ii^siis 
 

 Cornell University Library 
 BX9843.C45 US 
 
 Unitarian Christianity; a discourse on s 
 
 ^ 'f ■ I "" ' I -, ■■ """ ■■■ 1 1 , I - III, , ||i nii(||| fj 
 
 i»i< ll l)il i iiit ii iim i um)iiiniiii<iw«i .> «» i 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 LIBRARY 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis bool< is in 
 tlie Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029478397 
 
UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY 
 
 A Discourse on Some of the Distinguishing 
 Opinions of Unitarians 
 
 Delivered at Baltimore, May 5, 1819 
 
 WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING 
 
 CENTENARY EDITION 
 
 PUBLISHED FOB FEEE DISTBIBUTION 
 
 AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION 
 
 25 BEACON STREET, BOSTON, MASS. 
 

 fl 5^g5^s?n 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Channing's discourse on Unitarian Christianity (com- 
 monly spoken of as the "Baltimore Sermon") is his most 
 important contribution to the Unitarian controversy of 
 years ago, and to the forming of a body of opinion which 
 led to the definite organization of the Unitarian move- 
 ment. It marks a memorable epoch in the history of 
 religious thought in America, where it created a pro- 
 founder impression at the time it was deUvered and has 
 had a wider, deeper, and more long continued influence 
 than any other sermon ever preached. Besides its very 
 large immediate circulation, it has passed through edition 
 after edition for a himdred years; it has been reprinted 
 in England, France, Holland, Germany, Hungary, India, 
 and perhaps yet other countries; it is still circulated in 
 thousands of copies every year; and it has opened to 
 multitudes of readers a welcome door of escape from the 
 shadow of Calvinisrn. The centenary of this memorable 
 sermon offers occasion for a re-issue of it with a brief 
 introduction and analysis, which may increase its value 
 to the reader. 
 
 The significance of the sermon will be best appreciated 
 when it is seen against tKe backgroimd of the rehgious 
 history of the time. Massachusetts Congregationalism, 
 which had begun in the strictest form of Calvinism, had 
 since the middle of the eighteenth century or earlier been 
 
silently drifting away from its original moorings. A 
 liberal wing had been insensibly growing for two genera- 
 tions, ignoring ratiber than denying the more oBFensive 
 doctrines of Calvin, and emphasizing only the positive 
 elements of religious experience and Christian character. 
 Observing this Uberal drift, the conservatives had taken 
 alarm, had insisted more strongly upon the doctrines of the 
 old theology, had reproached the hberals for their laxity, 
 had fastened upon them the stigma of being Unitarian 
 in behef , and of late had often attacked them most bitterly 
 and refused to have fellowship with them. But as yet the 
 denomination was not divided. This was the state of 
 things down to the date of this sermon in 1819. 
 
 Chan,ning was now, by his abilities and his position, re- 
 garded as the leader of the hberals, though he was strongly 
 averse to religious controversy or sectarian division. 
 But as he and his friends had now for some years been 
 incessantly challenged and attacked by the conservatives 
 for preaching "another gospel," he at last reluctantly de- 
 termined for once to take the aggressive in behalf of Uni- 
 tarian views as against those of Orthodoxy; and a con- 
 spicuous occasion for doing this presented itseK when he 
 was invited to preach an ordination sermon in the new 
 church at Baltimore. 
 
 The Unitarian movement had thus far not spread outside 
 New England, except that Joseph Priestley had founded in 
 Pennsylvania two Unitarian churches which were really 
 transplantations from England. But when in 1816 James 
 Freeman, the patriarch of Boston Unitarianism, chanced 
 to preach at Baltimore, so much interest was aroused that 
 a liberal church was soon organized, the first in a long 
 line of important churches to be established beyond Newl 
 
England borders. Two years later a noble house of wor- 
 ship was dedicated by Dr. Freeman; and the first minister 
 called to the church was Jared Sparks, who served it with 
 great vigor for four years, until his health failed, and who 
 later became distinguished as an historian and as Presi- 
 dent of Harvard. 
 
 The ordination of Mr. Sparks, on May 5, 1819, was a 
 notable occasion, attended by eight of the most dis- 
 tinguished ministers from far New England, and by many 
 others from the North. The sermon, by Boston's most em- 
 inent preiacher, was worthy of the occasion. It was nearly 
 an hour and a half long, earnest, restrained, clear and 
 candid. It was designed to justify Unitarians in their 
 distinguishing beliefs, and to confute the Orthodox on the 
 points as to which they differed, though aimed rather 
 more at the latter than at the former. Its thesis was that 
 the Scriptures, when interpreted by reason, teach the 
 doctrines which are held by Unitarians; and it sustained 
 this on both scriptural and rational grounds, with the 
 larger emphasis on the latter. It took up the main doc- 
 trines on which Unitarians dissented from Orthodoxy, and 
 held them up one by one for searching examination and 
 calm and deliberate attack. It made an eloquent and 
 lofty appeal against the wrong done to the character of 
 God, and the blight put upon the life of man, by a scheme 
 so full of unreason, inhumanity, and gloom as Calvinism 
 seemed to him to be; and it impeached the Orthodoxy of 
 the day before the bar of the popular reason and conscience. 
 "There never came," said Orville Dewey, "a more polished 
 weapon from the armx)ry of polemics. Never were more 
 ,acute distinctions more admirably put than those with 
 yhich he set forth the true principles of scriptural inter- 
 
 [7] 
 
pretation, nor more convincing statements oflPered of the 
 essential inconsistency of the popular theology, both with 
 itself and with sound reason and moraUty. On the 
 Trinity, in particular.difficulties were lodged in many minds 
 by that discourse from which that doctrine could never be 
 relieved. At the same time the discourse was character- 
 ized by a simpUcity and beauty of style which at once 
 brought it down to the humblest minds, and carried it up 
 to the highest." 
 
 The sensation caused by the sermon was xmprecedented, 
 and the impression made by it was profound. It passed 
 through five editions within six weeks, and its circula- 
 tion was not surpassed by" any pamphlet in America until 
 Webster's reply to Hayne. Its eflFect was two-fold, upon 
 the Unitarians, and upon the Orthodox. As the first 
 elaborate statement and defense of their faith in America, 
 it furnished the Unitarians a sort of platform to which 
 they could rally, and it laid down their system of defense 
 and attack for the controversies that were to follow. And 
 since it brought forward as their champion the most dis- 
 tinguished, most eloquent, and most honored minister 
 in Boston, it gave them courage in their hesitating con- 
 victions and confidence in the future of their cause. It 
 thus did more than anything else to make a hitherto vague 
 liberahsm cohere into a movement of clear convictions and 
 a definitely realized mission. 
 
 The effect of the sermon upon Orthodoxy was no less 
 marked, as became clear from the controversies which fol- 
 lowed it. Two professors from Andover Theological 
 Seminary at once came forward as champions of the views 
 which Channing had attacked, both of them objecting 
 that the picture which he had drawn of Orthodoxy wWc 
 
 18] 
 
exaggerated and unjust. Professor Moses Stuart confined 
 his discussion to the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual 
 nature of Christ, and attempted to support them from the 
 New Testament. Chanping did not reply, but the gaunt- 
 let was taken up by the eager hand of Professor Andrews 
 Norton of Harvard, whose reply to Stuart later grew into 
 the classical "Statement of Reasons for not believing 
 the Doctrines of Trinitarians." In his discussion Stuart 
 made some notable concessions, showing that he accepted 
 the doctrines in question obly in a sense which he but 
 vaguely understood, and as inexpUcable mysteries; and in 
 doing this he so far receded from the positions formerly 
 considered Orthodox that he was himself earnestly re- 
 proached by Professor Miller of Princeton for taking a 
 position which would soon lead to Unitarianism. 
 
 The controversy was further continued by Professor 
 Leonard Woods of Andover. He undertook to defend 
 the characteristic doctrines of Calvinism which Channing 
 had so mercilessly attacked as unreasonable, inhuman, 
 and shocking to the moral sense, and he complained that 
 these doctrines had been misunderstood and misrepre- 
 sented. But when he attempted to restate the Orthodox 
 views of them in a less objectionable form, Professor Henry 
 Ware, the elder, of Harvard, who entered the debate against 
 him, and Professor Norton, had no diflSculty in sub- 
 stantiating the iadictment by abundant quotations from 
 Orthodox writers of unimpeachable authority. The re- 
 sult therefore was that New England Orthodoxy had to 
 admit that it, too, had departed further from the old 
 standards than had hitherto been confessed or even 
 realized. It had in fact slipped anchor and drifted out 
 Ito sea in the direction of the Progressive Orthodoxy and 
 
 [9] 
 
the Liberal Orthodoxy of later days, wherein multitudes 
 of those following the Orthodox tradition were to accept 
 views far in advance of the moderate ones which marked 
 Channing Unitarianism. The Baltimore sermon thus 
 marked an epoch in Orthodox no less than in Unitariari 
 thought. The doctrine ot the Trinity ceased henceforth 
 to be the central doctrine of New England Orthodoxy, and 
 the Unitarian criticisms forced the Orthodox in other 
 respects to move further and further from the system of 
 Calvin. 
 
 As between the two wings of the Congregational Church, 
 the result of these discussions was to clear up the thinking 
 on both sides, sharpen distinctions of thought, and deepen 
 antagonisms. The Orthodox more and more withdrew 
 religious fellowship from the Unitarians, and the latter 
 were hence obhged to take their place as a distinct re- 
 ligious denomination. 
 
 E. M. W. 
 
 [10 J 
 
SYNOPSIS 
 
 Theme: The Scriptures, when interpreted by reason, teach the 
 doctrines held by Unitarians. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The fact that many sincere men mistakenly deem the 
 doctrines of this church false and injurious requires that 
 an ordination sermon for its minister should explain at 
 least its distinguishing doctrines and defend them from 
 misrepresentation. A candid and Unprejudiced hearing 
 is asked for. 
 
 BODY OF THE SERMON 
 
 I. The Scriptures should be interpreted with the constant exer- 
 cise of reason. 
 
 We accept the teaching of the Scriptures, especially 
 those of the New Testament, as of divine authority, and 
 this is a reason for studying them with especial care. We 
 use reason in this study because: 
 
 1. The meaning of the Bible, a book written for men, 
 is to be sought Uke that of other books, all of which 
 require the constant exercise of reason, since lan- 
 guage admits various interpretations, according to 
 circumstances. 
 
 2. The Bible in particular requires the use of reason 
 because it has infinite connections and dependences, 
 its language is often not precise or accurate, it 
 constantly refers to a strange past age, and it is 
 marked by the peculiarities of its various writers. 
 Several examples cited. 
 
 [11] 
 
Thus interpreted, the teachings of the Bible may be 
 found consistent with themselves and with Nature. 
 3. Objections answered: 
 
 (a) We claim no monopoly of these principles, 
 
 for all Christians use them upon occasion, 
 though partially and iriconsistently. 
 
 (b) Reason is not depraved and untrustworthy, 
 
 for then the natural foundations of religious 
 behef, which rest upon it, would fall. 
 
 (c) Though the use of reason in religion is not 
 
 without danger, the renunciation of it would 
 lead to still worse errors: witness the case 
 of the Cathohc Church; so that we are 
 bound to make the best use of it we can. 
 
 (d) . God's revelations are not beyond the reach 
 
 of reason, for in that case 
 
 (1) He would expose us to infinite er- 
 ror, and 
 
 (2) He would sport with our under- 
 standings. 
 
 II. The Scriptures, thus interpreted, teach the distinguishing doc- 
 trines of Unitarians, as follows: 
 
 1. THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 (a) The Unitarian view stated. 
 
 (b) The doctrine of the Trinity stated. 
 
