On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
I would therefore have admitted ( as suggested by the Editor ) that the Son of God is God , on the analogy and in the sense that the son of a man is a man , had I not been compelled by his very suggestion to reject entirely his other still more important assertion , that is , the coeval existence of the son with the
father . For , the belief of the nature of the sou of man being the same as that of the father , though it justifies the idea of the Sou of God being God , is utterly repugnant to the possibility of the son .
being coeval with his father . It is evident , that if a son of man be supposed coeval with his father , he must be considered something more extraordinary than a monster I "—P . 28 . Is it not somewhat humbling to see a Heathen lamenting with so much reason the blindness of the Christian world , as in the following passage I
< Christians may , perhaps , consider the Trinity as perceptible by them through the force of early instructions , in the same manner as the followers of the Tuntru doctrines among Hindoos in Bengal consider God as consisting of five distinct persons , and yet as one God ; and as the generality of modern Hindoos esteem numerous incarnations under one
Godhead almost as an experienced fact from their early habits . How can Christians who in general justly pride themselves on their cultivated understanding , admit such an analogy or justify any one in misleading others with such sophistries ? The only excuse which I feel inclined to make for them , and perhaps
a true one is , that the enlightened amongst them , like several of the Greek and Roman philosophers , yield , through policy , to the vulgar opinions , though fully sensible of the unjustifiableness of them . I am , however , sorry to observe , that the minds of a great number of Christians are so biassed in favour of the
doctrine of the Trinity from the strong impression made on them by education in their youth , that they can readily defy the suggestions of the senses , reason and experience , in opposition to this doctrine . They accuse Brahmunical priests of having an unjust ascendancy over their pupils , while they forget how greatly Christians are influenced bv their
ministers so as to overlook the error of such an analogy as the above , and others of a similar nature . "—Pp . 32 , 33 . We wonder not at the silence of the Missionaries before the questions which we are about to give . Speaking of their doctrine of the incarnation of the Son . the Brahmin asks ,
Untitled Article
" Is this the doctrine which the Editor ascribes to God ? And can any book , which contains an idea that defies the use of the senses , be considered worthy to be ascribed to that Being who has endued the human race with senses and
understanding for their use and guidance ? As long as men have the use of their senses and faculties ( unless sunk in early prejudices ) they never can be expected to be deluded by any circumlocutions founded upon circumstances not only beyond understanding but also
contrary to experience and to the evidence of the senses . God the Son is declared by the Editor to have laid aside his glory for a season , and to have prayed his Father to give him the same glory , and also to have taken the form , of a servant . Is it consistent with the nature of the
immutable God to lay aside any part of his condition and to pray for it again ? Is it conformable to the nature of the Supreme Ruler of the universe to take the form of a servant though only for a season ? Is this the true idea of God
which the Editor maintains ? Even idolaters among Hindoos have more plausible excuses for their polytheism . I shall be obliged if the Editor can shew that the polytheistical doctrines maintained
by Hindoos are , in any degree , more unreasonable than his own : if not , he will not , I trust , endeavour in future to introduce among them one set of polytheistical sentiments as a substitute for
another set ; both of them being equally and solely protected by the shield of mystery " . The Editor acknowledges the fact of God ' s appearing in the shape of a dove to testify the appointment of God the Son ; stating , that * when God renders
himself visible to man , it must be by appearing in some form . ' But I wonder how after such an acknowledgment the Editor can ridicule the idea of God ' s appearing in the shape of a fish or cow , which is entertained by the Pooranic Hindoos ! Is not a fish as innocent as a dove ? Is not a cow more useful than a
pigeon ?"—Pp . 34 , 35 . In another place , we have a close argument against Trinitarianism , concluded with a reflection not very fluttering to Europeans :
Moreover , the Editor says that ' The Father , Son and Holy Ghost are also described in Scripture , as equally giving grace and peace to man ; as pardoning sin and leading men in the paths of righteousness ; which things omniscience , omnipotence , infinite love and mercy can alone perform . ' I do not know any po-Jythcistical system more clear than this
Untitled Article
358 Review . —East-Itidia tfmtarian Tracts .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1824, page 358, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2525/page/38/
-