defender, is best known as William Jones of Nayland, who (1757)[[545]] published the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity; he was also strong for the Hutchinsonian physical trinity of fire, light, and spirit. This well-known work was generally recommended, as the defence of the orthodox system, to those who could not go into the learning of the subject. There is now a work more suited to our time: The Rock of Ages, by the Rev. E. H. Bickersteth,[[546]] now published by the Religious Tract Society, without date, answered by the Rev. Dr. Sadler,[[547]] in a work (1859) entitled Gloria Patri, in which, says Mr. Bickersteth, "the author has not even attempted to grapple with my main propositions." I have read largely on the controversy, and I think I know what this means. Moreover, when I see the note "There are two other passages to which Unitarians sometimes refer, but the deduction they draw from them is, in each case, refuted by the context"—I think I see why the two texts are not named. Nevertheless, the author is a little more disposed to yield to criticism than his foregoers; he does not insist on texts and readings which the greatest editors have rejected. And he writes with courtesy, both direct and oblique, towards his antagonists; which, on his side of this subject, is like letting in fresh air. So that I suspect the two books will together make a tolerably good introduction to the subject for those who cannot go deep. Mr. Bickersteth's book is well arranged and indexed, which is a point of superiority to Jones of Nayland. There is a point which I should gravely recommend to writers on the orthodox side. The Unitarians in
England have frequently contended that the method of proving the divinity of Jesus Christ from the New Testament would equally prove the divinity of Moses. I have not fallen in the way of any orthodox answers specially directed at the repeated tracts written by Unitarians in proof of their assertion. If there be any, they should be more known; if there be none, some should be written. Which ever side may be right, the treatment of this point would be indeed coming to close quarters. The heterodox assertion was first supported, it is said, by John Bidle or Biddle (1615-1662) of Magdalen College, Oxford, the earliest of the English Unitarian writers, previously known by a translation of part of Virgil and part of Juvenal.[[548]] But I cannot find that he wrote on it.[[549]] It is the subject of "αἱρεσεων ἀναστασις, or a new way of deciding old controversies. By Basanistes. Third edition, enlarged," London, 1815, 8vo.[[550]] It is the appendix to the amusing, "Six more letters to Granville Sharp, Esq., ... By Gregory Blunt, Esq." London, 8vo., 1803.[[551]] This much I can confidently say, that the study of these tracts would prevent orthodox writers from some curious slips, which are slips obvious to all sides of opinion. The lower defenders of orthodoxy frequently vex the spirits of the higher ones.
Since writing the above I have procured Dr. Sadler's answer. I thought I knew what the challenger meant when he said the respondent had not grappled with his main
propositions. I should say that he is clung on to from beginning to end. But perhaps Mr. B. has his own meaning of logical terms, such as "proposition": he certainly has his own meaning of "cumulative." He says his evidence is cumulative; not a catena, the strength of which is in its weakest part, but distinct and independent lines, each of which corroborates the other. This is the very opposite of cumulative: it is distributive. When different arguments are each necessary to a conclusion, the evidence is cumulative; when any one will do, even though they strengthen each other, it is distributive. The word "cumulative" is a synonym of the law word "constructive"; a whole which will do made out of parts which separately will not. Lord Strafford [[552]] opens his defence with the use of both words: "They have invented a kind of accumulated or constructive evidence; by which many actions, either totally innocent in themselves, or criminal in a much inferior degree, shall, when united, amount to treason." The conclusion is, that Mr. B. is a Cambridge man; the Oxford men do not confuse the elementary terms of logic. O dear old Cambridge! when the New Zealander comes let him find among the relics of your later sons some proof of attention to the elementary laws of thought. A little-go of logic, please!
Mr. B., though apparently not a Hutchinsonian, has a nibble at a physical Trinity. "If, as we gaze on the sun shining in the firmament, we see any faint adumbration of the doctrine of the Trinity in the fontal orb, the light ever generated, and the heat proceeding from the sun and its beams—threefold and yet one, the sun, its light, and its
heat,—that luminous globe, and the radiance ever flowing from it, are both evident to the eye; but the vital warmth is felt, not seen, and is only manifested in the life it transfuses through creation. The proof of its real existence is self-demonstrating."
We shall see how Revilo[[553]] illustrates orthodoxy by mathematics. It was my duty to have found one of the many illustrations from physics; but perhaps I should have forgotten it if this instance had not come in my way. It is very bad physics. The sun, apart from its light, evident to the eye! Heat more self-demonstrating than light, because felt! Heat only manifested by the life it diffuses! Light implied not necessary to life! But the theology is worse than Sabellianism[[554]]. To adumbrate—i.e., make a picture of—the orthodox doctrine, the sun must be heavenly body, the light heavenly body, the heat heavenly body; and yet, not three heavenly bodies, but one heavenly body. The truth is, that this illustration and many others most strikingly illustrate the Trinity of fundamental doctrine held by the Unitarians, in all its differences from the Trinity of persons held by the Orthodox. Be right which may, the right or wrong of the Unitarians shines out in the comparison. Dr. Sadler confirms me—by which I mean that I wrote the above before I saw what he says—in the following words: "The sun is one object with two properties, and these properties have a parallel not in the second and third persons of the Trinity, but in the attributes of Deity."
The letting light alone, as self-evident, and making heat self-demonstrating, because felt—i.e., perceptible now and then—has the character of the Irishman's astronomy:
"Long life to the moon, for a dear noble cratur,