 (1) This doctrine is unscriptural. 
 
 (2) If true it would have been clearly 
 taught, whereas the reverse is every- 
 where impUed. 
 
 (3) If taught in primitive Christianity, 
 it would have been sharply attacked 
 
 [121 
 
by the Jews, but of this no trace 
 appears. 
 
 (4) It is unfavorable to devotion, dis- 
 tracting the worshiping mind. 
 
 (5) It injures devotion by transferring 
 to the Son the supreme worship due 
 to the Father. 
 
 THE UNITY OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS INFERIOR- 
 ITY TO GOD. 
 
 (a) The Unitarian view stated, in contrast to 
 the Orthodox view. 
 
 (b) The latter is confusing and incredible. 
 
 (c) If true it would have been clearly taught, 
 whereas it was not. 
 
 (d) If Jesus had felt he had two natures, his 
 language would have shown it, whereas 
 he uniformly imphes the reverse. 
 
 (e) Numerous Scripture passages express 
 
 Christ's inferiority to God. 
 *(f) Objections answered: 
 
 (1) The few passages seeming to teach 
 the deity of Christ must, in the light 
 of the numerous passages teaching 
 the contrary, be taken figuratively. 
 
 (2) The trinitarian doctrine of an in- 
 finite atonement is fallacious and 
 sophistical. 
 
 (3) The view of Christ suffering as in- 
 carnate God is self-contradictory, 
 and less impressive than the con- 
 trary view. 
 
 [13] 
 
3. THE MORAL PERFECTION OF GOD. 
 
 (a) All Christians profess belief in this, but the 
 
 Orthodox belief in fact subordinates God's 
 goodness to his power. 
 
 (b) Unitarians, making God's goodness supreme, 
 believe that he is infinitely good, just, mer- 
 ciful, and fatherly. 
 
 (c) Calvinism on the contrary presents God as 
 Jinlovable, unjust, cruel, partial. 
 
 (d) Its doctrines tend to discourage virtue, pei*- 
 
 vert the moral sense, and make religion 
 gloomy and men narrow in sympathy; and 
 we feel bound to resist them to the utmost, 
 that we may vindicate the character of God. 
 
 4. THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST. 
 
 (a) He accomplishes this by various methods. 
 
 (b) We differ among ourselves as to the effect 
 
 of his death on our forgiveness. 
 
 (c) But we agree in rejecting the Orthodox view 
 
 that his death appeased God's wrath, and 
 in holding that the loving God sent him 
 to save us. 
 
 (d) The view that he died as a substitute for 
 
 infinitely guilty men we also reject as ab- 
 surd, unscriptural, and immoral. 
 
 (e) This doctrine injures character by its em- 
 
 phasis on escape from punishment, while 
 our emphasis on escape from sin elevates it. 
 
 6. THE NATURE OF TRUE HOLINESS. OR CHRISTIAN 
 VIRTUE. 
 
 (a) All virtue is founded in the moral nature of 
 
 man rather than imposed on him by God, 
 
 [14] 
 
though we do not deny the aid of his Spirit. 
 
 (b) The prime virtue is love to God, but 
 
 (1) Mere emotional piety is counterfeit 
 love of God, whereas 
 
 (2) True love of God is shown in obedi- 
 ence to his moral laws. 
 
 (3) We value religious fervor only when 
 it springs naturally from elevated 
 character. ^ 
 
 (c) Another important virtue is love to Christ. 
 
 (d) The benevolent virtues are also most im- 
 portant, and of these charitable judgment 
 in rehgion needs especial mention, for 
 
 (1) We should not condemn conscien- 
 tious men for mere difference of 
 opinion, since we ourselves are 
 fallible; and 
 
 (2) Mutual sympathy and tolerance 
 are better than sectarian zeal. 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 We have embraced the views we hold, and we wish to 
 spread them, because we think them more conducive to 
 practical piety and pure morals, clearer, and more in- 
 spiring, than their opposites. The minister now ordained 
 is to preach these doctrines? aiming first of all at promot- 
 ing virtuous hves, which will prove their best vindica- 
 tion. 
 
 The hearers should investigate the Scriptures for them- 
 selves, in the effort further to purify Christianity from 
 human errors until all human authority oppressing minds 
 through priestcraft or creeds is overthrown. 
 
 [15] 
 
UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY 
 
 "Prove all things ; holdfast that which is good." 
 
 1 Thesbalonians v. 21. 
 
 The peculiar circumstances of this occasion not ij^odoction: 
 
 ■^ the sermon will 
 
 only justify, but seem to demand, a departure ulJ^custom''* 
 from the course generally followed by preachers dSctrkiai. 
 at the introduction of a brother into the sacred 
 office. It is usual to speak of the nature, design, 
 duties, and advantages of the Christian min- 
 istry; and on these topics I should now be happy 
 to insist, did I not remember that a minister 
 is to be given this day to a religious society, 
 whose peculiarities of opinion have drawn upon 
 them much remark, and, may I not add, much 
 reproach. Many good minds, many sincere 
 Christians, I am aware, are apprehensive that 
 the solemnities of this day are to give a degree 
 of influence to principles which they deem false 
 and injurious. The fears and anxieties of such 
 men I respect; and, believing that they are 
 
 [17] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 grounded in part on mistake, I have thought it 
 my duty to lay before you, as clearly as I can, 
 some of the distinguishing opinions of that class 
 of Christians in our country who are known to 
 sympathize with this reUgious society. I must 
 ask your patience, for such a subject is not 
 to be despatched in a narrow compass. I must 
 also ask you to remember, that it is impossible 
 to exhibit, in a single discourse, our views of 
 every doctrine of revelation, much less the difiFer- 
 ences of opinion which are known to subsist 
 among ourselves. I shall confine myself to 
 topics on which our sentiments have been mis- 
 represented, or which distinguish us most widely 
 from others. May I not hope to be heard with 
 candor? God deliver us all from prejudice and 
 unkindness, and fill us with the love of truth and 
 virtue. 
 
 There are two natural divisions under which 
 my thoughts will be arranged. I shall endeavour 
 to unfold, 1st, The principles which we adopt 
 in interpreting the Scriptures. And, 2ndly, 
 Some of the doctrines which the Scriptures, so 
 interpreted, seemed to us clearly to express, 
 scriptuie is of I. We regard the Scriptures as the records 
 
 divine author- „ r~t ij • i . • -i . i 
 
 ity of God s successive revelations to mankmd, and 
 
 [181 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 particularly of the last and most perfect reve- 
 lation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever 
 doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the 
 Scriptures, we receive without reserve or excep- 
 tion. We do not, however, attach equal im- 
 portance to all the books in this collection. 
 Our religion, we believe, hes chiefly in the New 
 Testament. The dispensation of Moses, com- 
 pared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted 
 to the childhood of the human race, a prepara- 
 tion for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now 
 as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian 
 Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of 
 Christians, and whatever he taught, either during 
 his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, 
 we regard as of Divine authority, and profess 
 to make the rule of our hves. 
 
 This authority which we give to the Scriptures f°/^j^*|^^ 
 is a reason, we conceive, for studying them with "*' ""*• 
 pecuUar care, and for inquiring anxiously into 
 the principles of interpretation by which their 
 true meaning may be ascertained. The princi- 
 ples adopted by the class of Christians in whose 
 name I speak need to be explained, because they 
 are often misunderstood. We are particularly 
 accused of making an unwarrantable use of 
 
 [19 1 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 reason in the interpretation of Scripture. We 
 are said to exalt reason above revelation, to 
 prefer our own wisdom to God's. Loose and 
 undefined charges of this kind are circulated so 
 freely, that we think it due to ourselves, and to 
 the cause of truth, to express our views with 
 some particularity. 
 bMkmittenfor ^ ^^^ leading principle in interpreting Scripture 
 ™™' is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, 
 
 in the language of men, and that its meaning 
 is to be sought in the same manner as that of 
 other books. We believe that God, when he 
 speaks to the human race, conforms, if we may 
 so say, to the estabhshed rules of speaking and 
 writing. How else would the Scriptures avail 
 us more than if communicated in an unknown 
 ""ft be inter- tongue? Now all books, and all conversation, 
 
 preted by rea- *-» -- y 
 
 son; for pcqulre in the reader or hearer the constant exer- 
 cise of reason; or their true import is only to be 
 obtained by continual comparison and inference.y 
 Human language, you well know, admits vari- 
 ous interpretations; and every word and every 
 sentence must be modified and explained accord- 
 ing to the subject which is discussed, according 
 to the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and 
 principles of the writer, and according to the 
 
 [20] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 genius and idioms of the language which he 
 uses. These are acknowledged principles in the 
 •interpretation of human writings, and a man, 
 whose words we should explain without reference 
 to these principles, would reproach us justly 
 with a criminal want of candor, and an intention 
 of obscuring or distorting his meaning. 
 
 Were the Bible written in a language and style it has wide con- 
 of its own, did it consist of words which admit "*''""'^' 
 but a single sense, and of sentences wholly de- 
 tached from each other, there would be noplace 
 for the principles now laid down. We could not 
 reason about it, as about other writings. But 
 such a book would be of little worth; and per- 
 haps, of all books, the Scriptures correspond 
 least to this description. The word of God 
 bears the stamp of the same hand which we see 
 in his works. It has infinite connections and 
 dependences. Every proposition is linked with 
 others, and is to be compared with others, that 
 its full and precise -import may be understood. 
 Nothing stands alone. The New Testament 
 is built on the Old. The Christian dispensation 
 is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion 
 of a vast scheme of Providence, requiring great 
 extent of view in the reader. Still more, the 
 
 [211 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 Bible treats of subjects on which we receive ideas 
 from other sources besides itself; such subjects 
 as the nature, passions, relations, and duties of 
 man; and it expects us to restrain and modify 
 its language by the known truths which observa- 
 tion and experience furnish on these topics. We 
 profess not to know a book which demands a 
 more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. 
 
 is not precise. In addition to the remarks now made on its 
 infinite connections, we may observe, that its 
 style nowhere aflfects the precision of science, 
 or the accuracy of definition. Its language is 
 singularly glowing, bold, and figurative, demand- 
 ing more frequent departures from the literal 
 sense than that of our own age and country, 
 and consequently demanding more continual 
 
 comes from a cxcrcisc of judgmcut. Wc find, too, that the 
 
 past age, • o 
 
 different portions of this book, instead of being 
 confined to general truths, refer perpetually to 
 the times when they were written, to states of 
 society, to modes of thinking, to controversies 
 in the Church, to feehngs and usages, which 
 have passed away, and without the knowledge 
 of which we are constantly in danger of extending 
 to all times and places what was of temporary 
 and local application. We find, too, that some 
 
 (22] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 of these books are strongly marked by the genius 
 
 and character of their respective writers, that the and shows the 
 
 peculiarities of 
 
 Holy Spirit did not so guide the Apostles as to "^ writers. 
 suspend the pecuharities of their minds, and that 
 a knowledge of their feehngs, and of the influ- 
 ences under which they were placed, is one of the 
 preparations for understanding their writings. 
 With these views of the Bible, we feel it our 
 bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it per- 
 petually; to compare, to infer, to look beyond 
 the letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the 
 subject, and the aim of the writer, his true mean- 
 ing; and, in general, to make use of what is 
 known for explaining what is difficult, and for 
 discovering new truths. 
 
