UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY FREE FROM OBJECTIONABLE EXTREMES. BY SAMUEL GILMAN. PRINTED FOR THE American Unitarian Association. BOSTON, GRAY AND BOWEN, NO. 135, WASHINGTON STREET. 1829. Price 4 Cents. UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY. &c. THE propositions that I shall attempt to prove in this discourse, are these: that Unitarian Christianity, as a system of religion and morals, is free from every doctrinal extravagance, every practical excess, and every formidable difficulty with which other systems of opinion are chargeable; that it preserves the midway path between opposite, offensive, and dangerous extremes; and that, when faithfully carried into effect, its tendencies are more beneficial to the whole present and future condition of man, than those of any other system. To all these results, the entire series of arguments which I shall adduce, will, I apprehend, infallibly lead. As we pursue the main thread, however, occasion will arise, to present subordinate recommendations, to remove objections, to refute different charges, and to correct some prevalent mistakes with respect to the system under discussion. In the first place, then, Unitarian Christianity avoids every objectionable extreme in doctrine. It is infinitely removed from Atheism on the one side, since the very basis of our whole system, and the fact from which it derives its name, is, that there is ONE living and true God. It is equally removed, on the other side, from Polytheism, or from any of those forms of belief, which, as far as language has any meaning, imply the existence of two, or three, or more distinct, supreme, and independent Gods. Certain it is, that these forms of belief, whatever may have been the intention of their original framers, have been in all ages, by many of the wisest, ablest, and best men who have ever lived, understood as palpably involving the monstrous extravagance in question. I quote, as a passing instance, a proposition from the Athanasian Creed. "The Father is God; the son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God." As to the truth or falsehood, the absurdity or reasonableness of the proposition itself, I am not now to argue. I only say that it is an extreme, a violent extreme in the history of human opinions; just as Atheism is the opposite violent extreme; and that between these two points, at both of which reason confessedly shrinks aghast, and piety herself is bewildered, stands the foundation doctrine of Unitarian Christianity, the terms of which can never be mistaken, that there is but one Mind, one Spirit, one creating, presiding, redeeming, and sanctifying Energy involved in the being of a God. Let us next examine our system in reference to certain kindred doctrinal extremes in a different quarter of contemplation. One of the extremes to which I allude, is Deism, between which and Unitarianism there is also an immeasurable distance. The Deist rejects a revelation, denies the truth of the Bible, and considers God as sitting apart from all concern in the moral creatures whom he has formed.* The Unitarian, on the contrary, embraces *This is not perhaps universally true. I think there are some, but very few Deists, who believe in a superintending Providence, in the efficacy of prayer, and in a future state; all which are reflected lights, evidently caught from Christianity. a revelation with his whole heart, believes devoutly in the truth of the Bible, adores a superintending Providence, relies on the efficacy of prayer, acknowledges his immediate responsibleness to his Creator, and adopts the sanctions of a future state of retribution. But he vibrates not over to what he esteems the opposite point of the arch, viz. that revelation and reason are at variance. He rejects with abhorrence the idea, that revealed truths are not to be scrutinized with all the powers of the mind, nor any attempts made to comprehend them. On the contrary, he thinks that we ought and that we can understand revealed truths, precisely because they are revealed; otherwise their object would be manifestly frustrated, and the Deity would appear to be trifling with his creatures. He apprehends that on this, as on most other subjects, extremes will be seen closely to meet, and that the difference will not be found very wide between no revelation at all, and a revelation which we must not hope to comprehend. Accordingly, he here also still preserves his safe and favorite midway path. He receives a revelation with reverence; but the language in which that revelation is couched he submits to the test of reason, for he has no other test whereto he may submit it. He disclaims, from his heart, the slanderous charge so widely and industriously circulated, of setting reason above revelation; for if he is true to his own principles, he would ever, with the greatest alacrity, subject all his mental faculties without exception, to what God, or any of his authorized messengers, has clearly spoken. Perhaps I might not here notice the systems of Judaism and Mahometanism, were it not that we are sometimes taunted with the charge of leaning towards them, until the popular mind has been imbued with a vague notion |