It it ' ' '' -jL2it Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031695343 Cornell University Library arV15083 Discourses on the unity of God. and othe 3 1924 031 695 343 oiin.anx DISCOURSES ON THE UNITY OF §0D AND OTHER SUBJECTS, DELIVERED IH THE CHURCH OF THE MESSIAH. BY WILLIAM G. ELIOT, JH., Pastor of the First Congregational Society of St. Louis. I ST. LOUIS: PaiNTED AT THE REPUBLICAN OFFICE. 1852. y^^-'^r^ o >\ '\^^%yv> INTRODUCTORY ADDRRESS. Tbere are two popular eriors concerning Unitarians, as a, body of believers, which I am desirous of removing from the minds of all who read this book : Firsf, it is supposed that we deny the existence of Mystery in religion, and that we refuse to receive any doctrine which we cannot perfectly understand. I should doubt if human presumption ever went so far, if I had not read somewhere the words of a philosophical believer who said " Where Mystery begins. Religion ends." In all depai'tments of human inquiry we find mystery, that is, something hidden from us and beyond our present reach, and it would be strange if religion were an exception to the general rule. All the subjects of which it treats are, by their nature, beyond our perfect comprehension. We may learn something of them, wo may obtain glimmerings of the infinite truth, enough for present guidance and comfort and encouragemsnt, and that 19 IV INTBODUCTOBY ADDRESS. all. God, Eternity, Immortality, Redemption, Account- ability, Judgment: what infinite verities do these words convey, yet how completely are we overwhelmed in their contemplation ! There is not one of them that we can perfectly explain. Our own souls are an unfathomable mystery to us, and how can we expect to comprehend the Nature of God and of Christ and all the secrets of the spiritual world of which we form a part? We have no such expectation and make no such promise. We come to the study of religious subjects with reverential feel- ings, hoping to learn enough for our salvation, not expecting to know all. But what is distinctly revealed we do expect to know, and as far as we receive distinct ideas, we expect them to be consistent with each other. Mystery and contradiction are very diiferent things. The former is something beyond our sight, or seen imperfectly. The latter is plainly seen to be untrue. It may concern subjects of which we know very Uttle, but of every subject we know enough to see that two contra- dictory statements cannot both be true. We know very little, for example, about electricity, but if any one were to say that it is a self moving and independent power, and also ap agent which never moves except by our will, we should answer, that although the subject is one eQvelQped ia mystery, the statement coDcerning it is INTKODUCTORY ADDRESS. V manifestly false. Applying this to religious things : The Union between God and Christ is a subject beyond our perfect comprehension — it is therefore a mystery; but as Christ has declared that he could " do nothing of him- self; " that he "spake not of himself," but only "as the Father gave him commandment," we are prepared to see that those who assert that he was equal with the Father and independent in his authority, are in error. The subject is mysterious, but the contradiction is plain. So when Christ asserts that he did not know of a certain future event (see Mark xiii. 32), the assertion that he was nevertheless Omniscient, is evidently a denial of what he said. The limits of his knowledge we cannot define, but he plainly asserts that some limits do exist, which is a distinct denial of Omniscience. The second error concerning us is of a Uke kind : It is often said that we set Reason in opposition to Revela- tion, or above it, and that therefore we do not come to Scripture with a teachable spirit. This is not true, nor is any thing like it true. We do indeed think that the Unitarian system of Christianity is more rational than what is commonly called Orthodoxy at the present day, and this is one argument for its truth ; for as Reason and Revelation are both of them God's work, there cannot be any real opposition between them. If we are sure of VI INTEODtrCTOBY ADDEESS. any doctriae that it is irrational or self conti'adictoi-y, we may be equally sure that it is not a revealed truth. Revelation may tell us a great many things which are beyond our discovery, and which we can but imperfectly understand ; as when it te!ls us that God answers prayer, or that " he works within us both to will and to do, of his good pleasure." It makes us feel that the Truth is above us, and that however earnestly we may reach upwards, we cannot perfectly attain it. But at the same time it develops, enlarges and strengthens our rational nature, while commanding us to believe. Christianity never tells us to stop thinking, but to "prove all things and hold fast what is good." We are not commanded to receive any doctrine without inquiry, but to ''search the scriptures daily to see" what is true, and of ourselves "to judge what is right." We ask no charter of freedom greater than this ; but this charter we do claim, not only as rational beings, but as christians. The outcry against reason made by many religionists, is not only unwise, but inconsistent with their own prac- tice; nor are there any christians who adhere more closely to the plain and dii-ect meaning of the Bible than Unitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is no where plainly taught in Scripture, nor can it be stated in Scripture words ; it is a doctrine of inference, built up INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. VH by arguments, and depending upon distinctions so nice and difficult, that it requires a good deal of metaphy- sical acuteness to perceive them. A crusade against reason comes with ill grace from those who use it so freely. There is no such doctrine in the Unitarian system, but it would be puerile to deny that reason is used in our religious researches. We become christians only by its use. There is no other means by which we can guard ourselves from gross superstition. We cannot use it too freely or too much, so long as we use it reverently and with prayer. It only remains to say that the following Sermons were delivered in the Church of the Messiah soon after its dedication. They were not prepared as controver- sial discourses, and do not pretend to be a complete discussion of the subjects introduced. In their pre- paration I must acknowledge my great indebtedness to two works, "Concessions of Trinitarians," and "Illus- trations of Unitarianism," by that ingenious and learned man, John Wilson, of Boston, formerly of England. To his industry I am indebted for a great part of my quotations from Tidnitarian writers. W. G. E. St. Louis, April 10, 18.32. UNITY OF GOD. ZECH. XIV. 9. JLNS JEHOTAH SHALL BE KINO OVER ALL THE EAKTH. IS THAT DAT THERE SHALL BE ONE JEHOVAH AND HIS NAUE OUB. JOHN XVII. 3. THIS 13 LIFE ETERNAL, THAT THET MIGHT KNOW THEBj THE ORLT TRUE QODf AND JBSUS CHRIST WUOU. THOU HAST SENT. I have selected the first of these two passages, be- cause it not only contains the belief of the prophet in the Unity of God, but it is also a prophecy that, in the Messiah's time, the same doctrine should be more fully established : for he says " in that day there shall be One Jehovah, and his name One"' — ^words which convey the idea of absolute Unity as strongly as any words can. The second passage contains the words of Christ himself and declare with equal plainness the same doctrine. They are words spoken in prayer, " These words spake Jesus and lifted up his eyes to Heaven, and said. Father the hour is come ; glorify thy Son , that thy Son also may glorify thee ; as diouhast given. 1 10 UNITY OF GOB. him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." When we consider that these are words of prayer spoken by him, who is sometimes supposed equal with the Father; when we look at their great explicitness, at the distinction which they make between the Father and the Son, at the emphasis with which they declare the Father's supremacy ; we see how important they are in the coutroversy between the Unitarian and Trin- itarian believer. For the act of prayer is in itself an admission of supremacy; and when, in that prayer, we find the distinct assertion that the Father is the onlt TRUE GOD, by whom Jesus Christ was sent, there seems to be nothing else needed for the final and conclusive argument. If we try to imagine some method in which Christ could have put the controversy at rest, I think we could find none less open to objection than this. If such words, under such circumstances, can be explain- ed away, it would be in vain to seek for others which will stand. Having such authority to rest upon, we begin oux inquiry this evening. My subject is the Unity of God, and I shall attempt to prove that this is the doc- trine both of the Old Testament and the New. But as aU Christians receive this doctrine in some form, it is UNITY or GOC. 11 necessary to state more explicitly the position we de- sire to establish. When we speak Of the Unity of God, we take the word in its common meaning ; we mean simple, absolute, undivided unity. We mean that God is one being, one person, one Infinite and almighty Jehovah, the Creator and Upholder of all things. We do not pretend to understand the nature of God perfectly. Both in his being and in his attri- butes he is far above our comprehension. But we find no sufficient authority in the scripture for increasing the difficulty, by dividing the unity of his being into a trinity of persons ; a distinction which is beyond our clear conception and which seems to us to lead to hope- less contradiction : for by each person we must under- stand one who has existence, consciousness, wiU and attributes of his own, and this is also the definition of a separate being. The more earnestly we seek to ex- plain this apparent contradiction, that there are three and yet only one, three persons but one being, the greater the difficulty becomes ; until we must end as most persons do end, with saying, that it is an unfa- thomable mystery, in which we must believe without questioning. Now, we distinctly say that if the scrip- ture is so, we wiU try to believe it. We do not set up our reason against scripture which is the acknowledged revelation of God; but we must use our reason to search the scripture, before we can admit a doctrine 13 UNITY or 60B. SO obscure and so difficult. We have a right to ex- pect plain proof before we can be required to believe it. Upon this basis we proceed to consider the sub- ject. The Unitarian belief is, that there is