 - Need I descend to particulars to prove that The above 
 the Scriptures demand the exercise ,of reason? tSted. '"'' 
 Take, for example, the style in which they 
 generally speak of God, and observe how habitu- 
 ally they apply to him human passions and 
 organs. Recollect the declarations of Christ, 
 that he came, not to send peace, but a sword; 
 that unless we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, 
 we have no life in us ; that we must hate father 
 and mother, and pluck out the right eye; and a 
 vast number of passages equally bold and un- 
 
 [23] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 limited. Recollect the unqualified manner in 
 which it is said of Christians, that they possess 
 all things, know all things, and can do all things. 
 Recollect the -irerbal contradiction between Paul 
 and James, and the apparent clashing of some 
 parts of Paul's writings with the general doc- 
 trines and end of Christianity. I might extend 
 the enumeration indefinitely; and who does not 
 see that we must limit all these passages by the 
 known attributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of 
 human nature, and by the circumstances under 
 which they were written, so as to give the lan- 
 guage a quite different import from what it 
 would require had it been apphed to different 
 beings, or used in different connections? 
 Thus later- Euough has bccn said to show in what sense 
 
 Sreted, the • „ . . . ^ . 
 
 (rith*fteeif \nd '^^ make usc ot reason m interpreting Scripture. 
 Hahuef'*"^°^From a variety of possible interpretations, we 
 select that which accords with the nature of the 
 subject and the state of the writer, with the 
 connection of the passage, with the general strain 
 of Scripture, with the known character and will 
 of God, and with the obvious and acknowledged 
 laws of nature. In other words, we believe 
 that God never contradicts, in one part of Scrip- 
 ture, what he teaches in another; and never 
 
 [24] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches in 
 his works and providence. And we, therefore, 
 distrust every interpretation which, after de- 
 Uberate attention, seems repugnant to any es- 
 tablished truth. We reason about the Bible 
 precisely as civilians do about the constitution 
 under which we live; who, you know, are accus- 
 tomed to Umit one provision of that venerable 
 instrument by others, and to fix the precise im- 
 port of its parts by inquiring into its general 
 spirit, into the intentions of its authors, and into 
 the prevalent feelings, impressions, and circum- 
 stances of the time when it was framed. With- 
 out these principles of interpretation, we frankly 
 acknowledge that we cannot defend the Divine 
 authority of the Scriptures. Deny us this lati- 
 tude, and we must abandon this book to its 
 enemies. 
 
 We do not announce these principles as orig- These princi- 
 inal or peculiar to ourselves. All Christians orf^l with us. 
 occasionally adopt them, not excepting those who 
 most vehemently decry them when they happen 
 to menace some favorite article of their creed. 
 All Christians are compelled to use them in their 
 controversies with infidels. All sects employ 
 them in their warfare with one another. All 
 
 [251. 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTBINES 
 
 wilKngly avail themselves of reason, when it 
 can be pressed into the service of their own 
 party, and only complain of it when its weapons 
 wound themselves. None reason more fre- 
 quently than those from whom we differ. It 
 is astonishing what a fabric they rear from a 
 few slight hints about the fall of our first parents; 
 and how ingeniously they extract, from detached 
 passages, mysterious doctrines about the Divine 
 nature. We do not blame them for reasoning 
 so abundantly, but for violating the fundamental 
 rules of reasoning, for sacrificing the plain to the 
 obscure, and the general strain of Scripture to a 
 scanty number of insulated texts. 
 Reason is not Wc objcct strougly to the contemptuous man- 
 'ner in which human reason is often spoken of by 
 our adversaries, because it leads, we believe, 
 to universal skepticism. If reason be so dread- 
 fully darkened by the fall, that its most decisive 
 judgments on religion are unworthy of trust, then 
 Christianity, and even natural theology, must 
 be abandoned; for the existence and veracity of 
 God, and the Divine original of Christianity, 
 are conclusions of reason, and must stand or fall 
 with it. If revelation be at war with this 
 faculty, it subverts itself, for the great question 
 
 [26] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 of its truth is left by God to be decided at the 
 bar of reason. It is worthy of remark, how 
 nearly the bigot and the skeptic approach. Both 
 would annihilate bur confidence in our faculties, 
 and both throw doubt and confusion over truth. 
 We honor revelation too highly to make it the 
 antagonist of reason, or to beheve that it calls 
 us to renounce our highest powers. 
 We indeed grant, that the use of reason in its use is less 
 
 ... . -i-tii ■!-.,■ dangerous than 
 
 rehgion is accompanied with danger. xJut we'ts rejection, 
 ask any honest man to look on the history of the 
 Church, and say, whether the renunciation of it 
 be not still more dangerous. Besides, it is a 
 plain fact, that men reason as erroneously on all 
 subjects as on religion. Who does not know 
 the wild and groundless theories which have been 
 framed in physical and poUtical science? But 
 who ever supposed that we must cease to exer- 
 cise reason on nature and society, because men 
 have erred for ages in explaining them? We 
 grant, that the passions continually, and some- 
 times fatally, disturb the rational faculty in its 
 inquiries into revelation. The ambitious con- 
 trive to find doctrines in the Bible which favor 
 their love of dominion. The timid and dejected 
 discover there a gloomy system, and the mystical 
 
 [27] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 and fanatical, a visionary theology. The vicious 
 can find examples or assertions on which to 
 build the hope of a late repentance, or of accept- 
 ance on easy terms. The falsely refined con- 
 trive to fight on doctrines which have not been 
 soiled by vulgar handUng. But the passions 
 do not distract the reason in refigious, any more 
 than in any other inquiries, which excite strong 
 and general interest; and this faculty of conse- 
 quence, is not to be renounced in refigion, unless 
 we are prepared to discard it universally. The 
 true inference from the almost endless errors 
 which have darkened theology is, not that we 
 are to neglect and disparage our powers, but to 
 exert them more patiently, circumspectly, up- 
 which leads to rightly. The worst errors, after all, have sprung 
 up in that church which proscribes reason, and 
 demands from its members impficit faith. The 
 most pernicious doctrines have been the growth 
 of the darkest times, when the general credulity 
 encouraged bad men and enthusiasts to broach 
 their dreams and inventions, and to stifle the 
 faint remonstrances of reason by the menaces 
 of everlasting perdition. Say what we may, 
 God has given us a rational nature, and will call 
 us to account for it. We may let it sleep, but 
 
 [28] 
 
 worse errors. 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 we do SO at our peril. Revelation is addressed 
 to us as rational beings. We may wish, in our 
 sloth, that God had given us a system, demand- 
 ing no labor of comparing, limiting, and infer- 
 ring. But such a system would be at variance 
 with the whole character of our present existence ; 
 and it is the part of wisdom to take revelation 
 as it is given to us, and to interpret it by the 
 help of the faculties which it everywhere sup- 
 poses, and on which it is founded. 
 
 (To the views now given, an objection is com-ood-s reveia- 
 monly urged from the character of God. We are at"" reason, 
 told, that, God being infinitely wiser than men, 
 his discoveries will surpass human reason. In a 
 revelation from such a teacher, we ought to 
 expect propositions which we cannot reconcile 
 with one another, and which may seem to con- 
 tradict estabhshed truths ; and it becomes us not 
 to question or explain them away, but to be- 
 lieve and adore, and to submit our weak and 
 carnal reason to the Divine word. To this 
 obiection, we have two short answers. We say, he would not 
 
 J ' */ expose us to 
 
 first, that it is impossible that a teacher of in- ""^'^ *""• 
 finite wisdom should expose those whom he 
 would teach to infinite error. But if once we 
 admit that propositions, which in their literal 
 
 [29 1 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 sense appear plainly repugnant to one another, 
 or to any known truth, are still to be hterally 
 understood and received, what possible limit 
 can we set to the belief of contradictions? What 
 shelter have we from the wildest fanaticism, 
 which can always quote passages that, in their 
 literal and obvious sense, give support to its ex- 
 travagances? How can the Protestant escape 
 from transubstantiation, a doctrine most clearly 
 taught us, if the submission of reason now con- 
 tended for be a duty? How can we even hold 
 fast the truths of revelation? for if one apparent 
 contradiction may be true, so may another, and 
 the proposition, that Christianity is false, though 
 involving inconsistency, may still be a verity. 
 SSJu^CTstand- ^^ answer, again, that, if God be infinitely 
 ngs. wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of 
 
 his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his 
 wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of 
 his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is 
 unintelligible, not in distressing them with ap- 
 parent contradictions, not in filUng them with 
 a skeptical distrust of their own powers. An 
 infinitely wise teacher, who knows the precise 
 extent of our minds, and the best method 
 of enUghtening them, will surpass all other in- 
 
 [30] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 structors in bringing down truth to our appre- 
 hension, and in showing its loveUness and har- 
 mony. We ought, indeed, to expect occasional 
 obscurity in such a book as the Bible, which 
 was written for past and future ages, as well as 
 for the present. But God's wisdom is a pledge, 
 that whatever is necessary for us, and necessary 
 for salvation, is revealed too plainly to be mis- 
 taken, and too consistently to be questioned, 
 by a sound and upright mind. It is not the 
 mark of wisdom to use an unintelhgible phrase- 
 ology, to communicate what is above our ca- 
 pacities, to confuse and unsettle the intellect by 
 appearances of contradiction. We honor our 
 heavenly teacher too much to ascribe to him 
 such a revelation. A revelation is a gift of hght. 
 It cannot thicken our darkness, and multiply 
 our perplexities. 
 
 II. Having thus stated the principles ac- scripture 
 
 1. 1*1 • ri • T teaches 
 
 cordmg to which we mterpret bcripture, 1 now 
 proceed to the second great head of this dis- 
 course, which is, to state some of the views which 
 we derive from that sacred book, particularly 
 those which distinguish us from other Christians. 
 
 1. In the first place, we beheve in the doctrine i. cd-s ^ty. 
 of God's UNITY, or that there is one God, and wlw stated? 
 
 [31] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 one only. To this truth we give infinite import- 
 ance, and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, 
 lest any man spoil us of it by vain philoso- 
 phy. The proposition, that there is one God, 
 seems to us exceedingly plain. We under- 
 stand by it, that there is one being, one mind, 
 one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, 
 to whom underived and infinite perfection and 
 dominion belong. We conceive, that these words 
 could have conveyed no other meaning to the 
 simple and uncultivated people who were set 
 apart to be the depositaries of this great truth, 
 and who were utterly incapable of understanding 
 those hairbreadth distinctions between being 
 and person which the sagacity of latter ages has 
 discovered. We find no intimation, that this 
 language was to be taken in an unusual sense, 
 or that God's unity was a quite diflferent thing 
 from the oneness of other intelhgent beings. 
 Doctrinesof Wc objcct to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, 
 state™' whilst acknowledging in words, it subverts in 
 effect, the unity of God. According to this 
 doctrine, there are three infinite and equal per- 
 sons possessing supreme divinity, called the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these 
 persons, as described by theologians, has his own 
 
 [32] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. 
 They love each other, converse with each other, 
 and deUght in each other's society. They per- 
 form different parts in man's redemption, each 
 having his appropriate office, and neither doing 
 the work of the other. The Son is mediator, 
 and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, 
 and is Hbt himself sent; nor is" he conscious, hke 
 the Son, of taking flesh. Here, then, we have 
 three intelhgent agents, possessed of different 
 consciousness, different wills, and different per- 
 ceptions, performing different acts, and sus- 
 taining different relations ; and if these things do 
 not imply and constitute three minds or beings > 
 we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds 
 or beings are to be formed. It is difference of 
 properties, and acts, and consciousness, which 
 leads us to the behef of different intelligent 
 beings, and if this mark fails us, our whole knowl- 
 edge falls; we have no proof, that all the agents 
 and persons in the universe are not one and the 
 same mind. When we attempt to conceive of 
 three Gods, we can do nothing more than repre- 
 sent to ourselves three agents, distinguished 
 from each other by similar marks and pecu- 
 liarities to those which separate the persons of 
 
 [33] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 the Trinity; and when common Christians hear 
 these persons spoken of as conversing with each 
 other, loving each other, and performing differ- 
 ent acts, how can they help regarding them as 
 different beings, different minds? 
 It is unscrip. We do, then, with all earnestness, though with- 
 out reproaching our brethren, protest against the 
 irrational and unscriptural doctrine •of the 
 Trinity. "To us," as to the Apostle and the 
 primitive Christians, "there is one God, even 
 the Father." With Jesus we worship the 
 Father, as the only living and true God. We are 
 astonished, that any man can read the New 
 Testament, and avoid the conviction, that the 
 Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour 
 continually appropriating- this character to the 
 Father. We find the Father continually dis- 
 tinguished from Jesus by this title. "God sent 
 . his Son." "God anointed Jesus." Now, how 
 singular and inexplicable is this phraseology, 
 which fills the New Testament, if this title be- 
 long equally to Jesus, and if a principal object 
 of this book is to reveal him as God, as partaking 
 equally with the Father in supreme divinity! 
 We challenge our opponents to adduce one pas- 
 sage in the New Testament where the word God 
 
 [34] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 means three persons, where it is not Kmited to 
 one person, and where, unless turned from its 
 usual sense by the connection it does not mean 
 the Father. Can stronger proof be given that 
 the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead 
 is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity? 
 
