object which (though perhaps sacred in itself) it misrepresents and distorts, so we see the framers and supporters of fanciful inferences from the Scriptures constantly identifying those inferences, not only with the Scriptures, but with God himself. If any one treats the contradictions of the Athanasian Creed as he would any others expressed in language (for contradictions cannot exist except in language), he is directly accused of impiety. He is told that he is treating the most sacred things irreverently; as if the observations applied to the objects, and not to the language which misrepresents those objects. It is in this manner that a Roman Catholic multitude would say that you were laughing at Mary, the mother of Jesus, if they observed you casting a look of disgust and pity at the clumsy wooden frame, with varnished head and hands, before which the attendant priests are obliged to kneel, holding lighted wax candles. In like manner, the metaphysical inferences which the Reason of the Orthodox has (as they imagine) collected from the Bible, are most positively identified with the WORD OF GOD. How, then, can we be surprised at the readiness with which the unthinking multitudes of all ranks seize the notion that the Unitarians set up their Reason above the word of God, and, by the most guilty and impious intellectual pride, refuse their assent to all divine MYSTERIES?

Admirably as this subject of Mystery has been treated by some enlightened and truly philosophical divines*, I cannot help thinking that there is still a very essential mistake to be removed concerning it. "There are mysteries in every thing around us," is constantly and emphatically repeated. But I do not remember to have seen it observed any where, that the application of this fact, as an antecedent reason for believing in the mysteries of Orthodox Divinity, is a fallacy. In respect to the demanded submission, there is no similarity between the mysteries which surround us in nature, and those concerning which the Christian world has been in agitation for about eighteen centuries. The mysteries of nature stand before us, a matter of indubitable experience. We see all bodies drawn towards the centre of the earth; and the fact forces itself upon the credence of every individual, though we are in the

* See, especially, Yates's Vindicution of Unitarianism, c. IV, part I.

dark as to the cause of gravitation.

We see the effects of electricity and galvanism, though we are unable to trace those effects higher up in the chain of causes and effects. The cause, in all such cases, is mysterious; but the fucts are so permanent, that we can reduce them to general laws. But, in the name of common sense, I ask, do the mysteries of the Trinity and Original Sin stand before us in the same manner? Do they even stand (as they easily might) in express terms in the Scriptures? When a fact which may be verified as often as we please presents itself in nature, Reason is never tempted to raise the least objection. The mind wonders, but, far from resisting the evidence, rejoices in the contemplation of the object. Reason (it is true) begins a search in order to explain the mystery by means of some more general agency, already known; but if it fails to find it, it does not deny the fact which it cannot explain. But how can men of no common talents allow themselves so to be led away by the vulgar error of divines, as to make the submission of reason to the mysterious facts of experience a ground to demand a similar submission to mysteries which arise from certain explanations of language? Does the supposed mystery stand before us as a fact, as one of the mysteries of visible nature? By no means. Our whole theological fact is reduced to the presence of certain arbitrary marks, or characters, representing vocal sounds, which, in their turn, were used in a language now dead, to represent objects for the most part material, and universally within man's knowledge, which are now supposed to express figuratively, something spiritual, and quite beyond the knowledge and comprehension of man. Upon this fact alone the orthodox divines build their contradictory statements; and when they have raised their mighty structure of words which destroy each other's sense, they tell us that it is a mystery; and that, as we believe the mysteries of Nature, so must we surrender our understanding to the mysteries of their own creation. How can any man of sense be entangled in such a miserable fallacy? The existence of the pretended mysteries is the very question which divides the Christian world. Our observation cannot go beyond the words which some divines declare to assert the existence of the mystery. Renounce the

human exposition from which the mystery arises, and it totally disappears. Does any thing like this happen with the mysteries of nature? The mysteries of the divine essence are not, cannot be, before our eyes: they are not, cannot be, even verbally in the Scriptures; for words are not able to express any thing above the ideas of the human mind. What we find in the Scriptures are expressions couched in the language of men; consequently we must expect that they be significant. But divines contend that they signify what men cannot understand. They go farther, and, in contradictory language, they tell you that they have laid before you what the Scripture contains; and when you answer that contradictory language is no language at all, they accuse you of Pride of Reason. In a word, they themselves make the mysteries, and then want you to submit, as if those mysteries stood before you in the character of independent and unquestionable facts.