one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. The Trinitarian believes that there is one God, Father, Son and Spirit; that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, yet that there are not three Gods but one God. Which of these is the true doctrine ? You see the exact point of differ- ence, and I cannot help here saying that we have this advantage : we can express our whole belief in unal- tered bible language. We beheve in one God the Father ; and the apostle Paul speaks with us when he says, " to us, there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Cor. viii. 6. And again, when he says, " there is one God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all." Eph. iv. 6. We say that the Father- alone is the supreme God ; and herein we have the testimo- ny of Christ himself in the words of our text, " that we may know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." It is very important, in the defence of what we believe, to say that no similar statement of the Trinitarian belief concerning God^ UNITY or eon. 113 can be made in unaltered scripture language. It seems to me almost fatal to that belief, because,' beiAg con- fessedly obscure and difficult, its plain statement is by so much the more desirable, and, if it were true, might be confidently expected from those who " declared the whole counsel of God." It is a very strong argument against such a doctrine, that it cannot be expressed or explained, without a departure from scripture language. Let us turn, however, more carefully to the law and the testimony. We look first to the Old Testament from which our argument is brief and conclusive. The great object of that dispensation, under Moses and the prophets, was to establish the doctrine of God's Unity. When Moses was appointed the leader of Israel, he found his people buried in gross superstition and idol- atry. He led theni forth from Egypt in the name of the great I am, the Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He instructed them in the history of past times, and for this purpose the book of Genesis was written: to show that the God, in whose name he spoke was the same God by whom the heavens and the earth were created, by whom the wickedness of men had in times past been punished, by whom a part of the human race had been saved from the general destruction, by whom their ancestors, Abraham and his children, had been greatly blessed, in that land of 14 OlflTY OF GOD. ■promise to which he was now about to lead them, ana establish them there as a great people. When he brought them to the foot of Mount Sinai in the wilder- ness, after they had been rescued by the strong hand and outstretched arm of the Almighty, in the midst of the fire and the smoke, this eternal truth was spoken: " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah." I use the word Jehovah, instead of Lord, because, as you know, wherever the latter is printed in capitals in the Old Testament, the original Hebrew is Jehovah. Now, this word is derived from ha yah, to be, and means self existence; so that the meaning is "Hear O Israel, the self existent one, thy God is the only self existent.'' That was the great central doctrine of the Jewish religion. They received it slowly and unwillingly ; it was too grand for their degraded minds and they re- turned again and again to the idolatries of the heathen. For a thousand years, their history is a succession of defeats and victories. So long as they held fast to their national belief in Jeho^'uh, as the only God, they were superior to all their enemies ; but whenever they were corrupted by idolatrous practices they were shorn of their strength, and brought low. Thus it contin- ued through the time of the Judges and of the Kings, during which prophets were sent to them from time to time, to reiterate the one great truth, on the preserva- UNITY OP OOD. 15 tion of which their existence, as a nation, depended.^ They declared it in the most empKatic language ; they enforced it by threats of the most terrible punishment, if it was forsaken, and by the most glorious promises, if it was faithfully adhered to. There would be no end to the task if I were to at- tempt to give quotations in proof of this. Let me offer, however, a few as a sample : Deut. xxxii. 39, " See now that I, even I am He, and there is no God with me ! I kill and I make aHve." Isaiah, xliv. 6, " Thus saith Jehovah: beside me there is no God: is there a God beside me ? yea there is no God ; I know not any." Isaiah xlv. 5, and elsewhere, " I am Jeho- vah and mere is none else. To wnorti tnen wm ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto him ; to whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One ; for I am God and there is none else ; I am God and there is none like me." If it were needful, we might bring several hundred instan- ces as strong and conclusive as these ; but those who are familiar with the Old Testament, will not require it ; they will admit that the great labor of all the pro- phets, from Moses tiU the time of captivity, was to teach the unity of God and the purity of his worship. It is all a commentary upon the words spoken upon Mount Sinai, "Jehpvah, thy God, is one Jehovah." 16 rinTY or Cob, But their instructions were almost in vain. The people were still corrupted, again and again, by the nations around, until the judgments of God came upon them with more dreadful calamities. They were com- pletely subdued and carried into captivity by the Assy- rians and Chaldeans. There, in the land of strangers, when their harps were hung upon the willow, and they remembered with sadness the desolation of the temple of God, the eternal truth of God's Unity was indeUbly impressed upon the heart of the Jewish people ; it was burnt in by sorrow, never again to be erased. When a smaE remnant returned to Palestine, it was as the worshipers of one God, and to them the prophet Zech- araih spoke, when prophesying of the Messiah's time, in the words of our text, " Jehovah shall be king over all the earth ; in that day, there shall be One Jehovah and his name one." The nation had yet many calami- ties to endure, many vicissitudes of fortune ; but among them all, they never departed again from the lesson which had been so severely learned. Such is a general view of the Old Testament, which is, I think, decisive of the question before us. If it had been intended by those who spoke under the in- spiration of God, to convey some pecuhar idea of unity, different from that which the word ordinarily conveys, as for example a Trinity in Unity instead of absolute unity, would it not have been somewhere dis- UNITY OP COD. 17 tinctly expressed ? Would the chosen people of God, whose special mission was to teach the truth concern- ing God's nature, have been left in ignorance of so important a doctrine as this ? Would it not rather have modified aU the instructions of the prophets and ap- peared in aU their teaching ? But what hint do we find of such a thing? From Genesis to Malachi, where do we find a single expression, which would convey to an unprejudiced mind such an idea ? To shew how diligently the record has been search- ed for such passages, and with what small success ; the words " a three fold cord cannot be broken," and the passages in which the word holy is repeated three times, as " holy, holy, holy Lord God Ahnighty," have been quoted and greatly relied upon by learned theolo- gians, as a proof of the Trinity in Unity. When such trifles are relied upon, it is a tolerably good proof that sound argument is wanting. We scarcely need to be informed that the repetition of the word " holy" is only an evidence of intense feeling, as when David said in his affliction, " Oh my son AbsEilom, my son, my son Absalom !" Or, as in the exclamation of Jeremiah, "Oh earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Jehovah !" or as in- Rev. viii. 13, " Woe, woe, woe to the inhab- itants of the earth." It is just as we would say thrice holy, or thrice cursed ; conveying intense feeling and nothing pipref 18 UNITY OP GOD. We must also refer to two arguments, which, although they are abandoned by the most learned " Orthodox critics, are still insisted upon by many persons. The first is, that the Hebrew word " Elo- heem," translated God,' is in the plural number, indi- cating, as is supposed, a plurality of persons in the Godhead. Our answer to this is the same which is given by John Calvin and Professor Stuart, whose or- thodoxy will not be questioned, and is in these words ; " For the sake of emphasis, the Hebrews conraionly employed most of the words which signify Lord, God, &c., in the plural form, but with the sense of the sin- gular." In proof of which, I refer to Exodus, vii. 1, where the word God is apphed to Moses, " And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh." The Hebrew is here in the plural and, lit- erally translated, would be Gods. A similar passage occurs, 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where the word Gods, in the plural number, is apphed to Samuel. In fact, this plural form to nouns of a singular niunber is a com- mon idiom in the Hebrew language where intensity of meaning is expressed. The names of many of the heathen idols as of Baal, of Dagon, of Ashtoreth, Beelzebub, and even of the golden calf made by Aaron, are all in the plural number. So in Gen. xxiv. 9, where it is said, the servant put his hand on the thigh of Abraham his master, the word master, is in the UNITY OP GOD. 19 Hebrew plural, that is, masters. The same mode of expression occurs in other places, of Potiphur, of Pha- raoh, and of Joseph, all of whom are spoken of in the plural number, as a token of unusual respect. I have before me no less than fifty instances, in which words having a singular meaning are in the plural form, ac- cording to the Hebrew usage. As in Prov. i. 20, " Wisdom cryeth without ; she uttereth her voice in the street ;" the Hebrew word for wisdom is in the plm'al. In the same manner, I can give you instances in which the words, salvation, love, truth, desolation, death, pride, and many others are in the plural form in the Hebrew, though translated in the singular. These considerations are enough to show that the use of the word Eloheem, is, according to Prof. Stuart's explana- tion, nothing but a Hebrew idiom, upon which no doc- trine of a plurality of persons can be built. The other argument to which I refer is of a similar sort. It is founded upon the words, Gen. i. 26, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," which we also regard as an idiomatic mode of expression, commonly called the plural of excellence or of dignity. We