 This doctrine, were it true, must, from its it should have 
 
 been cIcsxIt 
 
 difficulty, singularity, and importance, have t^u|'»t'n scrip- 
 been laid down with great clearness, guarded 
 with great care, and stated with all possible 
 precision. But where does this statement ap- 
 pear.'' From the many passages which treat of 
 God, we ask for one, one only, in which we are 
 told that he is a threefold being, or that he is 
 three persons, or that he is Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost. On the contrary, in the New 
 Testament, where, at least, we might expect 
 many express assertions of this nature, God is 
 declared to be one, without the least attempt 
 to prevent the acceptation of the words in their 
 common sense; and he is always spoken of and 
 addressed in the singular number, that is, in 
 language which was universally understood to 
 intend a single person, and to which no other 
 idea could have been attached, without an ex- 
 press admonition. So entirely do the Scriptures 
 
 [35] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 abstain from stating the Trinity, that, when our 
 opponents would insert it into their creeds and 
 doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, 
 and to invent forms of words altogether un- 
 sanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a 
 doctrine so strange, so liable to misapprehension, 
 so fundamental as this is said to be, and requir- 
 ing such careful exposition should be left so un- 
 defined and unprotected, to be made out by 
 inference, and to be hunted through distant and 
 detached parts of Scripture — this is a difficulty 
 which, we think, no ingenuity can explain. 
 It would have Wc have another difficulty. Christianity, it 
 
 been attacked , i i i i ■ i i 
 
 by the Jews, must bc remembered, was planted and grew up 
 amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked 
 no objectionable part of the system, and who 
 must have fastened with great earnestness on a 
 doctrine involving such apparent contradictions 
 as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion, 
 against which the Jews, who prided themselves 
 on an adherence to God's unity, would have 
 raised an equal clamor. Now, how happens 
 it that in the Apostolic writings, which relate 
 so much to objections against Christianity, and 
 to- the controversies which grew out of this re- 
 ligion, not one word is said implying that ob- 
 
 [36] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 jections were brought against the Gospel from 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, not one word is 
 uttered in its defence and explanation, not a 
 word to rescue it from reproach and mistake? 
 This argument has almost the force of demon- 
 stration. We are persuaded, that, had three 
 divine persons been announced by the first 
 preachers of Christianity, all equal and all in- 
 finite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had 
 lately died on a cross, this peculiarity of Chris- 
 tianity would have almost absorbed every other, 
 and the great labor of the Apostles would have 
 been to repel the continual assaults which it 
 would have awakened. But the fact is, that 
 not a whisper of objection to Christianity, on 
 that account, reaches our ears from the ApostoUc 
 age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of con- 
 troversy called forth by the Trinity. 
 
 We have further obiections to this doctrine, n.'sunfavor- 
 
 " able to devo- 
 
 drawn from its practical influence.- We regard ''°°- 
 it as unfavorable to devotion, by dividing and 
 distracting the mind in its communion with God. 
 It is a great excellence of the doctrine of God's 
 unity, that it offers to us one object of supreme 
 homage, adoration, and love, one Infinite Father, 
 one Being of beings, one original and fountain, 
 
 [37 1 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 to whom we may refer all good, in whom all our 
 powers and affections may be concentrated, and 
 whose lovely and venerable nature may pervade 
 all our thoughts. True piety when directed to 
 an undivided Deity, has a chasteness, a single- 
 ness, most favorable to religious awe and love. 
 Now the Trinity sets before us three distinct 
 objects of supreme adoration; three infinite 
 persons, having equal claims on our hearts; three 
 divine agents, performing different offices, and 
 to be acknowledged and worshipped in different 
 relations. And is it possible we ask, that the 
 weak and limited mind of man can attach itself 
 to these with the same power and joy as to one 
 Infinite Father, the only First Cause, in whom 
 all the blessings of nature and redemption meet 
 as their centre and source? Must not devotion 
 be -distracted by the equal and rival claims of 
 three equal persons, and- must not the worship 
 of the conscientious, consistent Christian be dis- 
 turbed by an apprehension, lest he withhold 
 from one or another of these his due proportion 
 of homage? 
 It gives Jesus Wc also think, that the doctrine of the Trinity 
 
 hoBor due only . , . i , . . . 
 
 to ood. m]ures devotion not only by joinmg to the 
 Father other objects of worship, but by taking 
 
 [38] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 from the Father the supreme aflFection which is 
 hiff due, and transferring it to the Son. This 
 is a most important view. That Jesus Christ, 
 if exalted into the infinite Divinity, should be 
 more interesting than the Father, is precisely 
 what might be expected from history, and from 
 the principles of human nature. Men want an 
 object of worship like themselves, and the great 
 secret of idolatry Ues in this propensity. A 
 God, clothed in our form, and feehng our wants 
 and sorrows, speaks to our weak nature more 
 strongly th9,n a Father in heaven, a pure spirit, 
 invisible, and unapproachable, save by the re- 
 flecting and purified mind. — ^We think, too, that 
 the peculiar offices ascribed to Jesus by the popu- 
 lar theology make him the most attractive per- 
 son in the Godhead. The Father is the 
 depositary of the justice, the vindicator of the 
 rights, the avenger of the laws, of the Divinity. 
 On the other hand, the Son, the brightness of 
 the Divine mercy, stands between the incensed 
 Deity and guilty humanity, exposes his meek 
 head to the storms, and his compassionate breast 
 to the sword of the Divine justice, bears our 
 whole load of punishment, and purchases with 
 his blood every blessing which descends from 
 
 [39] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 heaven. Need we state the eflfect of these 
 representations, especially on common minds 
 for whom Christianity was chiefly designed, and 
 whom it seeks to bring to the Father as the 
 loveliest being? We do believe, that the wor- 
 • ship of a bleeding, suffering God tends strongly 
 to absorb the mind, and to draw it from other 
 objects, just as the human tenderness of the 
 Virgin Mary has given her so conspicuous a 
 place in the devotions of the Church of Rome. 
 We believe, too, that this worship, though 
 attractive is nrot most fitted to spirituahze the 
 mind, that it awakens human transport rather 
 than that deep veneration of the moral perfec- 
 tions of God which is the essence of piety. 
 2._ Unity of 2. Ha vlug thus givcu our vlcws of the Unity 
 
 of God, I proceed in the second place to observe, 
 that we beheve in the unity of Jesus Christ. 
 We beheve that Jesus is one mind, one soul, one 
 being, as truly one as we are, and equally dis- 
 tinct from the one God. We complain of the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with 
 making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ 
 two beings, and thus introduces infinite con- 
 fusion into our conceptions of his character. 
 This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant 
 
 [40] 
 
 Christ. 
 
OF UNITAEIANS 
 
 to common sense and to the general strain of 
 Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power 
 of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple 
 truth of Jesus. 
 
 According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, in- The two-na- 
 
 , .,.■.. ture doctrine 
 
 stead of being one mmd, one conscious mteihgent ^nhismE and 
 principle, whom we can understand, consists of 
 two souls, two minds; the one divine, the other 
 human; the one weak, the other almighty; 
 the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now 
 we maintain, that this is to make Christ two 
 beings. To denominate him one person, one 
 being, and yet to suppose him made up of two 
 minds, infinitely different from each other, is to 
 abuse and confound language, and to throw dark- 
 ness over all our conceptions of intelligent 
 natures. According to the common doctrine, 
 each of these two minds in Christ has its own 
 consciousness, its own will, its own percep- 
 tions. They have in fact no common prop- 
 erties. The divine mind feels none of the 
 wants and sorrows of the human, and the hu- 
 man is infinitely removed from the perfection 
 and happiness of the divine. Can you conceive 
 of two beings in the universe more distinct.'' We 
 have always thought that one person was con- 
 
 [411 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTBINES 
 
 stituted and distinguished by one consciousness. 
 The doctrine, that one and the same person 
 should have two consciousnesses, two wills, 
 two souls, infinitely diflfereht from each other 
 — this we think an enormous tax on human 
 creduUty. 
 and nowhere Wc sav, that if a doctriuc so strange, so diffi- 
 
 taught in Scrip- •" . ° ' 
 
 ture. P^jl-^ gQ remote from all the previous conceptions 
 
 of men, be indeed a part and an essential part 
 of revelation, it must be taught with great 
 distinctness, and we ask our brethren to point to 
 some plain, direct passage, where Christ is said 
 to be composed of two minds infinitely different, 
 yet constituting one person. We find none. 
 Other Christians, indeed, tell us, that this 
 doctrine is necessary to the harmony of the 
 Scriptures; that some texts ascribe to Jesus 
 Christ human, and others divine properties, 
 and that to reconcile these we must suppose two 
 minds to which these properties may be referred. 
 In other words, for the purpose of reconciling 
 certain difl&cult passages, which a just criticism 
 can in a great degree, if not wholly, explain, we 
 must invent an hypothesis vastly more difficult 
 and involving gross absurdity; We are to find 
 our way out of a labyrinth by a clue which con- 
 
 [42] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 ducts US into mazes infinitely more inextrica- 
 ble. 
 
 Surely, if Jesus Christ felt that he consisted of and mconsiB- 
 
 •' ' . n tent With Jesus' 
 
 two minds, and that this was a leading feature languase, 
 of his rehgion, his phraseology respecting himself 
 would have been colored by this pecuUarity. 
 The universal language of men is framed upon 
 the idea, that one person is one person, is one 
 mind, and one soul; and when the multitude 
 heard this langU9.ge from the lips of Jesus, they 
 must have taken it in its usual sense, and must 
 have referred to a single soul all which he spoke, 
 unless expressly instructed to interpret it differ- 
 ently. But where do we find this instruction? 
 Where do you meet, in the New Testament, the 
 phraseology which abounds in Trinitarian books, 
 and which necessarily grows from the doctrine 
 of two natures in Jesus? Where does this divine 
 teacher say, "This I speak as God, and this as 
 man; this is true only of my human mind, this 
 only of my divine"? Where do we find in the 
 Epistles a trace of this strange phraseology? 
 Nowhere. It was not needed in that day. 
 It was demanded by the errors of a later age. 
 