I cannot too earnestly beg your constant attention to the great difference between mysteries to be explained and mysteries to be proved. Reason submits to the former, because the existence of the mysterious fact is unquestionable; but when called upon to submit to the latter, because forsooth they also are mysteries, it turns away in disgust. The mysteries to which the reason of the Unitarian objects are not mysteries proved, are not even mysteries positively stated in divinely authorized language, but mysteries conjectured to lie concealed in that language: they are not unfrequently verbal contradictions, which no rational language can be supposed to contain. If God, through his accredited messengers, had said, "the language in which I am to address you about myself is, when tried by the invariable laws of the mind, contradictory to itself, yet I command you to repeat it, and say that you believe the mysteries it envelops;"-if such a command could be satisfactorily proved, reason would have no right to refuse it; but when the Gospel is addressed to us in that same language by means of which we understand each other, we may well conceive that it was intended to be understood: when it is called a Revelation, we must expect to find it really a disclosure; something that will convey a clear sense to our minds; not downright contradictions-not mysterious words, which, like the ABRACA

H

DABRA of the Gnostics, is to save us from evil by the sound and shape of its letters.

The position of the Orthodox Protestants, who, having renounced only fragments of popery, cherish its main root in their hearts, is, to me, exceedingly curious, though lamentable. What an awkward defence against Transubstantiation must a Trinitarian make who accuses the Unitarian of Pride of Reason, because he will not admit that the Athanasian Creed is virtually contained in the New Testament! I can imagine the cry of triumph which would be raised if a few manuscripts, of high antiquity, were to be discovered in some corner of the east containing the passage on the three heavenly witnesses. And yet such testimony could not be compared, either in point of unanimity or positive assertion, with the words, This is my body-This is my blood. I do not believe either transubstantiation or the real presence; but, wishing to be just and impartial, I must declare that the Protestant clamours against the Pride of Reason, place the opponents of those Catholic doctrines completely in the power of their adversaries. Let us imagine a short dialogue.

CATHOLIC.-Why do you not believe what Christ declares in the most positive and clear words?

PROTESTANT.

sense, are absurd.

Because the expressions, taken in a literal

CATHOLIC.-Are they more absurd than the proposition, Three is One, and One is Three? a proposition which you (agreeing with us) consider as the very foundation of the "Catholic Verity;" though nothing like those words is found in the genuine portions of the New Testament?-Do you not consider, besides, that the word absurd does not properly apply to physical facts? That one substance be changed into another, implies no absurdity; but that three distinct persons, each of whom is God, should be ONE God, is certainly ABSURD TO US.

PROTESTANT.-Transubstantiation, certainly, does not sound so absurd as the statement of the Trinity; but then, on the other hand, we have the testimony of our senses against it.

CATHOLIC.-The senses, my friend, have nothing to do in the present case, for the substantial qualities of bread and wine remain

working upon the senses: the substance alone is changed. Surely, you do not object to this kind of philosophy, for it is just that which saves us from contradictions in the statement of the Trinity.

PROTESTANT. But can you suppose that Christ, addressing plain men, who never had dreamt of such philosophy, would so depend upon its influence, as to expect that, without any further explanation, they would understand that the bread and wine had been changed into his own body and blood?

CATHOLIC.-Do you not, in the same manner, believe that, although there is no direct assertion, no words about Trinity in Unity, which can be compared to This is my Body, This is my Blood, Christ left it to be inferred from scattered passages, by the assistance of philosophical speculations about Nature, Substance, Persons, Mutual-in-being*, &c. &c.?

PROTESTANT.-My reason submits in the one case, and resists in the other.

CATHOLIC.-Are you not guilty of pride-the PRIDE OF REASON? Do you not reject the clearest declaration that language can be conceived to make, because it offends your PRIDE?

But I must conclude this Letter, and, with it, the subject. The whole system of theology contained in the Articles of the various Protestant Churches is purely a work of Reason, though, unfortunately, misemployed. Those Articles are Logical Inferences; and Inferences are, unquestionably, the work of Reason. Even the theory of the verbal inspiration of the writings from which such inferences are supposed to be drawn could not, if granted, raise the inferential work above its human character, or warrant it against error. This being a proposition which no candid and intelligent man will deny, I will leave you to judge between those who doom to eternal perdition every one who denies the accuracy of those inferences; and those who, with my humble self, contend that eternal happiness cannot depend on the right choice of such opinions. Which of these two classes is justly charged with PRIDE OF REASON? If you still doubt, read,

* I do not know a better way of translating that important word Circumincessio, or going round into one another, which is of so great importance in every Treatise on the Trinity.