Frequently, in view of his mightiest works, he tells us that his Father is greater than himself. Now, he, who is greater than another, cannot be equal to him, at the same time. Two and two are always greater than one and one. With us it might be possible to compete with, and surpass one who was greater than ourselves, in wealth, learning, and popularity; but God’s glory is unchangeable. If the Father, who is distinct from Christ,—being one of the three persons who form the Trinity,—be greater than Christ, he is forever so. I know there are some passages, in which Christ identifies himself with God; such as “I and my Father are one.” “He who hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Let me give my experience as these passages fixed my attention. It is an undeniable fact that both the Old and New Testament were written in Oriental languages, which abound in allegorical idioms.
My own thoughts very readily suggested to me the meaning of such passages. When a plenipotentiary goes out to a foreign people, to adjust or secure political or mercantile interests for the people or king who sends him, he might very properly say that he and his king or people are one. For he speaks and acts agreeably to the instructions given him by the king or people he represents, and whatever he says and does has been put into his power.
So Christ says he and his Father who sent him are one. He never did or said anything against his Father’s will, and so he convinced the world that he was the Sent—the especial viceroy of “the King eternal, immortal, and only wise,” on the earth.
It is affirmed by Unitarian divines that, in order that the disciples might not misunderstand Christ, when he said he and his Father are one, he explained to them the nature of that oneness or union, by saying, that the very disciples about him were one with him and with God. “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” Still it seems to me that the disciples did not have any difficulty in understanding what he meant by, “I and my Father are one;” for this is a common expression—a prevailing phrase—of Oriental lands, and they were familiar with it. When two or more persons are said to be one, it is obviously meant that they are of the same spirit, profession, culture, or will. We see in the New Testament, that simple, unadorned words of Christ puzzled the Jews more than his figures and allegories. For instance, when Christ told the sick man, “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee,” behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, “This man blasphemeth.”
The expression, “I and my Father are one,” does not strike an Oriental as having some unfathomable, mystic meaning; nor does it convince him of Christ’s being equal to his Father in glory, essence, and existence. “He who hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” These words, I am told, are regarded as the strongest support of Trinitarian doctrine; “Christ in them declaring most distinctly his identity with God, in every respect.”
But this is a simple thing again. Ask a Hindoo child of seven or eight years old, to show you his father’s house. He will direct you to go straight ahead a few rods till you come to a store, and leaving the store on your right, to go a little way and you will presently see a palm-tree; and if you see the palm-tree you see his father’s house. Does this imply that the palm-tree is his father’s house? No. So the passage, “He who hath seen me hath seen the Father,” does not convey, to any one accustomed to the Eastern mode of expressing thoughts, the idea that Christ is God. The palm-tree of the Hindoo child is so near to his father’s house that if you see the one you cannot help seeing the other. Our dear Master exhibited such divine graces in his life, that it is not blasphemous for him to say, “If ye have seen me ye have seen the Father.”
I did not dream of a triune God as I studied the New Testament, and when it was presented to me in the creeds I found no support for that dogma in the Scriptures. It seems to me that the doctrine of a triune God, is not able to give “life, comfort, and salvation to the world.” It is neither essential to, nor a part of, the religion of Christ. It is the production of Oriental philosophers. In the course of time, it migrated from the East to the West. As it passed from hand to hand, and country to country, it lost much of its peculiar beauty. In conclusion, I should say that an intelligent Oriental finds nothing rational in the doctrine of the Trinity as it exists among Christians, because he has seen a better one in his own country. Indeed, to receive this doctrine, so absurd, so unintelligible, would be as ridiculous for him, as for a Bostonian to sail to Calcutta for a piece of ice.
The Total Depravity of Human Nature.—As my time would not permit me to consider this subject in a way I would like, and thereby show my reasons for not believing it, I would simply resort to common sense and the Scriptures to expose the awkwardness of this doctrine. I fully believe that such enormous doctrine as that of calling a child of the Most High a totally depraved creature—having nothing good in him, is not, and ought not to be a part of any man’s creed.
It discourages man. It puts a mountain in his way. It weakens his faith in a loving Father, when he is told that impartial justice will hold him responsible for all the iniquities which he was created to commit. I am aware that believers in this doctrine would say that the atonement, made by Christ for our sins, has satisfied eternal justice,—that “the blood of the Lamb has washed our sins.”