 We believe, then, that Christ is one mind,^yehp„„s 
 one being, and, 1 add, a being distinct from the fr^^G^*' 
 
 [43] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 one God. That Christ is not the one God, not 
 the same being with the Father, is a necessary 
 inference from our former head, in which we saw 
 that the doctrine of three persons in God is a 
 fiction. But on so important a subject I would 
 add a few remarks. We wish that those from 
 whom we differ would weigh one striking fact. 
 Jesus, in his preaching, continually spoke of 
 God. The word was always in his mouth. We 
 ask, does he," by this word, ever mean himself? 
 We say, never. On the contrary, he most 
 plainly distinguishes between God and himself, 
 and so do his disciples. How this is to be recon- 
 ciled with the idea, that the manifestation of 
 Christ, as God, was a primary object of Chris- 
 tianity, our adversaries must determine, 
 and inferior to If wc cxaminc the passages in which Jesus is 
 distinguished from God, we shall see that they 
 not only speak of him as another being, but seem 
 to labor to express his inferiority. He is con- 
 tinually spoken of as the Son of God, sent of God, 
 receiving all his powers from God, working 
 miracles becausa God was with him, judging 
 justly because God taught him, having claims 
 on our belief because he was anointed and sealed 
 by God, and as able of himself to do nothing. 
 
 [44] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 The New Testament is filled with this language. 
 Now we ask what impression this language was 
 fitted and intended to make. Could any who 
 heard it have imagined, that Jesus was the very 
 God to whom he was so industriously declared 
 to be inferior, — the very being by whom he 
 was sent, and from whom he professed to have 
 received his message and power? Let it here be 
 remembered, that the human birth, and bodily 
 form, and humble circumstances, and mortal 
 sufferings of Jesus must all have prepared men 
 to interpret, in the most unqualified manner, 
 the language in which his inferiority to God was 
 declared. Why, then, was this language used 
 so continually, and without limitation, if Jesus 
 were the Supreme Deity, and if this truth were 
 an essential part of his rehgion? I repeat it, the 
 human condition and sufferings of Christ tended 
 strongly to exclude from men's minds the idea 
 of his proper Godhead; and, of course, we should 
 expect to find in the New Testament perpetual 
 care and effort to counteract this tendency, to 
 hold him forth as the same being with his Father, 
 if this doctrine were, as is pretended, the. soul 
 and centre of his religion. We should expect 
 to find the phraseology of Scripture cast into 
 
 [45] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 the mould of this, doctrine, to hear familiarly of 
 God the Son, of our Lord God Jesus, and to 
 be told, that to us there is one God, even Jesus. 
 But instead of this, the inferiority of Christ 
 pervades the New Testament. It is not only 
 implied in the general phraseology, but re- 
 peatedly and decidedly expressed, and unaccom- 
 panied with any admonition to prevent its appli- 
 cation to his whole nature. Could it, then, 
 have been the great design of the sacred writers 
 to exhibit Jesus as the Supreme God? 
 The few texts J am awarc that these remarks will be met by 
 
 seeming to in- v 
 
 ?ra?ylre^ ™°'two or thrcc texts in which Christ is called God, 
 
 wrongly inter- i i i p j 
 
 preted. and by a class oi passages, not very numerous, 
 
 in which divine properties are said to be ascribed 
 to him. To these we offer one plain answer. 
 We say that it is one of the most established and 
 obvious principles of criticism, that language 
 is to be explained according to the known 
 properties of the subject to which it is applied. 
 Every man knows that the same words convey 
 very different ideas, when used in relation to 
 different beings. Thus Solomon built the temple 
 in a 'different manner from the architect whom he 
 employed; and God repents differently from man. 
 Now we maintain, that the known properties 
 
 [46] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings, 
 and death, his constant habit of speaking of God 
 as a distinct being from himseK, his praying to 
 God, his ascribing to God all his power and 
 offices, — these acknowledged properties of Christ 
 we say, oblige us to interpret the comparatively 
 few passages wLich are thought to make him 
 the Supreme God in a manner consistent with 
 his distinct and inferior nature. It is our duty 
 to explain such texts by the rule which we apply 
 to other texts, in which human beings are called 
 gods, and are said to be partakers of the Divine 
 nature, to know and possess all things, and to 
 be filled with all God's fulness. These latter 
 passages we do not hesitate to modify, and re- 
 strain, and turn from the most obvious sense, 
 because this sense is opposed to the known 
 properties of the beings to whom they relate; 
 and we maintain, that we adhere to the same 
 principle, and use no greater latitude, in ex- 
 plaining as we do the passages which are thought 
 to support the Godhead of Christ. 
 
 Trinitarians profess to derive some important ^^^^*„°^ 
 advantages from their mode of viewing Christ. 
 It furnishes them, they tell us, with an infinite 
 atonement, for it shows them an infinite being 
 
 [47] 
 
 finite atone- 
 menE is falla- 
 cious. 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 suflfering for their sins. The confidence with 
 which this fallacy is repeated astonishes us. 
 When pressed with the question, whether they 
 really believe that the infinite and unchangeable 
 God suflfered and died on the cross, they ac- 
 knowledge that this is not true, but that Christ's 
 human mind alone retained the pains of death. 
 How have we, then, an infinite suflferer.'' This 
 language seems to us an imposition on common 
 minds, and very derogatory to God's justice, as 
 if this attribute could be satisfied by a sophism 
 and a fiction. 
 Thoughtofa "We are also told, that Christ is a more inter- 
 
 suffenngGodis ^ ^ ■ ^ 
 
 absurd, esting object, that his love and mercy are more 
 felt, when he is viewed as the Supreme God, who 
 left his glory to take humanity and to suffer 
 for men. That Trinitarians are strongly moved 
 by this representation, we do not mean to deny; 
 but we think their emotions altogether founded 
 on a misapprehension of their own doctrines. 
 They talk of the second person of the Trinity's 
 leaving his glory and his Father's bosom, to 
 visit and save the world. But this second person 
 being the unchangeable and infinite God, was 
 evidently incapable of parting with the least 
 degree of his perfection and felicity. At the 
 
 [48] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 moment of his taking flesH, lie was as intimately 
 present with his Father as before, and equally 
 with his Father filled heaven, and earth, and 
 immensity. This Trinitarians acknowledge; and 
 still they profess to be touched and overwhelmed 
 by the amazing humiliation of this immutable 
 being! But not only does their doctrine, when 
 fully explained, reduce Christ's humiliation to a 
 fiction, it almost wholly destroys \he impressions 
 with which his cross ought to be viewed. Accord- 
 ing to their doctrine, Christ was, comparatively, 
 no sufferer at all. It is true, his human mind 
 suffered; but this, they tell us, was an infinitely 
 small part of Jesus, bearing no more proportion 
 to his whole nature, than a single hair of our 
 heads to the whole body, or than a drop to the 
 ocean. The divine mind of Christ, that which 
 was most properly himself, was infinitely happy, 
 at the very moment of the suffering of his hu- 
 manity. Whilst hanging on the cross, he was 
 the happiest being in the universe, — as happy 
 as the infinite Father; so that his pains, com- 
 pared with his felicity, were nothing. This 
 Trinitarians do and must acknowledge. It fol- 
 lows necessarily from the immutableness of the ?"/ its opposite 
 
 *' IS far more 
 
 divine nature which they ascribe to Christ; so^"^*"*"^- 
 
 [49] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 that their system, justly viewed, robs his death 
 of interest, weakens our sympathy with his 
 suflferings, and is, of all others, most unfavorable 
 to a love of Christ, founded on a sense of his 
 sacrifices for mankind. We esteem our own 
 views to be vastly more affecting. It is our 
 belief, that Christ's humiliation was real and 
 entire, that the whole Saviour, and not a part 
 of him, suffered; that his crucifixion was a scene 
 of deep and unmixed agony. As we stand round 
 his cross, our minds are not distracted, nor our 
 sensibility weakened, by contemplating him as 
 composed of incongruous and infinitely differing 
 minds, arid as having a balance of infinite 
 felicity. We recognize in the dying Jesus but 
 one mind. This, we think, renders his suffer- 
 ings, and his patience and love in bearing them, 
 incomparably more impressive and affecting 
 than the system we oppose. 
 fectk.n"o'f God' ^' Having thus given our belief on two great 
 points, namely, that there is one God, and that 
 Jesus Christ is a being distinct from and in- 
 ferior to God, I now proceed to another point on 
 which we lay still greater stress. We beheve 
 in the moral perfection of God. We consider no 
 part of theology so important as that which treats 
 
 [50] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 of God's moral character; and we value our views 
 of Christianity chiefly as they assert his amiable 
 and venerable attributes. 
 It may be said, that, in regard to this subiectjAiinommaiiy 
 
 •' . ° J ' Relieve in this, 
 
 all Christians agree; that all ascribe to the J^'^'j^lfPft.^"'" 
 Supreme Being infinite justice, goodness, and 
 hohness. We reply, that it is very possible to 
 speak of God magnificently, and to think of him 
 meanly; to apply to his person high-sounding 
 epithets, and to his government principles which 
 make him odious. The heathens called Jupiter 
 the greatest and the best; but his history was 
 black with cruelty and lust. We cannot judge 
 of men's real ideas of God by their general lan- 
 guage, for in all ages they have hoped to soothe 
 the Deity by adulation. We must inquire 
 into their particular views of his purposes, of 
 the principles of his administration, and of his 
 disposition towards his creatures. We con- 
 ceive that Christians have generally leaned 
 towards a very injurious view of the Supreme 
 Being. They have too often felt as if he were 
 raised, by his greatness and sovereignty, above 
 the principles of morality, above those eternal 
 laws of equity and rectitude to which all other 
 beings are subjected. 
 
 [51] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 ^premercid ^^ bclievc, tha,t in no being is the sense of 
 go^"*'^ right so strong, so omnipotent, as in God. We 
 believe that his almighty power is entirely 
 submitted to his perceptions of rectitude; and 
 this is the ground of our piety. It is not because 
 he is our Creator merely, but because he created 
 us for good and holy purposes; it is not because 
 his will is irresistible, but because his will is the 
 perfection of virtue, that we pay him allegiance. 
 We cannot bow before a being, however great and 
 powerful, who governs tyrannically. We re- 
 spect nothing but excellence, whether on earth 
 or in heaven. We venerate, not the loftiness of 
 God's throne, but the equity and goodness in 
 which it is established. We beUeve that God 
 is infinitely good, kind, benevolent, in the 
 proper sense of these words; good in disposition, 
 as well as in act; good, not to a few, but to all; 
 good to every individual, as well as to the general 
 system, 
 and jnst, ^g bcfieve, too, that God is just; but we 
 
 never forget that his justice is the justice of a 
 good being, dwelling in the same mind, and act- 
 ing in harmony with perfect benevolence. By 
 this attribute, we understand God's infinite 
 regard to virtue or moral worth, expressed in a 
 
 [52] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 moral government; that is, in giving excellent 
 and equitable laws, and in conferring such re- 
 wards, and inflicting such punishments, as are 
 best fitted to secure their observance. God's 
 justice has for its end the highest virtue of the 
 creation, and it punishes for this end alone, and 
 thus it coincides with benevolence; for virtue 
 and happiness, though not the same, are in- 
 separably conjoined. 
 