can give instances in sacred scripture of its use by earthly kings, by Jesus Christ, by the apostle Paul, and by many others. In 1 Thess. ii. 18, are these words, " Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again, but Satan hindered us ; 20 t/NITY OF GOD. where the apostle applies the pronouns, me and us, fO himself. We might quote other passages shewing the same use of the plural, but it is not needful, as the argument is abandoned by a large part of Trinitarian writers. Martin Luther, Grotius, Bishop Patrick, Dr. South, Dr. Sam. Johnson, Archbishop Whately, are all good Orthodox authorities and all of them agree with us upon this point. I do not know of any other arguments now used, to prove that a plurality of persons in the Godhead is hinted at in the Old Testament. One thing, very im- portant, is certain, that if any such hints were convey- ed, the Jews never understood them. The presump- tion is that they knew their own language, and it is certain, they understood that the Unity of God was taught by their scriptures, in the most absolute and im- qualified manner. Such was their interpretation of Moses and the prophets at the time when Christ came. In all Palestine there probably could not have been found a single man or woman, who supposed that tliere was any distinction of persons^such as is now taught, in the Unity of God. If therefore such a doctrine is contained in the New Testament, it must have been completely a new Reve- lation to the Jews ; and not only new, but also strange. At first sight, it must have appeared to them then, as it does now, subversive of their ancient doctrine. It T7NITY OF GOD. 21 would have been necessary, therefore, for the Savior and his apostles to state- it very plainly, and to prove its consistency with the law of Moses. If we find no such statement, the presumption is that there was no such doctrine. Silence, under such circumstances, would be a fuH consent to the old Jewish belief in the Unity of God. What shall we say then, when we find that this doc- trine is re-afhrmed, over and over again, by Christ and his apostles, in the strongest possible language, which is used without any explanation, or any hint that a pe- culiar sense is to be attached to the word One, when applied to God ? No less than thirteen hundred and twenty-six times, is the word God used in the books of the New Testament, without any explanation to guard us from what our Trinitarian friends would call a fatal error, upon this which is the fundamental doctrine of religion. This is a tolerably strong case ; but a more careful examination will make it still stronger. Let us look at the teaching of Christ himself first, and then of his apostles. Christ uniformly spoke of God as his Fa- ther, and of the Father as the only God. Ahnost.his first recorded words are these, " Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." He prayed to God as his Father, and taught his disci- ples to pray in the same words, "Our Father who art in 22 UNITT OP OOD. heaven." Upon one occasion when some one called him " good master," he answered, " why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." Upon another occasion, when asked, what is the first commandment of all, he • commenced in the very words of the law, spoken from Mt. Sinai, " Hear O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and all thy mind, and all thy strength. This is the first and great commandment." Observe, how solemn is this affirmation of the old doctrine ; it is a Re-enactment of the great central law of the Jewish religion, without one word of amendment or qualifica- tion. Can we ask anything'more ? But we have more, if possible. If this were all, it might perhaps he argued that the word " God " in- cludes the idea of tri-personality in the Father, Son, and Spirit ; but the Savior has forbidden such a con- struction by teaching us, that the God of whom he spoke, is the Father only. We once more refer to the words of our text, words of prayer to the Father: " This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." He speaks of himself, the Son, as a separate being, dependent on the Father. " Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." Again, in his prediction of his heavenly exaltation he says, " hereaf- UNITY OP ODD. 23 ter shall the son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. So when in the garden of Gethse- mane, he prayed to the Father, " Not my will, but thine he done." And on the cross, in the time of his last agony, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ;" and yet once more, after his resurrection, he said to his disciples, "I ascend unto my Father, and to your Father, to my God, and to your God." Thus, through his whole ministry, he used the same uniform and familiar language. I ask you again to remember that this language was addressed to those who had no conception of any other doctrine than the absolute Unity of God. How must they have understood it? I think, just as we understand it now, when we say, " To us, there is but one God, even the Father." The Savior's testimony is therefore the same with that of Moses. But although this is admitted by many Trinitarians, it is said that the revelation of the new doctrine was reserved until after the descent of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost. Let us look then at the preaching of the apostles at that time, and sub- sequently. We find it to be -exactly the same ; the same language is used concerning God, without any hint that it is to be taken in a peculiar sense. These are their words : " The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of oui Fathers hath glori- fied his son Jesus, whom God hath raised from the 24 tJNITT OF COD. dead." And again: " This Jesus hath God raised up. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." This language is repeated in the first six or seven chapters of the Book of Acts, over and over again ; and God is always spoken of without any qual- ifying word, as the only Supreme Being by whom Christ was sent, raised up, and glorified. Does this look like the revelation of a new doctrine concerning God? In the 17th chapter of Acts, Paul makes a distinct declaration concerning God. He found an altar in Athens, erected to the unknovsTi God, and said, " whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Now, what is his declaration? "That God who made the world, and all things therein, is Lord of heaven and earth ; that in him we live, and move, and have our being ; that we are his offspring, and that he hath appointed a day in which he -niU judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance, in that he hath raised him from the dead." The time would fail me, to speak of all the instances of this kind. The epistles are full of them. The common mode in which God is there spoken of is, as " the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;" as, truiTT 0* 600. 25 for example, 2 Cor. i. 3 : " Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mer- cies, and the God of all comfort." Again, Eph. iii, 14, "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." And Phil. ii. 11, "That every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Observe, that these passages not only imply the su- premacy of one God, but they also declare that this one God is the Father only. The same God whom the apostle elsewhere calls " the King eternal, immor- tal, invisible, the only wise God, who is the blessed and only potentate, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power ever- lasting." AU these are words of the New Testament. I ask you again, could they be made more explicit ? If I, as a Unitarian minister, were to task myself in finding words to express the perfect unity and absolute supremacy of God the Father, cowld any words be found more conclusive than these ? It appears, therefore, that the language of the Bible is uniform, from first to last, on this subject. Moses and the prophets ; Jesus Christ, both before and after his resurrection; and the apostles, both before and after the day of Pentecost, assert, in the same unqual- 26 UNITY OP OOD. ified words, that the Father is the only living and true God. Upon what ground, then, are we authorized to divide that ahsolute Unity ? Suppose that we were to find two or three passages which seem to imply such a division. Ought we not to explain them, if possible, in accord- ance with the great prevailing doctrine? Ought we, for the sake of them, to introduce inextricable confxision into our ideas of God ? I think not. When we have so strong a general case made out, we ought not to feel troubled by a few difficulties in detail. The lan- guage which we have quoted is so plain, that we cannot be(' mistaken in its meaning. ^Ve hold to that plam meaning, and by doing so, we are Unitai'ians. 1 say this, not because the difficulties in our way are many or great, but because it is important for the young inquirer to take this position. He ought not to expect to explain every text of scripture to his perfect satisfaction ; some difficulties will still remain, but they ought not to trouble him, where the general conclusion is so well established. In the present case, however, the remaining difficulties are few. There are but two texts of any importance which are supposed to imply the doctrine of a Trinity. The first is the form of baptism: "Go ye and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, of tlie Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But this teaches no Trinity of UNITY O? GOD. 27 persons, much less of equal persons in the Godhead. On the contrary, the use of the word Son implies inferi- ority. The wordsjvmean that we should be baptized into faith in God as our Father, in the Son of God as our Savior, and in the Holy Spirit as the guiding influence which proceeds from God. This comprises the whole christian faith. It is sometimes said,, that to be bap- tized in the Son is a proof of his deity ; but it is not so ; for Paul speaks of the Jews as having been baptized into Moses. It does not f oUow, that because the three are spoken of together, that they are equal to each other ; for in Num. xxi. 5, we read, " The people came to Moses and said, we have sinned ; we have spoken against Jehovah and against thee." And again, 1 Chron. xxix. 20, "AH the congregation blessed Jehovah, God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped Jehovah and the King." And 1 Sam. xxiv. 32, " David said to Abi- gail, blessed be Jehovah, God of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me ; and blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, who hast kept me this day