THE UNITARIAN.

No. 2. DECEMBER 15, 1827.

VOL. I.

F

MATTHEW THE EVANGELIST, A UNITARIAN.

THE title to this article has not been assumed for its singularity, but because it expresses a most solemn and important truth. If his own words, as the professed historian of our Lord, are to be taken in evidence, then was Matthew a Unitarian; then is his Gospel strictly Unitarian; and its doctrine is—there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. If his own statements, and the whole tenor of his Gospel are to be taken in evidence, then is it equally certain, that he has not taught the doctrine of the Trinity, or that of the Deity of Jesus Christ; and therefore, never heard of them from the mouth of his Divine Master, nor did ever believe them. These things, it appears to me, may be established by arguments sufficiently conclusive to satisfy the mind of an honest, impartial inquirer.

I shall endeavour to establish my position, first, by some general observations bearing on the subject, then, by an examination of those passages which have been thought to teach the doctrine of the Trinity, and lastly, by bringing forward all that evidence of a positive nature, in favour of the strict unity of God, which the Gospel presents. And in doing this I shall be as brief as the subject will allow.

I. I would remark, in the first place, that as the doctrine of the Trinity is confessedly one not to have been antecedently expected, at which, as an orthodox writer has himself observed, "reason stands aghast,

and faith herself is half confounded," it is right to expect, and demand, before receiving it as an article of belief, evidence that shall bear some proportion to its apparent intrinsic incredibility. It is not enough that such a doctrine be darkly hinted at, obscurely implied, doubtfully expressed. If man deals justly by himself, and acts with due reverence to God and his own reason, he will not feel himself justified in embracing such a truth without the clearest and most ample testimony; like that, for example, on the strength of which he believes in the divine authority of Jesus, in a future life, and a state of retribution. But such testimony, it cannot be pretended that the Bible itself, much less the Gospel of Matthew, does any where furnish. There is nothing distinct, clear, definite, on the subject. Not a single verse in the whole Bible lays down the doctrine in terms. It is a thing of remote, dark, uncertain inference.

It is here worthy to be remarked, that in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and many other supposed doctrines of revelation, the common principles of evidence have been totally reversed. For, while on other subjects, it is a universal principle for the conduct of the understanding, that in proportion to the apparent intrinsic incredibility and improbability of a fact or proposition, must be the force, clearness, and abundance of the evidence which is brought to establish it-in religion, men have eagerly received, and implicitly believed doctrines, against which there was a strong previous presumption that they could not be true-doctrines of the most momentous import if true, on a show of evidence the least that can be supposed possible in a case of the kind, and which in other matters would be rejected as wholly inadequate, or as warranting only the lowest de

gree of assent. That which is seemingly impossible, and on the face of the thing incredible or highly improbable, we reasonably require to be substantiated by a proportional fulness and distinctness of testimony. While that which is in accordance with other known facts, and other received knowledge, is in itself highly probable and likely to be true, we admit on a lesser weight of evidence. These just and obvious principles have, I repeat, in religious things been abandoned, if not reversed. Evidence which in a court of human justice, neither judge, nor lawyer, nor jury would take as competent testimony to a fact of even ordinary occurrence and character, or to a point of law-only change the ground to that of controversial divinity, and it becomes with these same persons most ample and decisive, to establish doctrines in themselves the most extraordinary, and most unlikely to be true. In religion, men have been ever ready to believe any thing and every thing, with or without evidence, as the case might be. It has seemed as if they took a strange delight in doing violence to the dictates of reason and common sense, and imagined themselves devout and meritorious before Heaven, in proportion to the easy credulity with which the most monstrous and revolting dogmas were engrafted into their creed. There has been nothing so essentially absurd, so obviously fabricated and false, that multitudes have not in every age of the Church been found to believe it as a part of the revelation of God, at the mandate of a priest, a pope, or a council. Evidence has not been asked for. It has rather been despised. Has it the authority of orthodox fathers? does it revolt reason and sense? does it task faith to the uttermost? these have virtually been the preliminary inquiries. Hence, it has happened that doctrines of a purely pagan or human origin, have been handed down from