no influence whether we regard God as an arbitrary sovereign, partial towards his creatures, and capriciously selecting a few of his human family for happiness, without regard to their moral character, and as capriciously, and with as little reference to their endeavours or attainments, forming the rest of mankind expressly for, and arbitrarily consigning them to eternal misery and wretchedness; or as merciful and impartial to all his offspring; regarding all with equal tenderness and love, and proffering freely to all, if they will accept them, the richest blessings to which they can aspire; making happiness the necessary result and natural consequence of moral character; punishing never for the sake of punishing, but with the most merciful designs; and rewarding men according to their use and improvement of the talents committed to them? Are not these views in the one case adapted to inspire only hatred and terror towards God, and to incline us to reject a religion, which professes to come from heaven, and represents the character of the Supreme Being as more odious than that of any human tyrant, and to feel, from principles of natural conscience, that such a doctrine could never have proceeded from the Author of Nature and Providence; and in the other case, are they not adapted to produce reverence, love, gratitude, and confidence towards our Heavenly Father, to render his service a delight, to fill us with benevolence towards our fellow men, with complacency in their virtue and success, and to dispose us to look forward with delightful anticipations to the complete development of the divine plans in regard to the human race.

We acknowledge that among those, who have held views, which we deem most erroneous, there have been many persons of eminent goodness and piety; indeed there are few cases in which men have the hardihood to follow out such principles in their true consequences; and it often happens, that they are not perfectly comprehended; or not sincerely believed; or they are so commixed with other sentiments, that their force is not felt; or other circumstances, operating even without the knowledge of the individual himself, have served to counteract and destroy their influence. So among those who have disbelieved or doubted the truth of, christianity, not among those, who oppose, revile or ridicule it, there have been men remarkable for their integrity, and kindness, and exemplary lives; and we can never cease to lament, that there should be found persons of such character who, through ignorance or false views of the religion, or an unhappy and irremediable bias and prejudice, or an unaccountable perversity of judgment, should remain neutral in the cause of human virtue, improvement, and consolation; or be un

able to lend it their avowed and earnest aid; but notwithstanding these individual exceptions, experience proves, that the principles which man adopts, have a considerable and direct influence on his character and life. We do not assert that they determine his moral character; but that, they have an important influence. The human character is subjected in the world to various circumstances of moral influence; and truth and error are far from being the least powerful. Error leads to sin and truth is in a high degree conducive to virtue.

It will be found, and after the acknowledgment which has been made, it will not be deemed uncandid to say, that the false views of christianity, to which we have referred, have actually the ef" fect on the character which we should expect them to have. Infidelity and scepticism tend to vice; looseness of principles produces looseness of morals; and an instance can hardly be found, in which profligacy of life has not been accompanied with unbelief, and a virtual,though perhaps seldom an avowed, atheism. In innumerable cases of vice the axe has been laid at the root of the tree; the religious principles early instilled into the mind have been first demolished; and not till these have been either effectually removed or shaken, has the corruption been able to make any considerable progress. If the history of men could be thoroughly known, it would be discovered that the doctrine of natural depravity has served to many as an apology for their sins; that the sentiment that man could do nothing for his own salvation has induced many to do nothing in the way of their moral improvement; and that the sentiment that human virtue has no worth, has made many persons quite worthless. The doctrines of fatalism and the necessity of human actions have had the most pernicious tendency on the morals of men, have removed all sentiment of responsibility, a most effectual guard to human virtue, and often led to the most dreadful crimes. On the other hand, correct principles of morals and religion form the only certain basis of a virtuous character, the best security against temptation, and a sure guide to whatever is excellent and useful.

We are bound then to regard with the utmost care the principles which we adopt. We should shun error as we would shun vice. We should look upon those who would corrupt our religious sentiments as the worst enemies of our virtue, and as aiming to introduce a moral poison into our system, which must effectually diffuse itself through the constitution. We should endeavour continually to learn more and more of the truth, and to understand the character of the religion, which claims our confidence as a perfect rule of life, and an infallible guide to honour and felicity.

Parents cannot too assiduously watch over the trust, which God has committed to them, and which he will require under the most solemn penalties at their hands. Let them beware lest the susceptible mind of youth should be infected with the virulence of corrupt sentiments; and let them be assiduous in their labours, that, so far as depends on them, the minds of their children may be early imbued with those principles, which form a sure foundation of respectability, usefulness, and happiness. Let those who give a tone to public sentiment, vigorously withstand the circulation and influence of opinions, which are false, and prejudicial and destructive to human virtue. Let them cherish with extreme solicitude those principles which lie at the foundation of social order and happiness. that these are the strongest motives to learn the true chaLet them feel racter of that religion, which presents itself as the best friend to human virtue, and to individual and social welfare. Its truths are infinitely important; and when understood, felt, and conscientiously applied, they confer inexpressible dignity and excellence on the human character; they prove the medicine and balm of life; and if they could have their full influence, they would transform mankind into angels of light, render earth a paradise, and leave us little else to ask of God than that immortality below, which is revealed to our faith and hopes beyond the grave.