from shed- ding blood." You wiU observe the strength of this 'language. It is an ascription of praise — ^first, to Jehovah, God of Israel, then to her advice, and then to herself. But the ascription is to be understood differently in each case. So when we read that they worshiped Jehovah and the King, we understand the 28 t>»ITt OP COB. first as supreme worship, and the second as -the homage Of respect. In all such cases, which are frequent in the bible, common sense saves us fronj error. Although two or three subjects are spoken of in the same con- nexion, it does not follow that they are spoken of in the same sense, much less that they are the same thing, or equal to each other. Nor does it follow that the Holy Spirit is a person, because we are baptized into its name. For, accor- ding to a common mode of expression among the Jews, the name of a thing often meant the thing itself ; so the Rabbins speak of being baptized into the name of liberty, and the Samaritans circumcised their con- verts into the name of Mt. Gerizim. If you feel any remaining doubt as to this passage, which is regarded as the great bulwark of the Trinita- rian belief, I can refer you to a great many orthodox authorities which admit the interpretation now given. Among them are the celebrated Erasmus, Dr. Ward- law, Schleusner, Michaelis, and Professor Stuart of Andover. They all of them declare, that, although the baptismal form will bear a trinitarian meaning, it may also be interpreted differently, without violence to the language. The other text to which I referred, is, 1 John v. 7. " There are three which bear record in Heaven — ^the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three UniTY OF GOD. 29 are one." Of which we say — first,, if we admit its genuineness, it affords no argument against the doc- trine of the unity. The Greek word translated one, is in the neuter gender, and means, not. one being, but one thing ; which is, according to the use of scripture, not identity, but agreement ; as when it is said, " He that soweth and he that watereth, are one ; " or, as the Savior prays for his disqiples, " that they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee." It is so that the passage is interpreted by Calvin. He says : " The expression, ' these three are one,' refers not to essence, but to consent; as if the apostle had said, the Father and his eternal word and spirit harmoniously bear testimony to Christ. There is no doubt that the Father, Word, and Spirit, are called one in the same sense as blood, water, and spirit, in the following verse." The same explanation is given by the cele- brated Beza, one of the great orthodox authorities : and McKnight, the author of an orthodox commentary, has these words, " It was not to John's purpose to speak here of the unity of the heavenly witnesses, in respect either of their nature or of their number. I am therefore of opinion,^that when he wrote ' these three are one,' he meant only that they are one in respect of the agreement of their testimony, conformably to the use of the same phrase in other parts of the New Tes- tament." With such authority, therefore, as that of 30 ClfITT or GOO. Calvin, Beza, and McKnight, on our side, to which I might add that of twenty-two others, equally distin- guished as Trinitarians, whose names I have now hefore me, we need not hesitate to give a Unitarian explanation to this famous text. Truth compels me, however, to add, that the text, such as it is, is spurious. It has no proper place in the Bible, of which we have the following proof: "1. It is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earher than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manuscript earher than the ninth century. 3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesia:stical writers, though, to prove the doctrine of the Trinity, they have cited the words both before and after it. 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is supposed to have been forged. 7. It has been omitted, as spu- rious, in many editions of the New Testament, since the reformation ; in the two first of Erasmus ; in those of Aldus, Colinseus, Zwinglius, and lately of Gries- bsich. 8. It was omitted by Luther, in his German version. In the old English bibles of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and EhtabBtb, it •Wsis printed in small tJWITY or GOD. 31 types, or included in brackets ; but between the years ]566 and 16S0, it began to be printed as it now stands, by wliose authority is not known." With such evi- dence before him, Bishop Lowth says: "We have some wranglers in theology, sworn to fojlow their master, who are prepared to defend any thing, how- ever absurd, should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree conver- sant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who would be willing to contend foi the genuineness of the verse, 1 John v. 7." You will see upon how slender a basis the doctrine of a Trinity rests. There is not a single passage of the Bible in which it is distinctly stated, not one in which it is clearly implied. The doctrine of the Divine Unity, therefore, remains unimpeached. It is written all over the Old and New Testaments, just as it is writ- ten all over the works of God every where in the universe; "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah.'' This is life eternal, that we may know thee, the only tkue God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. THE HOLY SPIEIT. JOHN IT. ?J; : OOD IS A SPIRIT. My subject this evening, is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Last Sunday I attempted to show that* the doc- trine of the Divine Unity, unqualified and.,uiidivid(id, "Ts taught 'ByTEe'Oid Testanaent and New_Testament ScripttrreSl" that God is our Father, and that the^Father is the only true "Goi^the God of Abraham, of Jgjag, and-o-f- Jatiob, and the God and._Fathcr of jour Jjord Jesus Christ. This is the foundaUoii,p» ^yhidl we xest our faith. ""^hose who impugn this doctrine, or who modify it by a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, attempt to prove that Christ, the Son of God, is eq't^cZ 3vttLjlia Father, and, in some sense, the same with the Father : - also, that the Spirit of God has a personality and attri- butes, separate from God the Father and God the Son. Having thus asserted these points separately, they join fliem together, undera modified doctrine of the Divine 34 THE HOLT SPIRIT. Unity, as a Trinity of persons in one Grod. The most important step in their argument is to prove the Deity of Christ, that is, his equality or identity with the Fa- ther, and it might naturally be expected that this would form the next subject of our inquiry. Such is the usual course ; but I have two reasons for departing from it by taking the doctrine of the Holy Spirit first. In the first place, I think that sufficient prominence is not giv- en to this doctrine in the Trinitarian controversy. It is too often taken for granted, or accepted with almost no proof. Trinitarians, if they can satisfy themselves of the Deity of Christ, consider that their whole work is done. Very few are aware upon what slender proof the separate personahty of the Holy Spirit rests. Very few are aware of what is the fact, that this doctrine was not even asserted in the christian church, nor made a part of the creed, until the end of the fourth century, by the council of Constantinople. I wish this to appear : both that the importance of the doctrine and the difficulty of receiving it in any other way than that in which we receive it, may be known. I wish it to appear that the scripture language concerning the Holy Spirit confirms our view of the Unity ; that no doctrine of the Holy Spirit can be found such as is necessary to establish the Trinity. If I can succceed in this, we shall then come to the consideration of Christ's nature, vidth a strong presumption that our THE HOLY SPIRIT. 35 view of him is correct ; for I think that if it plainly ap- pears that a third person in the Trinity cannot be proved, very few persons will undertake to prove the second and the doctrine of the Divine Unity would therefore become more impregnable. I take this course also for another reason. There is no subject upon which Unitarians are more misrepre- sented than this of the Holy Spirit. Because we deny a separate personality we are thought to deny the Holy Spirit itself, that is, to reject all belief in divine influ- ences for the regeneration of the heart and guidance of the life. Many persons hold to the doctrine of the Trinity because they suppose that its denial would in- volve an error like this. They shrink from the Unita- rian belief for the same reason. They feel the neces- sity! of those heavenly influences which are the work- ings of the divine spirit, and from their faith in such influences their chief enjoyment in religion proceeds. Shall they give it up ? Even if overthrovini in argument, shall they yield all the blessedness of their rehgion ? We say no. If such were the alternative let the doc- trine of the Trinity be adhered to, with or without proof. The necessity of the heavenly influence which the heart acknowledges, would be proof enough. But there is no such alternative. To deny the per- sonality of the Holy Spirit, separate from that of the Father, is not to deny the Holy Spirit itself. So far as 36 THE HOLT SPIRIT. the doctrine is a practical oiie, or of any practical impor- tance in the formation of the religious character, all christians are agreed upon it. • In God we live and move and have our being. He works within us both to v/ill and to do, of his good pleasure. He is more ready to give his Holy Spirit to those that ask him, than an earthly parent is to bestow good things upon his child- ren. But aU this is as true to the Unitarian, as to the Trinitarian. Indeed, it seems to me more true ; for we believe -that the gift comes directly from a Father's love. There is no intermediate doctrine of a third person to confuse the thoughts. When we pray to the Heavenly Father, we feel that we are in living communion with him^nd he with us. The Greek word translated spirit in tlie New Testa- ment, is Pneuma, the literal meaning of which isMlind or breath. The corresponding word in the Old Testa- ment has the same meaning. Both words occur very frequently in this sense. When applied to God, or to any inteUigent being, they are commonly translated, Spirit, sometimes by the word, ghost, which as you know had exactly the same meaning, at the time when the translation of the Bible was made. To give up the ghost is the parting of the spirit from the body, and tlie Holy Ghost is only another name for Holy Spirit. The Greek or Hebrew word is exactly the same in both cases. "Now the question in controversy is, what does THE HOLY SPIRIT. 