 God's justice, thus viewed, appears to us to be and merciful, 
 in perfect harmony with his mercy. According 
 to the prevalent systems of theology, these at- 
 tributes are so discordant and jarring, that to 
 reconcile them is the hardest task, and the most 
 wonderful achievement, of infinite wisdom. To 
 us they seem to be intimate friends, always at 
 peace, breathing the same spirit, and seeking 
 the same end. By God's mercy, we understand 
 not a blind, instinctive compassion, which for- 
 gives without reflection, and without regard to 
 the interests of virtue. This, we acknowledge, 
 would be incompatible with justice, and also 
 with enlightened benevolence. God's mercy, as 
 we understand it, desires strongly the happiness 
 of the guilty, but only through their penitence. 
 It has a regard to character as truly as his jus- 
 
 [53] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 and fatherly; 
 
 whereas Cal- 
 vinism makes 
 him unlovable, 
 
 tice. It defers punishment, and suffers long, 
 that the sinner may return to his duty, but leaves 
 the impenitent and unyielding to the fearful 
 retribution threatened in God's word. 
 
 To give our views of God in one word, we be- 
 Ueve in his Parental character. We ascribe 
 to him, not only the name, but the dispositions 
 and principles of a father. We believe that he 
 has a father's concern for his creatures, a father's 
 desire for their improvement, a father's equity 
 in proportioning his commands to their powers, 
 a father's joy in their progress, a father's readi- 
 ness to receive the penitent, and a father's jus- 
 tice for the incorrigible. We look upon this 
 world as a place of education, in which he is 
 training men by prosperity and adversity, by 
 aids and obstructions, by conflicts of reason 
 and passion, by motives to duty and tempta- 
 tions to sin, by a various discipline suited to free 
 and moral beings, for union with himself, and 
 for a sublime and ever-growing virtue in heaven. 
 
 Now we object to the systems of rehgion which 
 prevail among us, that they are adverse, in a 
 greater or less degree, to these purifying, com- 
 forting, and honorable views of God that they 
 take from us our father in heaven, and substi- 
 
 [ 54] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 tute for him a being, whom we cannot love if we 
 would, and whom we ought not to love if we 
 could. We object particularly, on this ground, 
 to that system which arrogates to.itseM the name 
 of Orthodoxy, and which is now industriously 
 propagated through our country. This system, 
 indeed, takes various shapes, but in all it casts 
 dishonor on the Creator. According to its old 
 and genuine form, it teaches that God brings 
 us into life wholly depraved, so that under 
 the innocent features of our childhood is hidden 
 a nature averse to all good, and propense to all 
 evil, a nature which exposes us to God's dis- 
 pleasure and wrath, even before we have ac- 
 quired power to understand our duties, or to 
 reflect upon our actions. According to a more 
 modern exposition, it teaches that we came from 
 the hands of our Maker with such a constitution, 
 and are placed under such influences and cir- 
 cumstances, as to render certain and infallible 
 the total depravity of every human being, from 
 the first moment of his moral agency; and it 
 also teaches, that the offence of the child, who ""in", 
 brings into life this ceaseless tendency to un- 
 mingled crime, exposes him to the sentence of 
 everlasting damnation. Now, according to the 
 
 [55] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 plainest principles of morality, we maintain, that 
 a natural constitution of the mind, unfailingly 
 disposing it to evil and to evil alone, would ab- 
 solve it from guilt; that to give existence under 
 
 •="«'• this condition would argue unspeakable cruelty, 
 
 and that to punish the sin of this unhappily 
 constituted child with endless ruin would be a 
 wrong unparalleled by the most merciless des- 
 potism. 
 
 and partial. 'j'jjjg gygtem also tcachcs, that God selects 
 
 from this corrupt mass a number to be saved, 
 and plucks them by a special influence, from the 
 common ruin; that the rest of mankind, though 
 left without that special grace which their con- 
 version requires, are commanded to repent 
 under penalty of aggravated woe; and that for- 
 giveness is promised them on terms which their 
 very constitution infallibly disposes them to 
 reject, and in rejecting which they awfully en- 
 hance the punishments of hell. These proflFers 
 of forgiveness and exhortations of amendment 
 to beings born under a blighting curse, fill our 
 minds with a horror which *we want words to 
 express. 
 
 tenho^e^^ That thls rellgious system does not produce 
 
 mirar'^oomyall the cffects ou character which might be anti- 
 
 and narrow, 
 
 [56] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 cipated, we most joyfully admit. It is often, 
 very often, counteracted by nature, conscience, 
 common sense, by the general strain of Scripture, 
 by the mild example and precepts of Christ, 
 and by the many positive declarations of God's 
 universal kindness and perfect equity. But still 
 we think that we see its unhappy influence. It 
 tends to discourage the timid, to give excuses 
 to the bad, to feed the vanity of the fanatical, 
 and to offer shelter to the bad feehngs of the 
 maUgnant. By shocking, as it does, the funda- 
 mental principles of morality, and by exhibiting 
 a severe and partial Deity, it tends strongly to 
 pervert the moral faculty, to form a gloomy, 
 forbidding, and servile rehgion, and to lead men 
 to substitute censoriousness, bitterness, and 
 persecution for a tender and impartial charity. 
 We think, too, that this system, which begins 
 with degrading human nature, may be expected 
 to end in pride, for pride grows out of a conscious- 
 ness of high distinctions, however obtained, 
 and no distinction is so great as that which is 
 made between the elected and abandoned of 
 God. 
 
 The false and dishonorable views of God and we must re- 
 which have now been stated, we feel ourselves *^''y- 
 
 [57] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 bound to resist unceasingly. Other errors we 
 can pass over with comparative indifference. 
 But we ask our opponents to leave to us a God 
 worthy of our love and trust, in whom our moral 
 sentiments may delight, in whom our weaknesses 
 and sorrows may find refuge. We chng to the 
 Divine perfections. We meet them everywhere 
 in creation, we read them in the Scriptures, we 
 see a lovely image of them in Jesus Christ; 
 and gratitude, love, and veneration call on us to 
 assert them. Reproached, as we often are, 
 by men, it is our consolation and happiness, that 
 one of our chief offences is the zeal with which 
 we vindicate the dishonored goodness and rec- 
 titude of God. 
 4. Mediation 4. Haviug thus spoken of the unity of God 
 of the unity of Jesus, and his inferiority to God 
 and of the perfections of the Divine character 
 I now proceed to give our views of the mediation 
 of Christ and of the purposes of his mission. 
 With regard to the great object which Jesus 
 came to accomplish, there seems to be no possi- 
 biUty of mistake. We believe that he was sent 
 by the Father to effect a moral or spiritual de- 
 ne cam* to liverance of mankind; that is, to rescue men 
 
 save from sin, „ , 
 
 from sm and its consequences, and to bring them 
 
 [58] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 to a state of everlasting purity and happiness. 
 We believe, too, that he accomplishes this sub- 
 Ume purpose by a variety of methods; by his 
 instructions respecting God's unity, parental in various ways, 
 character, and moral government, which are 
 admirably fitted to reclaim the world from 
 idolatry and impiety to the knowledge, love, and 
 obedience of the Creator, by his promises of 
 pardon to the penitent, and of Divine assistance 
 to those who labor for progress in moral excel- 
 lence; by the light which he has thrown on the 
 path of duty; by his own spotless example, in 
 which the loveUness and subhmity of virtue 
 shine forth to warm and quicken, as well as guide 
 us to perfection; by his threatenings against 
 incorrigible guilt; by his glorious discoveries of 
 immortahty; by his sufferings and death; by 
 that signal event, the resurrection, which 
 powerfully bore witness to his Divine mission, 
 and brought down to men's senses a future Ufe; 
 by his continual intercession, which obtains 
 for us spiritual aid and blessings; and" by 
 the power with which he is invested, of rais- 
 ing the dead, judging the world, and con- 
 ferrmg the everlasting rewards promised to 
 the faithful. 
 
 [59] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 While we differ Wc havc HO dcslre to coiiceal the fact, that a 
 
 as to the influ- , . ~, ' « . , 
 
 dSatt"''^ difierence of opinion exists among us m regard 
 to an interesting part of Christ's mediation; I 
 mean, in regard to the precise influence of his 
 death on our forgiveness. Many suppose that 
 this event contributes to our pardon, as it was a 
 principal means of confirming his religion, and 
 of giving it a power over the mind; in other 
 words, that it procures forgiveness by leading 
 to that repentance and virtue which is the great 
 and only condition on which forgiveness is 
 bestowed. Many of us are dissatisfied with this 
 explanation, and think that the Scriptures as- 
 cribe the remission of sins to Christ's death with 
 an emphasis so peculiar, that we ought to con- 
 sider this event as having a special influence in 
 removing punishment, though the Scriptures 
 may not reveal the way in which it contributes 
 to this end. 
 weagreeitwas WMlst, howevcr, wc differ in explaining the 
 God's wrath, councction between Christ's death and human 
 forgiveness, — a connection which we all grate- 
 fully acknowledge, — ^we agree in rejecting many 
 sentiments which prevail in regard to his media- 
 tion. The idea which is conveyed to common 
 minds by the popular system, that Christ's death 
 
 [60 1 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 has an influence in making God placable or 
 merciful, in awakening Kis kindness towards 
 men, we reject with strong disapprobation. We • 
 are happy to find, that this very dishonorable 
 notion is disowned by intelUgent Christians of 
 that class from which we differ. We recollect, 
 however, that not long ago it was common to 
 hear of Christ as having died to appease God's 
 wrath, and to pay the debt of sinners to his 
 inflexible justice; and we have a strong persua- 
 sion, that the language of popular religious books, 
 and the common mode of stating the doctrine 
 of Christ's mediation, still communicate very 
 degrading views of God's character. They give 
 to multitudes the impression, that the death of 
 Jesus produces a change in the mind of God 
 towards man, and that in this its eflBcacy chiefly 
 consists. No error seems to us more pernicious. 
 We can endure no shade over the pure goodness 
 of God. We earnestly maintain, that Jesus, 
 instead of calling forth in any way or degree the 
 mercy of the Father, was sent by that mercy, 
 to be our Saviour; that he is nothing to the 
 human race but what he is by God's appoint- 
 ment; that he communicates nothing but what 
 God empowers him to bestow; that our Father 
 
 [61) 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 in heaven is originally, essentially, and eternally 
 placable, and disposed to forgive; and that his 
 • unborrowed, underived, and unchangeable love 
 is the only fountain of what flows to us through 
 his Son. We conceive that Jesus is dishonored, 
 not glorified, by ascribing to him an influence 
 which clouds the splendor of Divine benevolence, 
 nor to provide Wc further agrcc in rejecting, as unscriptural 
 
 an infinite sub- 
 
 iSut^! '"' *''*and absurd, the explanation given by the popular 
 system of the manner in which Christ's death 
 procures forgiveness for men. This system used 
 to teach, as its fundamental principle, that man, 
 having sinned against an infinite being, has 
 contracted infinite guilt, and is consequently 
 exposed to an infinite penalty. We believe, 
 however, that this reasoning, if reasoning it may 
 be called, which overlooks the obvious maxim, 
 that the guilt of a being must be proportioned 
 to his nature and powers, has fallen into disuse. 
 Still the system teaches that sin, of whatever 
 degree, exposes to endless punishment, and 
 that the whole human race, being infallibly in- 
 volved by their nature in sin, owe this awful 
 penalty to the justice of their Creator. It 
 teaches, that this penalty cannot be remitted, 
 in consistency with the honor of the Divine 
 
