of Christianity, and though we have found it to contain all that we wanted; though it certainly abounds with that force and strength of sentiment which is so necessary for us, still the question remains in one respect where it was; for although all this may be admitted, yet it does not necessarily

« السابقةمتابعة »