37 this term Holy Spirit mean according to scriptm-e usage ? Is it a person in the Godhead separate from the Father, or is it intended to express as its general meaning the influences which proceed from the Father? This question must b& decided by a careful examina- tion of the scripture. There are three principal uses of the term Holy Spirit when applied to God in the scripture which we must examine. 1. Sometimes it means God himself. 2. Sometimes the power or some other attribute of God and 3. Sometimes, (which is the most common use,) the various influences which proceed from God. First : It is sometimes used as another expression for God himself, just as the spirit of man is sometimes used for the man himself. Of this we have an in- stance in 1 Cor. ii. 10, "For what man kno-^eth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God." As we should not think of saying that the spirit of man is here anything but the man him- self so the Spirit of God is God himself. So it is said, Ps. cxxxix. 7, " Whither shall I go from thy spirit,, or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven thou art there." Where the phrase " thy Spirit" evidently means the same as thy presence, or thyself. Again, Isa. xl. 13, " Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord or being his counsellor hath taught 38 THE HOLY SPIRIT. him ?" where the Spirit of the Lor^ evidently means the Lord himself. This is in accordance with the words of our text, " God is a Spirit." The only intelligent idea that we can form of God the Father is of a spiritual heing, or of an infinite mind, partly made manifest to us through his wonderful works. Just as our idea of a man is chiefly that of a spirit or soul, which for the present is joined to the body as the means of its development. In both cases the idea is indistinct and imperfect. We cannot perfectly apprehend the nature of spiritual existence and in our efforts to do so we may easily become puzzled. But so far as we have any distinct conception of the being of God the Father, we think of him as an infinite, omni- present Spirit. How much then is our difiiculty increas- ed and how hopeless does the confusion of out minds become, when we try to think of a Spirit of God, having a personal existence separate from God the Father ! For if the Father is himself a Spirit, it is to speak of the Spirit of a Spirit and in fact conveys no idea to the mind. But if in such cases, we take the Spirit of God as another expression for God himself, there is no diffi- culty. The second use of the term " Spirit of God" is to express God's power or some other attribute. When the Savior said "If I by the Sphit of God cast out devils," he meant by the power of God ; as we find in THE HOLY SPIRIT. 39 the corresponding passage by another Evangelist, " If I by the finger of God cast put devils." In both cases meaning exactly the same. So in Luke i. 35, " The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee" — the exercise of the divine power is intended. Such modes of expression are quite common in the Bible. They are intended simply to express the exer- tion of God's power. Whatever God himself does he is said to do by his spirit, or by his word, or by his hand, or by the breath of his mouth ; all of which means sub- stantially the same thing. See, for example. Job xxvi. 12. " He divideth the sea with his power and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud. By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens, his hand hath formed the crooked serpent;" or in Ps. xxxiii. 6, " By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made and all the hosts of them by the breath or Spirit of his mouth ; he spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast." All such language is perfectly intelligible if we receive it as different modes of expressing the exercise of God's power and wisdom ; but if in such language we try to find evidence that the Spirit of God is a person separate from God the Father, it all becomes obscure. We might as well attribute personality to the Finger or the Hand of God. Here also, as before, the natural use of language leads us to the more intelligible doctrine. 40 THE HOLY SPIRIT. There is one other principal use of the term Holy Spirit to which I have referred. It is that which means the Holy Influence of the Deity on the minds of his servants, with the accompanying gifts and ^powers. This is by far the most common use of the term in the Bible — perhaps in nine cases out of ten where it occurs. It is a "use which confirms our view'of the doctrine in dispute, and -I think is inconsistent with any other. While I read a few of the passages, I would ask your close attention, that you may decide for yourselves upon this point, to which doctrine the language is^most favor- able. The scripture says, that the Holy Spirit was ''put within" Moses; that the spirit of the Lord was " put upon" the prophets, and other inspired persons ; that the spirit of the Lord "fell upon" Ezekiel; that to the Apostles the Holy Spirit was " partially given," but that to Christ it was "given without measure ; " that they "received" the Holy Spirit; they were ".bap- tized " with the Holy Spirit and -s^ith fire ; they were "supplied" with, the spirit of Christ, and were made • "partakers" of it. The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, was "poured out" or " shed forth" both on Jews and Gentiles. Behevers were " sealed " with the Holy Spirit of promise. Jesus " breathed on them," and said, "receive ye the Holy Spirit." In Luke xi. 13, it is said, "Hovr much more shall the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that aslt him ; " and in THE BOLT SPIRIT. 41 the parallel passage, Math. vii. 11, the words are, "How much more shall your Heavenly Father give good things to them that ask him ; " so that the Holy Spirit in this case is the same with the " good things," or the spiritual blessings promised. We are taught to "walk in" the spirit, and that the "fruit of the spirit" is love, joy, peace, long suffering, and the like. There are two instances in which the descent of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by a visible demonstration. Both of them are referred to as a proof of the person- ality of the Spirit of God, separate from the Father. They are undoubtedly the strongest instances to that effect which can be alleged. The first of them is at the baptism of Jesus, and the second, at the day of Pentecost. In the former, it is said that '' the Spirit of God descended like a dove, lighting upon Jesus, and a voice came from Heaven saying, ' this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.' " It was an outward token of God's approbation ; his visible appointment of Christ as the Messiah. It was to this that the Apostle referred when he said, speaking of this very incident, " That God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and wdth power." Acts x. 38. Observe that expression which is used as descriptive of Christ's bap- tism : " That God anointed him with the Holy Spirit." Is it not perfectly inapplicable to the idea of separate personality? 4S THE HOLT SPIRIT. The other instance is at the day of Pentecost, of which we find similar lang^uage used. The event is descrihed hy Peter as the pouring out of God's Spirit, and he declares that " Jesus, heing hy the right hand of God exahed, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, had shed forth that which was seen and heard." And he exhorts his hearers to " receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the promise of which had heen made to them." You will ohserve how strongly all this language confirms the view which we take of the doctrine, and how difficult to he reconciled Avith any other. These therefore are the three meanings which helohg to the "Holy Spirit," according to scripture usage: 1. It is sometimes only another expression for God himself, as the spirit of man is another expression, in some instances, for the man himself. 2. Sometimes it expresses the power of God or some other attribute ; as when we read, " By his Spirit he hath'gamished the Heavens." 3. Sometimes, which is the most common use, it means the spiritual hlessings, or influences, or good things, which the Heavenly Father bestows upon those who ask him. We have no hesitation in asserting most positively, that there is no passage in the Bible in which the words may not be explained under one of these meanings. There is no passage in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Self-existent THE HOLY SPIRIT. 43 Almighty, or Omnipresent person, distinct from the God and Father of Jesus Christ. But on the contrary, the language is generally such that it cannot be spoken of a Person at all, but must mean the influences which pro- ceed from God the Father. Upon what ground then are we required ia renounce our belief in the Unity of God, or, at least, to modify it by the admission of a third person in the Godhead ? The arguments are so few, that it will not take long to answer them. I have aheady given the meaning of the words, used in baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19, as expressing oi^r behef in God as our Father, in Christ as our Redeemer, and in the Holy Spirit as the sanctifying influence which comes from them both. The only other text to which I need refer is found Rom. viii. 26: " Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities ; for we know not what we should pray- for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered ; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth the mind of the Spirit, because it maketh intercession for the saints, ac- cording to the wiU of God." " It is surprising," says Mr. Peabody, " that this text should ever have been quoted as favoring the idea of the Supreme independent divinity of a Spirit, which intercedes, that is, ofiers prayer, of course to some superior being." It is one of 44 THE HOLY SPIRIT. those texts which are difficult to explain, word for word, but of which the whole meaning is perfectly evident. The idea of the passage is, that " the devout soul, in all its infirmity and ignorance, will still be sustained, for it vrill still press to the mercy seat ; and that if it knows not what to ask for, and cannot shape its own supplica- tions, God, knowing the earnestness and rectitude of its desires, will satisfy all its real wants. The principal argument for the separate personality of the Spirit^is found in the four passages which I have read to you this evening, from John xiv., xv. and xvi., in which the divine influences promised by Christ to his disciples, are personified imder the name of the Com- forter. I think that if it can be shovm that this personification does not, according to common scripture usage, imply literal personality, very little argument will be left. What is the scripture usage in this respect ? A brief examination will show us that no mode of expression is more common, than that in which inanimate objects and qualities are spoken of, as if they were living be- ings, having personal properties and performing per- sonal actions. Thus the sea, and the mountains, are represented as having eyes ; the earth, as having ears ; a song, a stone, an altar, water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken of as witnesses. The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed as individuals, THE HOLY SPIRIT. 