 [62] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 law, unless a substitute be found to endure it or 
 to suffer an equivalent. It also teaches that, 
 from the nature of the case, no substitute is 
 adequate to this work, save the infinite God 
 himself; and accordingly, God, in his second 
 person, took on him human nature, that he 
 might pay to his own justice the debt of punish- 
 ment incurred by men, and might thus reconcile 
 forgiveness with the claims and threatenings of 
 his law. Such is the prevalent system. Now, An absurd doc- 
 to us, this doctrine seems to carry on its front 
 strong marks of absurdity, and we maintain 
 that Christianity ought not to be encumbered 
 with it, unless it be laid down in the New Testa- 
 ment fully and expressly. We ask our adver- 
 saries, then, to point to some plain passages 
 where it is taught. We ask for one text in which 
 we are told that God took human nature, that 
 he might make an infinite satisfaction to hisandunscrip- 
 own justice; for one text which tells us that 
 human guilt requires an infinite substitute, that 
 Christ's sufferings owe their efficacy to their 
 being borne by an infinite being, or that his 
 divine nature gives infinite value to the suffer- 
 ings of the human. Not one word of this de- 
 scription can we find in the Scriptures; not a 
 
 [63] 
 
 tural. 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 and immoral. 
 
 text, which even hints at these strange doctrines. 
 They are altogether, we beheve, the fictions of 
 theologians. Christianity is in no degree re- 
 sponsible for them. We are astonished at their 
 prevalence. What can be plainer, than that 
 God cannot, in any sense, be a sufferer, or bear 
 a penalty in the room of his creatures? How 
 dishonorable to him is the supposition, that 
 his justice is now so severe as to exact infinite 
 punishment for the sins of frail and feeble men, 
 and now so easy and yielding as to accept the 
 limited pains of Christ's human soul as a full 
 equivalent for the endless woes due from the 
 world! How plain is it, also, according to this 
 doctrine, that God, instead of being plenteous 
 in forgiveness, never forgives ! for it seems absurd 
 to speak of men as forgiven, when their whole 
 punishment, or an equivalent to it, is borne by a 
 substitute. A scheme more fitted to obscure 
 the brightness of Christianity and the mercy 
 of God, or less suited to give comfort to a guilty 
 and troubled mind, could not, we think, be 
 easily framed. 
 
 We believe, too, that this system is unfavor- 
 
 It naturally leads men 
 to think that Christ came to change God's mind, 
 
 Saving from 
 
 punishment in- . , -, ^ 
 
 jures character, able to thc charactcr 
 
 [64] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 rather than their own, that the highest object 
 of his mission was to avert punishment, rather 
 than to communicate hohness; and that a large 
 part of religion consists in disparaging good works 
 and human virtue, for the purpose of magnifying 
 the value of Christ's vicarious sufferings. In 
 this way a sense of the infinite importance and 
 indispensable necessity of personal improve- 
 ment is weakened, and high-sounding praises of 
 Christ's cross seem often to be substituted for 
 obedience to his precepts. For ourselves, we 
 have not so learned Jesus. Whilst we gratefully 
 acknowledge that he came to rescue us from 
 punishment, we believe that he was sent on a whue saving 
 still nobler errand, namely, to dehver us fromeuratesit. 
 sin itself, and to form us to a sublime and 
 heavenly virtue. We regard him as a. Saviour, 
 chiefly as he is the hght, physician, and guide ' 
 of the dark, diseased, and wandering mind. 
 No influence in the universe seems to us so glori- 
 ous as that over the character; and no redemp- 
 tion so worthy of thankfulness, as the restoration 
 of the soul to purity. Without this, pardon, 
 were it possible, would be of httle value. Why 
 pluck the sinner from hell, if a hell be left to 
 burn in his own breast.? Why raise him to 
 
 [65 1 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 heaven, if lie remain a stranger to its sanctity 
 and love? With these impressions, we are 
 accustomed to value the Gospel chiefly as it 
 abounds in effectual aids, motives, excitements, 
 to a generous and divine virtue. In this virtue, 
 as in a common centre, we see all its doctrines, 
 precepts, promises, meet; and we beheve that 
 faith in this rehgion is of no worth, and con- 
 tributes nothing to salvation, any farther than 
 as it uses these doctrines, precepts, promises, 
 and the whole Ufe, character, sufferings, and 
 triumphs of Jesus, as the means of purifying 
 the mind, of changing it into the likeness of his 
 celestial excellence, 
 s. Christian 5. Haviug thus stated our views of the high- 
 
 vutue, or hon- *-* *--* 
 
 mentJiya"°^*'6st objcct of Christ's mlssiou, that it is the re- 
 moraiafEair, (.QYeTy of men to virtuc, or holiness, I shall now, 
 in the last place, give our views of the nature of 
 Christian virtue, or true holiness. We believe 
 that all virtue has its foundation in the moral 
 nature of man, that is, in conscience, or his sense 
 of duty, and in the power of forming his temper 
 and life according to conscience'. We believe 
 that these moral faculties^ are the grounds of 
 responsibility, and the highest distinctions of 
 human nature, and that no act is praiseworthy 
 
 [66] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 any farther than it springs from their exertion. 
 We believe that no dispositions infused into us 
 without our own moral activity are of the nature 
 of virtue, and therefore we reject the doctrine 
 of irresistible Divine influence on the human 
 mind, moulding it into goodness, as marble is 
 hewn into a statue. Such goodness, if this word 
 may be used, would not be the object of moral 
 approbation, any more than the instinctive affec- 
 tions of inferior animals, or the constitutional 
 amiableness of human beings. 
 
 By these remarks, we do not mean to deny theby''God" * 
 importance of God's aid or Spirit; but by his 
 Spirit we mean *a moral, illuminating, and per- 
 suasive influence, not physical, not compulsory, 
 not involving a necessity of virtue. We object 
 strongly to the idea of many Christians respecting 
 man's impotence and God's irresistible agency 
 on the heart, believing that they subvert our 
 responsibility and the laws of our moral nature, 
 that they make men machines, that they cast 
 on God the blame of all evil deeds, that they 
 discourage good minds, and inflate the fanatical 
 with wild conceits of immediate and sensible 
 inspiration. 
 
 Among the virtues, we give the first place to Si* ir"?e't 
 
 God, 
 
 [67] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 the love of God. We believe, that this princi- 
 ple is the true end and happiness of our being, 
 that we were made for union with our Creator, 
 that his infinite perfection is the only sufficient 
 object and true resting-place for the insatiable 
 desires and unlimited capacities of the human 
 mind, and that without him our noblest senti- 
 ments — admiration, veneration, hope, and love 
 — ^would wither and decay. We believe, too, 
 that the love of God is not only essential to 
 happiness, but to the strength and perfection 
 of all the virtues; that conscience, without the 
 sanction of God's authority and retributive 
 justice, would be a weak directbr; that benevo- 
 lence, unless nourished by communion with his 
 goodness, and encouraged by his smile, could not 
 thrive amidst the selfishness and thanklessness 
 of the world; and that self-government, without 
 a sense of the Divine inspection, would hardly 
 extend beyond an outward and partial purity. 
 God, as he is essentially goodness, holiness, 
 justice, and virtue, so he is the life, motive, 
 and sustainer of virtue in the human soul. 
 emM^Tviety ^ ^^^ whilst wc camcstly inculcate the love of 
 but^counter- Q^^j^ ^g believc that great care is necessary to 
 distinguish it from counterfeits. We think that 
 
 [ 68 ] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 much, which is called piety, is worthless. Many 
 have fallen into the error, that there can be no 
 excess in feelings which have God for their 
 object; and, distrusting as coldness that self- 
 possession without which virtue and devotion 
 lose all their dignity, they have abandoned 
 themselves to extravagances, which have brought 
 contempt on piety. Most certainly, if the love 
 of God be that which often bears its name, the 
 less we have of it, the better. If reUgion be the 
 shipwreck of understanding, we cannot keep too 
 far from it. On this subject, we always speak 
 plainly. We cannot sacrifice our reason to the 
 reputation of zeal. We owe it to truth and 
 religion to maintain, that fanaticism, partial 
 insanity, sudden impressions, and ungovernable 
 transports are anything rather than piety. 
 We conceive, that the true love of God g™/ is'IL™ 
 
 1 , . I p 1 -f 1 in moral obedi- 
 
 is a moral sentiment, founded on a clear ence. 
 perception, and consisting in a high esteem 
 and veneration, of his moral perfections. 
 Thus it perfectly coincides, and is in fact 
 the same thing, with the love of virtue, 
 rectitude, and goodness. You will easily judge, 
 " then, what we estjeem the surest and 
 only decisive signs of piety. We lay no stress 
 
 [69] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTKINE8 
 
 on strong excitements. We esteem him, and 
 him only, a pious man, who practically con- 
 forms to God's moral perfections and govern- 
 ment; who shows his delight in God's benevo- 
 lence, by loving and serving his neighbour; his 
 delight in God's justice, by being resolutely 
 upright; his sense of God's purity, by regulating 
 his thoughts, imagination, and desire; and whose 
 conversation, business, and domestic Ufe are 
 swayed by a regard to God's presence and au- 
 thority. In all things else, men may deceive 
 themselves. Disordered nerves may give them 
 strange sights, and sounds, and impressions. 
 Texts of Scripture may come to them as from 
 heaven. Their whole souls may be moved, and 
 their confidence in God's favor be undoubting. 
 But in all this there is no religion. The ques- 
 tion is, do they love God's commands, in which 
 his character is fully expressed, and give up to 
 these their habits and passions? Without this, 
 ecstasy is a mockery. One surrender of desire 
 to God's will is worth a thousand transports. 
 We do not judge of the bent of men's minds by 
 their raptures, any more than we judge of the 
 natural direction of a tree during a storm. We 
 rather suspect loud profession, for we have 
 
 [70] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 observed that deep feeling is generally noiseless, 
 and least sefeks display. 
 
 We would not, by these remarks, be understood Heueious fervor 
 as Wishing to exclude from religion warmth, and w^^°.^pmgmg 
 even transport. We honor and highly value '*'""""■ 
 true religious sensibility. We believe that Chris- 
 tianity is intended to act powerfully on our 
 whole nature, — on the heart, as well as the 
 understanding and the conscience. We con- 
 ceive of heaven as a state where the love of God 
 will be exalted into an unbounded fervor and 
 joy; and we desire, in our pilgrimage here, to 
 drink into the spirit of that better world. But 
 we think that religious warmth is only to be 
 valued, when it springs naturally from an im- 
 proved character, when it comes unforced, when 
 it is the recompense of obedience, when it is 
 the warmth of a mind which understands God 
 by being like him, and when, instead of disorder- 
 ing, it exalts the understanding, invigorates 
 conscience, gives a pleasure to common duties, 
 and is seen to exist in connection with cheerful- 
 ness, judiciousness, and a reasonable frame of 
 mind. When we observe a fervor, called re- 
 ligious, in men whose general character ex- 
 presses little refinement and elevation, and whose 
 
 [71] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 piety seems at war with reason, we pay it little 
 respect. We honor religion too much to give 
 its sacred name to a feverish, forced, fluctuating 
 zeal, which has Uttle power over the life. 
 
 k'"so°im^rt- Another important branch of virtue we be- 
 lieve to be love to Christ. The greatness of the 
 work of Jesus, the spirit with which he executed 
 it, and the sufferings which he bore for our salva- 
 tion, we feel to be strong claims on our grati- 
 tude and veneration. We see in nature' no 
 beauty to be compared with the loveliness of 
 his character, nor do we find on earth a bene- 
 factor to whom we owe an equal debt. We read 
 his history with delight, and learn from it the 
 perfection of our nature. We are particularly 
 touched by his death, which was endured for our 
 redemption, and by that strength of charity 
 • which triumphed over his pains. His resur- 
 rection is the foundation of our hope of immor- 
 tality. His intercession gives us boldness to 
 draw nigh to the throne of grace, and we look 
 up to heaven with new desire, when we think 
 that, if we follow him' here, we shall there see his 
 benignant countenance and enjoy his friend- 
 ship forever. 
 