REMARKS ON A MATHEMATICAL ARGUMENT FOR TRINITARIAN

DOCTRINES.

FOR THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE.

A WRITER in a recent number of the Christian Observer, (May, 1821,) undertakes the defence of certain reputed mysteries of revelation, which have been said to involve contradictions and impossibilities, by an argument drawn from the science of the mathematicks. "How can the Divine Being exist in three persons? How can God and man be one Christ? &c." "To these ques

tions," the writer remarks, "it will be time enough to reply, when we are informed, how many apparently contradictory propositions in science are reconciled; how, for example, space can be proved ever divisible, and yet it be proved that no straight line can be drawn from the tangent point dividing the space between the circumference of a circle and a line touching it; how again two lines, the assymptotes of curves for instance, may be always drawing nearer to each other, yet never meet; with many other illustrations."

New Series-vol. IV.

3

I have seen the argument stated in various shapes in the writings of the orthodox, and I should think from the frequency with which it is adduced, that a good deal of stress is laid upon it. But the answer is really extremely easy, and, it appears to me, perfectly satisfactory.

1. I deny, first, that there is any proper analogy between theological propositions and those of the mathematicks. The latter, as is well known, admit of being proved by demonstration, a species of evidence which forces conviction on every mind capable of appreciating it. Whoever should undertake to deny the truth of either of the propositions contained in the above extract; or of any other propositions which are susceptible of demonstration, however wonderful, or even apparently contradictory they might be; would convict himself of an entire ignorance of the subject. But the case is widely different with the doctrines of the christian revelation. For I suppose no one will contend that even the general truth of Christianity is susceptible of demonstrative proof. The evidences are sufficient to produce conviction in every fair and unprejudiced mind. But they do not amount to demonstration. They are not connected together like the successive steps in a complete demonstration. On the contrary, they are drawn together from various sources, which are perfectly distinct and independent of each other, so that it requires no inconsiderable study and pains to estimate their collected weight. According to the different circumstances in which the inquirer may be placed, and the disposition of mind which he brings to the subject, the evidences of Christianity may produce any degree of belief, from the lowest presumption to the highest moral certainty. Nor is this all. Admit that Christianity is true; it does not necessarily follow that all and every part of those writings which are found in the New Testament, have the sanction of divine authority. The evidence of the genuineness of different portions of the Christian writings may be extremely various. Every theological student is aware that some books of the New Testament are supported by stronger evidence than others; and that of none does the evidence amount to mathematical certainty. But admit that each book is genuine and authentic, and properly belongs to the Canon of Scripture; it does not follow that the received text is immaculate, that every verse and every term is precisely as it stood when it proceeded from the pen of the Evangelists and the Apostles. Or, should this be admitted, it remains to be considered whether the authorized English Version of the Scriptures is in every instance faithful to the original.

It were easy to bring examples in illustration of these remarks. Thus I might say, that, with the most perfect conviction of the

truth of the Christian Revelation, many writers of eminence have doubted of the genuineness of several of the Apostolical Epistles;* that many more have rejected particular texts and terms as unquestionably spurious; and that no scholar claims for the Authorized English Version an entire exemption from error.

It appears then, that no doctrine of Scripture, however well supported, bears any analogy to mathematical truths; that even should it be enunciated in direct and intelligible terms, it would not force every man's assent like one of the propositions of Euclid, about which there can be no dispute; since it may be found in a book or passage of doubtful authority, or may derive its support from an obvious mistranslation.

2. But this is not all. It is not necessary to resort to this argument in order to show that the doctrines in question derive no support from the analogy to which I have referred. I will admit for the sake of argument, that the general truths of Christianity and the genuineness of the several books of the Old and New Testament, rest on evidence as certain as mathematical demonstration. Still the question recurs as to those particular propo sitions. What is the evidence on which they rest? Do you show by incontrovertible proof that they are contained in these books? If not, if you cannot absolutely demonstrate them, the argument from mathematical analogy is weakness itself. "How," asks the writer, "can the Divine Being exist in three persons? How can God and man be one Christ?" It seems to be admitted that no solution can be given. None is even attempted; and the writer would have his reader infer, that they have nothing to do but to receive those doctrines with implicit faith, while he labours to convince them that the apparent contradiction and impossibilities which they involve, need give them little concern, so long as there are propositions of a similar character in the mathematicks which admit of satisfactory proof! It is just like requiring a mathematician to receive a problem in spherical astronomy, which has never been demonstrated, on the ground that he has seen a satisfactory demonstration of one in geometry, apparently as difficult.

Look at it attentively for one moment further.-Here is one proposition :-The Divine Being exists in three persons. It is a mystery. It appears to involve a contradiction or an absurdity, -Over against this is placed one borrowed from the science of the mathematicks :---Two lines of a particular description continu

Such are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. "These," says Dr. Lardner, "should be allowed to be publicly read in Christian assemblies, for the edification of the people, but not be alleged as affording alone sufficient proof of any doctrine."