45 capable of being roused from sleep. The ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and the blood of sprinkling, are exhibited as speakers 5 and destruction and death, as saying that they had heard with their ears. In the language of Holy writ, the sun rejoiceth, and knoweth his going down; the deep lifts up his hands, and utters his voice ; the mountains skip like rams, the little lulls like lambs; wisdom and understand- ing cry aloud, and put forth their voice ; the heart and the flesh of the prophet cry out for the living God. The scripture is a seer and preacher ; the word of Je- sus is a Judge ; nature, the heavens, the earth, are teachers. God's testimonies are counsellors, his rod and staff" are comforters ; the hght and the truth, and the commandments of God, are leaders or guides. Sin is described as a master, and death as a king, and an enemy. Flesh, and the mind, are treated of, as having a wrill ; fear, and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word, and commandments of God, are exhihited as messengers. Charity is represented as in possession of all the graces and virtues of the christian character. Such is the usage of scripture. It is so common, that I may almost call it universal. Some of the in- stances to which I have now referred, are also much stronger as personifications, than that in which the Holy Spirit is personified as the comforter. For instance, if you will read the thirteenth chapter of the first Epistle 46 THE HOLT SPIRIT. to the Corinthians, you will find that charity is spoken of as a living person, who " suffereth long and is kind, who envieth not, who seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth aH things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.'' I refer you also particularly to the ninth chapter of the book of Proverbs. It is evident therefore that personification is a very common figure of speech in the scripture, and we are therefore perfectly justified in this mode of interpreting those passages in which the influences of the Holy Spirit are called a Comforter. We can fully account for the language without the necessity of supposing literal personality ; and we are confirmed in this view, because we find that the Apostles regarded the " shed- ding abroad" of the divine influences at the day of Pentecost, as a fulfilment of the Savior's promise. These influences were to thejn " The Comforter," which brought all things to their remembrance, and qualified them to be th^ ministers of Clu'ist. It may perhaps still further confirm us, in this view of the language, that even if we admit that the Com- forter is a literal person, he is evidently not upon an equality with the Father or the Son ; for he is given by the Father, he is sent by the Son, he is to speak only what he shall hear, he shall receive of Christ whatever he teaches ; all of which expressions imply inferiority. THE HOLT SPIRIT. 47 We feel justified therefore in rejecting the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit as a third Person in the Godhead. The scriptures do not teach it, but just the contrary. We reject it as a human device, by which great confusion is introduced into our ideas concerning God, and which is of no practical utility. Let me again say, however, that we do not reject the true and scriptural idea of the Holy Spirit. We be- lieve in the reality and necessity of a Divine Influence in the soul, and upon it we place our chief dependence. Our prayer is, that the Spirit of God may guide us right, so that our present seeking after the truth, as it is in Jesus, may be blessed to our eternal salvation. OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. MATTHEW XVI. 16; " He saith unto them, but whom say ye that [ am ? And Simom Peter ansvp"eiied and said, thou art the Christ, the Som of the Living God,'> These words distinctly explain the subject before us this evening. The question asked", is exactly that which we now ask — Whom do the scriptures say that Jesus Christ is? And the answer given is exactly the same which we, as Unitarian behevers, would give. We take the words in their fullest mean- ing, and adopt them as the confession of our faith. " He is the Christ, the Son of the living God." In these words, not only the statement of our belief is contained, but also the argument on which it rests. The word " Christ " means anointed. It is in Greek, the same with " Messiah," in Hebrew, and implies that Jesus was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and with power, to become a prince and savior, a prophet and a judge. It impHes, therefore, very" high distinc- 50 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. tion ; but at the same time a distinction conferred by one higher than himself. He is also " the Son of God ; " a phrase else- where bestowed upon prophets and righteous men, but here used with peculiar solemnity — " the Son of the living God " — and with peculiar meaning ; the same as when he is called "the beloved Son," or "the only begotten Son of his Father." Such words, I think, announce peculiar exaltation — pecuhar nearness to God. I doubt if we can at present understand their full meaning. To me, when taken in connexion with other expressions used by our Savior concerning him- self, they convey an idea of mystery, of union with God inexplicably close ; a mystery into which we can but imperfectly penetrate, because it is but imperfectly revealed. But at the same time, while the expression conveys the idea of an unknown exaltation, it dis- tinctly implies derivation and dependence. If words mean any thing — if we are to use them according to their intelligible meaning, the Son owes his existence to the Father, and cannot therefore be self-existent. The very idea of son-ship is of derivation, and is therefore inconsistent with the doctrine, both of identity and of equality. If words mean any thing, he who is the Son of the living or supreme God, cannot be him- self the supreme God, but must be derived from him, and dependent on him. OCR LORD JES1TS CHRIST. 61 In the statement now given, I have expressed my whole belief concerning Christ. In the words of Peter, I say, " He is the Christ, the Son of the living God." With that confession of faith, Jesus was satis- fied; for he said, "blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven." It is then not only the opinion of the apostles, confirmed by Christ, but it is also the direct inspiration of the Father in Heaven. We have reason, therefore, to be satisfied vrith it. We adopt it, word for word, as the confes- sion of faith, in this church, and are willing to receive no other. It constitutes us Unitarians. My task this evening is to show its meaning more fully, and to prove that it is taught, not only in the words of the text, but every where else in the bible. First of all, you will observe, and I call your atten- tion particularly to it, that those who accuse us of believing that Christ is a mere man, are in error. They are prejudiced or misinforihed. If, by a mere man, they mean one like ourselves, or like the prophets of the olden time, Moses, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or John the Baptist, the charge is entirely untrue. I know of no Unitarians who hold such a belief. There may be individuals who receive it, as there are indi- viduals in the Presbyterian church who believe in infant damnation ; but I hope they are few in both 52 OUR LOBD JESUS CHRIST. cases. You will also find, among nominal Unitarians, some who have almost no faith at all; who hold to Jesus, only as they might hold to Socrates. I pass no sentence upon them, for it is not our part to sit in judgment, or to pronounce anathemas ; but I do say, that they are not to be taken as the exponents of the Unitarian faith. I feel satisfied, from observation, which has been very extended, that there is no denom- ination in which Christ is more heartily received than in our own. A vulgar prejudice has~'been sometimes excited against us, by caEing Unitarianism the half- way house to Infidelity ; but I believe that it has been the means of saving more persons from Infidelity than any other form of belief. It addresses itself to think- ing men, and encourages them to think independently, but it does not make shipwreck of faith. It receives Christ as the divine master and guide, but at the same time proves his doctrines to be consistent with enlight- ened reason. Unitarians, as a body of believers, every where, agree in the belief that Christ is the special messenger of God ; that his mission was divine ; that his charac- ter was sinless ; that his authority was so directly from God, that whatever he taught is the teaching of the Father. " For he spake not of himself, but as the Father gave him commandment, so he taught." He \^-as Divine, therefore, in his mission, in his character, and OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 63 in his authority. , This is not the description of a mere man. Consider only the distinction of absolute freedom from sin, to say nothing of- his superhuman wisdom and power ; how completely does that distinction alone place him by himself ! What nearness to God does it give him ! We can but imperfectly conceive it. Our own sinfulness is so great, it is so inherent in our nature, so inseparable from the development of our thoughts and affections, that we but'imperfectly under- stand its debasing influence. I believe-that if we could this day be absolutely freed from sin, we should be lost in amazement at the height^ to which we would rise, and the comparative degradation in which we now stand. To be absolutely freed from sin, is to be indeed the Son of God ; it is the highest moral exaltation ; and when we add thereto such authority and power as belonged to Jesus, we see how very far he is from all our ideas of a mere man. Upon one point of considerable importance. Unita- rian believers are divided in opinion. Some of them, among whom are included a majority of English Uni- tarians, believe that the existence of Christ began when he was born, at Bethlehem of Judea. They defend this belief by the records of his life, from his infancy to his crucifixion. That he calls himself a man, and is so called, and so treated by his disciples; and that he was subject to the wants, to the infirmities, the suffer- 54 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. ings, and death, which belong to humanity. This class of believers is sometimes called Humanitarians. Al- though there are many arguments difficult to answer, by which their belief is sustained, I have never been satisfied with it. I do not now belong, and I never have belonged, to their number. We acknowledge them as brethren, and among them we see many of the most excellent names which adorn the Unitarian calen- dar; but I cannot agree with them in opinion. I admit, however, that the most essential point in the christian faith is — ^not the time when Christ's existence began, nor the metaphysical elements of his nature, but the degree of his authority to speak in the name of God. If the scriptures say truly, that to him the spirit was given without measure, and that he has power to give eternal Ufe to whom he wiU, this alone is enough to make his religion divine, and to enable us to receive him as our Savior. The other part of Unitarians believe that Christ came down from Heaven to accomplish his work on earth; that from liis dwelling in the bosom of the Father, he was sent, a wiUing messenger, to bring glad tidings of great joy, and to accomplish, for our salva- tion, a work which we could not do for ourselves. To this faith I give my adherence, and more strongly, from year to year, as I become more thoroughly acquainted with the bible. As I have abeady said, I do not pre- OUR LORD J£SUS CHRIST. 55 tend to define it exactly. The nature of his being, before he came upon earth, is entirely unknown to us. The degree of his nearness to God, either then or now, we dan but imperfectly understand. But I am unable to interpret his language concerning himself, or the language of his apostles concerning him, consis- tently with any other belief. When the Jews were objecting to him, his youth and the obscurity of his birth, he answered, John viii. 66, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw and- was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, thou art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? And Jesus said unto them, before Abra- ham was, I am." In his prayer to the Father, he says, John xvii. 5, " Glorify thou me with thy own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." And again, verse 24, "For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." At another time, when the Jews objected to his saying that he was the bread which came down from Heaven, he said to his disciples, John vii. 61, " Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before ? " John the Baptist, in speaking of him, said, John i, 30, " After me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me." " In this connexion let me quote the Savior's words. ' No man hath ascended up to Heaven but he that came 66 OCR LORD JESUS CHRIST. down from Heaven.' It is said that coming down from Heaven simply implies a divine commission. Why then did not John the Baptist, who certainly had a commission, no less from God than that of Jesus, speak of himself as coming dowTi from Heaven ? But he, in this same chapter (John iii.) expressly speaks of Christ as coming dovra from Heaven in a sense in ■which he himself did not come from Heaven, and of himself as being of the earth in a sense in which Christ was not of the earth. He must increase, says the Baptist, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all. He that cometh &om the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh from Heaven is above aU." In accordance with this view, it is said of Christ, " He made himself of no reputation ; '' which means, literally, he divested himself, as if of what he had previously possessed or enjoyed, "and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself." Phil. ii. 7. ,In another place it is said, " Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye, through his poverty, might become rich;" by which we understand that Jesus, for man's salvation, passed from a richer to a poorer, from a more lofty to a more humble condition. OUR I.OHD JESUS CHRIST. 57 It is true that Christ is called a man ; but properly considered, this is no objection to the view now offered. The essential idea of humanity is derived from that connexion of the soul and bodjr, by which the soul is made subject to earthly influences. The highest arch- angel, nearest to God's throne, if clothed in human form, and thus made subject to like temptations with us, would be properly called a man. Consider the distance between different members of the human family, as at present constituted. Take Newton, with his mind reaching up to the heights of heaven, and place him by the side of one of those thousands of his own countrymen, whose thoughts have scarcely a larger range than that of a brute ; see how wide a field is covered by that word, man! For these two are brothers, of the same family, of the same descent. And so^ as Jesus is called " the Son of God," and we also are honored by the same name — as he is called the "first-born of every creature," with reference to that human family of which we are the younger children, I believe that we may claim kindred with him. Coming from the bosom of the Father, to make known the Father's love, he took our nature upon him. He be- came a man during his whole sojourn on earth. The attributes of humanity belonged to him. Suffering as we suffer, tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, " he gave us a perfect example in the performance 3 58 OUR LOHD JESC8 CHRIST. of those duties which are incumbent on all created spirits, and which are the same to all, namely, love and obedience to the great father spirit, love and charity to all fellow spirits." He was a man, more perfectly than any other. In him humanity was glorified ; the ideal, which is proposed to us aU, was perfected in him. The weakness of the flesh was not only brought into sub- jection to the spirit, but the spirit was made stronger through the victory, as it is written, Christ "was made perfect through suffering." All human passions, all desires, all purposes were thus made pure and heavenly ; and thus it is, that through his humihation, "God has highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name." It will be seen, therefore, that those passages of the bible which speak of the great exaltation of Jesus, cannot be brought against us, as Unitarians, unless they distinctly imply his equality with the Father. This needs to be carefuUy remarked. Trinitarians are apt to think that every text which speaks of Christ's great power, and wisdom, and authority, or of his exaltation at the right hand of God, militate against our doctrine ; but it is not so. He is to us, also, the Son of the living God, the image of the Father, through whom, both in his person and in his life and in his words, as much is made known of the Infinite God, as it is possible for us to know in our present OUR LORD JEStTS CHRIST. 69 State. There is but one way to overthrow the Unita- rian doctrine. It is, to prove — not that Christ is " a Prince and a Savior by the right hand of God highly exalted," but that he is the Infinite God himself, by whom that exaltation was given. It is not to prove that the Father made himself manifest through the Son, as it is written, " the word was made flesh," that is, "the divine ■wisdom and power were manifested in a human form," but it is to prove, that the Father, who is the being manifested, is the same with the Son, who was the medium of the manifestation. The question between us and Trinitarians, is simply this : Did the Savior, when he said, " My Father is greater than I," mean what he seemed to say, and what he was under- stood by those who heard him to say, or did he mean, that while there was an apparent inferiority, he was in fact equal vnth the Father, possessed of the same attri- butes, being himself the absolute and Supreme God ? Here is the true point of the controversy. I think that it settles itself. I scarcely know how to bring any arguments to make it plainer. I am almost afraid that in multiplying words in so plain a case, I may darken counsel, but must try. I shall show you, first, that Christ himself distinctly denies the possession of either of the divine attributes ; secondly, that the Apostles, when they speak of him in the highest terms of exalta- 60 OUH LORD JESUS CHRIST. tion, and therefore of his highest nature, uniformly declare his entire dependence on God, the Father. The leading attributes of Deity are Self -existence, Omnipotence, Omniscience and Infinite goodness. If we can provg by the words of Christ himself that he denies the possession of one and all of these, I think our case is made out. His distinct denial of any one of these attributes would be enough ; but in fact, he denies them aU. 1. Of Self-existence. This attribute implies absolute independence ; an existence to which no other being is necessary ; seLE-derived and self -sustained. But Christ declares an hundred times that he came not of himself, but that the Father sent him ; see Johnviii.42: "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." He declared that he was indebted to the Father for the support of his existence; John vi. 57: "As the living Father hath sent me, and / live by the Father ; " and again, John v. 26, " As the Father hath Ufe in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have hf e in himself. I can of mine own self do nothing; as I hear I judge, and my judg- ment is just, because I seek not mine own wiU, but the will of the Father who sent me." He sa^-s also, John X. 18, " No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself ; I have power (the literal meaning is authority,) to lay it down, and I have authority to take OUK LORD JESUS CHEIST. 