 SlvSilntrtr-''^' I need not express to you our views on the 
 
 [72] 
 
 tues, 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 subject of the benevolent virtues. We attach 
 such importance to these, that we are sometimes 
 reproached with exalting them above piety. 
 We regard the spirit of love, charity, meekuess, 
 forgiveness, Uberality, and beneficence, as the 
 badge and distinction ,of Christians, as the 
 brightest image we can bear of God, as the best 
 proof of piety. On this subject, I need not and 
 cannot enlarge; but there is one branch of 
 benevolence which I ought not to pass over iuand espedaUy 
 silence, because we think that we conceive of iti"Sement of 
 
 religious 
 
 more highly and justly than many of our breth- d'Ss'^n^^' 
 ren. I refer to the duty of candor, charitable 
 judgment, especially towards those who differ 
 in reUgious opinion. We think that in nothing 
 have Christians so widely departed from their 
 reUgion, as in this particular. We read with 
 astonishment and horror the history of the 
 Church; and sometimes, when we look back on 
 the fires of persecution, and on the zeal of Chris- 
 tians in building up walls of separation and in 
 giving up one another to perdition, we feel as if 
 we were reading the records of an infernal, 
 rather than a heavenly kingdom. An enemy 
 to every religion, if asked to describe a Chris- 
 tian, would, with some show of reason, depict 
 
 [73] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 him as an idolater of his own distinguishing 
 opinions, covered with badges of party, shutting 
 his eyes on the virtues and his ears on the argu- 
 ments of his opponents, arrogating all excellence 
 to his own sect and all saving power to his own 
 creed, sheltering under the name of pious zeal 
 the love of domination, the conceit of inf alUbility, 
 and the spirit of intolerance, and tramphng 
 on men's rights under the pretence • of saving 
 their souls, 
 since we our- Wc cau hardlv conceive of a plainer obhgation 
 
 selves are falli^ ^ "^ r- o 
 
 *•'*• on beings of our frail and f alUble nature, who are 
 
 instructed in the duty of candid judgment, than 
 to abstain from condemning men of apparent 
 conscientiousness and sincerity, who are charge- 
 able with no crime but that of differing from 
 us in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and 
 differing, too, on topics of great and acknowl- 
 edged obscurity. We are astonished at the 
 hardihood of those, who, with Christ's warn- 
 ings sounding in their ears, take on them the 
 responsibility of making creeds for his Church, 
 and cast out professors of virtuous lives for 
 imagined errors, for the guilt of thinking for 
 themselves. We know that zeal for truth is the 
 cover for this usurpation of Christ's prerogative ; 
 
 [74] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 but we think that zeal for truth, as it is called, is 
 very suspicious, except in men whose capacities 
 and advantages, whose patient deliberation, and 
 whose improvements in humility, mildness, and 
 candor, give them a right to hope that their 
 views are more just than those of their neigh- 
 bours. Much of what passes for a zeal for truth 
 we look upon with little respect, for it often ap- 
 pears to thrive most luxuriantly where other 
 virtues shoot up thinly and feebly ; and we have 
 no gratitude for those reformers, who would 
 force upon us a doctrine which has not sweetened 
 their own tempers, or made them better men 
 than their neighbours. 
 
 We are accustomed to think much of the Hiffi -Mafaaisym-^^^ 
 culties attending religious inquiries; diflBcultiesf^^Mt^ 
 springing from the slow development of our^ 
 minds, from the power of early impressions, 
 from the state of society, from human author- 
 ity, from the general neglect of the reasoning 
 powers, from the want of just principles of criti- 
 cism and of important helps in interpreting Scrip- 
 ture, and from various other causes. We find^ 
 that on no subject have men, and even good 
 men, ingrafted so many strange conceits, wild 
 theories, and fictions of fancy, as on religion; 
 
 [75] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 and remembering, as we do, that we ourselves 
 are sharers of the common frailty, we dare not 
 assume infallibility in the treatment of our 
 fellow-Christians, or encourage in common Chris- 
 tians, who have little time for investigation, the 
 habit of denouncing and contemning other 
 denominations, perhaps more enlightened and 
 virtuous than their own. Charity, forbearance, 
 a delight in the virtues of different sects, a 
 backwardness to censure and condemn, — these 
 are virtues which, however, poorly practised 
 by us, we admire and recommend, and we would 
 rather join ourselves to the church in which 
 they abound, than to any other communion, 
 however, elated with the belief of its own Ortho- 
 doxy, however strict in guarding its creed, 
 however burning with zeal against imagined 
 error. 
 h™'J?d°woJid I iiarve thus given the distinguishing views of 
 ™ws''is*more those Christians in whose names I have spoken. 
 lieir opposites. Wc havc embraccd this system, not hastily or 
 Ughtly, but after much deliberation, and we 
 hold it fast, not merely because we beheve it 
 to be true, but because we regard it as purifying 
 truth, as a doctrine according to godliness, as 
 able to "work mightily" and to "bring forth 
 
 [76] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 fruit" in them who beUeve. That we wish to 
 spread it, we have no desire to conceal; but we 
 think that we wish its diffusion, because we re- 
 gard it as more friendly to practical piety and 
 pure morals than the opposite doctrines, be- 
 cause it gives clearer and nobler views of duty, 
 and stronger motives to its performance, be- 
 cause it recommends religion at once to the 
 understanding and the heart, because it asserts 
 the lovely and venerable attributes of God, 
 because it tends to restore the benevolent spirit 
 of Jesus to his divided and afflicted Church, and 
 because it cuts off every hope of God's favor, 
 except that which springs from practical con- 
 formity to the hfe and precepts of Christ. We 
 see nothing in our views to give offence, save 
 their purity, and it is their purity which makes 
 us seek and hope their extension through the 
 world. 
 
 My friend and brother: — ^You are this day to]^^/°^^'i^i^^ 
 take upon you important duties; to be clothed "'*°'' 
 with an office which the Son of God did not dis- 
 dain; to devote yourseff to that reUgion which ' 
 the most hallowed hps have preached, and the 
 most precious blood sealed. We trust that you 
 will bring to this work a wilHng mind, a firm 
 
 [77 1 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 purpose, a martyr's spirit, a readiness to toil 
 and suffer for the truth, a devotion of your best 
 powers to the interests of piety and virtue. I 
 have spoken of the doctrines which you will 
 bSt to produc^e probably preach; but I do not mean that you 
 holy life, ^^^ ^^ ^.^^ yourself to controversy. You will 
 
 remember that good practice is the end of. preach- 
 ing, and will labor to make your people holy 
 livers, rather than skilful disputants. Be careful, 
 lest the desire of defending what you deem truth, 
 and of repelling reproach and misrepresenta- 
 tion, turn you aside from your great business, 
 which is to fix in men's minds a living conviction 
 of the obligation, sublimity, and happiness of 
 Christian virtue. The best way to vindicate 
 your sentiments is to show, in your preaching 
 and life their intimate connection with Chris- 
 tian morals, with a high and dehcate sense of 
 duty, with candor towards your opposers, with 
 inflexible integrity, and with an habitual rever- 
 ence for God. If any hght can pierce and scatter 
 the clouds of prejudice, it is that of a pure ex- 
 ample. My brother, may your hfe preach more 
 loudly than your lips. Be to this people a pat- 
 tern of all good works, and may your instruc- > 
 tions derive authority from a well-grounded 
 
 [78] 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 belief in your hearers, that you speak from the 
 heart, that you preach from experience, that 
 the truth which you dispense has wrought 
 powerfully in your own heart, that God, and 
 Jesus, and Heaven are not merely words on your 
 lips but most affecting realities to your mind, 
 and springs of hope, and consolation, and 
 strength in all your trials. Thus laboring, may 
 you reap abundantly, and have a testimony of 
 your faithfulness, not only in your own con- 
 science, but in the esteem, love, virtues, and 
 improvements of your people. 
 
 To all who hear me, I would say, with the Le^^e^'J^«»B 
 Apostle,— "Prove all things, hold fast that*""'- 
 which is good." Do not, brethren, shrink from 
 the duty of searching God's word for yourselves, 
 through fear of human censure and denun- 
 ciation. Do not think that you may innocently 
 follow the opinions which prevail around you, 
 without investigaticjp on the ground, that Chris- 
 tianity is now so purified from errors as to need 
 no laborious research. There is much reason 
 to believe that Christianity is at this moment 
 dishonored by gross and cherished corruptions. 
 If you remember the darkness which hung over 
 the Gospel for ages; if you consider the impure 
 
 [79] 
 
DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES 
 
 union which still subsists in almost every Chris- 
 tian country between the church and the state, 
 and which enlists men's selfishness and ambi- 
 tion on the side of established error; if you 
 ?Sth"from"'«'^^^''^*'^^^*^^ ^^ wha,t degree the spirit of intolerance 
 "" has checked free inquiry, not only before, but 
 
 since, the Reformation; you will see that 
 Christianity cannot have freed itself from all 
 the human inventions which disfigured it under 
 the Papal tyranny. No. Much stubble is yet 
 to be burnt; much rubbish to be removed; 
 many gaudy decorations, which a false taste has 
 hung around Christianity, must be swept away; 
 and the earth-born fogs which have long shrouded 
 it must be scattered, before this divine fabric 
 will rise before us in its native and awful majesty, 
 in its harmonious proportions, in its mild and 
 celestial splendors. This glorious reformation 
 in the Church, we hope, under God's blessing, 
 from the progress of the hiynan intellect, from 
 the moral progress of society, from the conse- 
 quent decUne of prejudice and bigotry, and, 
 though last not least, from the subversion of 
 human authority in matters of rehgion, from the 
 imposed by ha- fall of thosc hierarchies, and other human insti- 
 
 man authority. 
 
 tutions, by which the minds of individuals are 
 
 180J 
 
OF UNITARIANS 
 
 oppressed under the weight of numbers, and a 
 Papal dominion is perpetuated in the Protestant 
 Church. Our earnest prayer to God is, that he 
 will overturn, and overturn, and overturn, 
 the strongholds of spiritual usurpation, until he 
 shall come whose right it is to rule the minds of 
 men; that the conspiracy of ages against the 
 liberty of Christians may be brought to an end; 
 that the servile assent so long yielded to human 
 creeds may give place to honest and devout in- 
 quiry into the Scriptures;' and that Christianity, 
 thus purified from error, may put forth its al- 
 mighty energy, and prove itself, by its ennobling 
 influence on the mind, to be indeed "the power 
 of God unto salvation." 
 
 [81] 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 mt^ B 
 
 1^^¥r¥- 
 
 
 
 
 K3oe m V 
 
 
 
 ' — 1. ^ / 
 
 f^^t 
 
 
 
 Vi^ j 
 
 '>/^/6G 
 
 
 
 ^^m— (^ 
 
 'Hf^^l^ P-J ■ 
 
 u 
 
 
 >',:5 1 1 
 
 
 
 I '■■qi 
 
 y VQJ^ 
 
 *-„ 
 
 
 WP.^^ 
 
 1^^ 
 
 
 
 wm 
 
 ^49^6^' 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w*?fl^ 
 
 
 
 JS 
 
 
 
 
 «(rfj 
 
 ^-^-mi 
 
 (£ — , 
 
 
 jpy-HJ 
 
 7Q^\ 1 
 
 g'' 
 
 
 ^,^ -^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^r^^t^''^ 
 
 pt) 15 It 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U-S.A.