61 it again ; this commandment have I received oJ; my Father." Which also agrees with 2 Cor. xiii. 4, " Though he suifered in the flesh, yet he hveth by the power of God." ' Here is a distinct, and full denial, of underived and independent existence. Upon the authority of Christ himself, therefore, we say, that he was not the Self-existent God. 2. Omnipotence. Jesus distinctly and repeatedly declares that he is not in possession of this attribute. He uniformly speaks of his power, as being given by the Father, and being exercised under his direction. But the idea of omnipotence is inconsistent with that of derived power and delegated authority. Omnipotence cannot be given by one to another. In such a case he who gives must be greater than he who receives. Therefore, when the Savior say's " All power is given to me by the Father," the word given, necessarily limits the word all. The text is sometimes quoted to prove Christ's omnipotence, but we think it proves just the contrary. Again he says, John v. 19, " The Son can do nothing of himself ; and again, verse 30, " I can of mine own self do nothing," And stiU more pointedly, when he was asked for a certain distinction by James and John, he answered. Matt. xx. 20, " To sit on my right hand, and- on my left, is not mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom it is pre- 62 OUB LORD J£S08 CHRIST. pared of my Father." In his last conversation with his disciples he says, " If ye loved me ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father ; for my Father is greater than I." John xiv. 28. These declarations are distinct and unqualified. We are therefore ready to receive Christ in the highest exaltation which the scripture accords to him. But we feel at the same time compelled to believe his own words. These are the best authority. They do not teach us that he is Almighty, but that he is dependent in all things upon the Father. 3. Omniscienqe. This is the attribute, by which he who possesses it knows all things. An omniscient being needs not to be instructed. Thus it is written of the Almighty, Isaiah xl. 13, " Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor, hath taught him ? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge ? " Compare those words with the words of the Savior, John vii. 15 : " My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me ; " and xiv. 24, " The word which ye hear, is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." And again, viii. 26, " As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." And even more strongly, xii. 49, " I have not spoken of myself, but the Fatlier who sent me, he gave me a commandment, OCU LORD JEBCS CHKIST. 63 what I should say and what I should speak. Whatso- ever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." AU this is an expression of imparted knowledge, which, however great it may be, must al- ways he less than omniscience. And accordingly we find, Matt. xxiv. 26, and Mark xiiL 32, when asked concerning a future event, Jesus answered, " Of that day and that hour.knoweth no man ; no, not the angels in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." In Mat- thew it says, " but my Father only.'" We cannot es- cape from these words, if we would. We place implicit reliance upon whatever Christ taught We beheve that God spake through him; and upon his own authority we say, that omniscience is the attribute of the Father only. 4. Infinite goodness. We believe that Christ was perfectly free from sin, that he went about doing good, and finished the work which God gave him to do. In this sense, therefore, he was perfect; but there is a sense, in which none but an Infinite being is good, and in this sense Christ denied it of himself. Mark x. 17. When some one called him Good Master he answered, " Why caHest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is God," The same words are found in the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke. 64 OVB. LORD JESnS CBHIST. .' What are we to say of these plain denials by the Sa- vior himself, not of one only, but of aU these, attributes 2 We have his own words to prove that he is neither Self- existent, Omniscient, All-wise, nor Infinitely good. On what ground can we set aside his testimony ? We shall be told, perhaps, that all this is spoken only of his human nature; that he denied these attributes as a man, although he was conscious of possessing them as God. Now, we find no fault with those who are satisfied with this answer, but it does not satisfy us. It does not seem to us the fair interpretation of plain language. For, first, we find no passage in the Bible, and there is none, in which it is taught that our Savior had two natures, one human and one divine ; but he is always spoken of as a single being, " the Christ, the Son of the living God." And secondly, we think that when he spoke of himself without qualification, using the personal pronouns, I, and myself, and me, he must have used them in their common meaning, and he was certainly, at the time, so understood. If he had in- tended to have been understood differently, he would have given some indication of it. As he gave none, we take his words in their plain and obvious meaning. Just as you would understand me, if I were to say, " 1 do not know such a thing," or " I cannot do such a thing," OUR LOnD JESUS CHKIST. 65 without qualifying the words, so do we understand him. We dare not understand him otherwise. For, would it be right for me to say, " I do not know such a thing," if I really knew it ? and defend myself by say- ing, that my body does not know it, but my mind does ? or that I know it as a clergyman, but not as a citizen ? Such would not be a fair use of language ; and if the scripture were to be interpreted in such a manner, there is absolutely no doctrine which could not be proved from it. We understand Jesus simply as he spoke, and therefore, while we pray for the time, when " at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess him to be the Lord," we remember that this must always be done " to the glory of God the Father." The quotation of this verse brings us to the last topic of my present discourse. I am still to prove that the Apostles, in those passages, where they speak of Christ's highest exaltation, uniformly declare that he is dependent for aU upon the Father. For this purpose I shall use only those texts which are commonly consid- ered proofs of his supreme divinity. They are there- fore undoubtedly applicable to his highest nature, what- ever that may be ; and if, wh«n so spoken of, his dependence on God is alleged, our argument will be conclusive. For you will remember I have aheady said that we do not pretend to define the degree of 3» 66 OUR LORDJE8U8 CHRIST. exaltation which belongs to Christ. We remain Uni- tarians so long as we believe that the Father alone is the Supreme God. 1. There is probably no text oftener quoted against us, than the first part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, particularly the 8th verse : " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom; Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity." The word God is here applied to Christ, and is understood as a proof of his deity. This however would be an uncertain proof, for the same vsrord is apphed quite frequently in a subordinate sense. It was apphed to Moses, who was said to be " a God to Pharaoh." Those also were caUed Gods, to whom the word of God came. See John x. 35. Whe must look therefore to the connexion to see what its meaning is, in this case ; aAd we read directly after the words quoted, " There- fore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Observe, there- fore, which is the point of our argument in this case, that even when spoken of as God there is the Supreme God over him, from whom he receives his anointing, and by whom he is raised above his equals. Let me read to you, also, from the beginning of that same chapter, that you may see how plainly the dependence of Christ upon the Father is expressed. ODB LORD JESUS CHRIST. 67 " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds ; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding aU things by the word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high ; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the an- gels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? And again, I wiU be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." We admit that words cannot easily express higher exaltation than this. It was the apostle's intention to speak in the strongest terms which were consistent with truth, and he does so. In reading them we perceive that the exaltation of Christ is greater than we can fuUy comprehend. But, at the same time, we perceive with equal plainness del- egated authority and absolute dependence on the Fa- ther. On the one hand, we can have no doubt that his highest nature is here spoken of, for there is no pas- sage in which stronger words are used. On the other hand, we read that he did not speak of himself but that God spoke by him ; that in all his highest offices he 68 ODB LORD JESDS CHRIST. was the agent of God, working only by God's power ; that he obtained a more excellent name than the angels by inheritance, according to the appointment of God ; that there was a time when his existence began, as plainly expressed in these words, '^ This day have I begotten thee." In the tenth, eleventh and twelfth verses which are a quotation from the cii. Psalm the Almighty himself is addressed, as the source of aU pow- er and might ; after which the apostle retmns to his former subject, the dignity of Christ, which he again ascribes to God as the Author and Giver. We refer next to the Epistle to the Colossians, the first and second chapters. I cannot quote them at large but request you to read them carefully for your- selves. You will find the same remarks hold good which have been made on the passage already quoted. You win find language which you cannot reconcile with the doctrine of mere humanity; you will feel, amazed, as in the presence of a being highly exalted above every one of us ; but everywhere you wiU find proof of derived authority and dependent existence. He is " the image of the invisible God," and therefore not the invisible God himself. He is " the first born of every creature" and therefore himself a created being. The reason and the source of his great exaltation is dis- tinctly given: " For it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell." OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 69 In both of these passages, language is used which seems to imply that Christ is the agent by whom aE things were created and upheld. I think that this pro- perly refers to the spiritual world in heaven and on earth, of which he is appointed the head and director ; but time will not allow me to consider this question now. It is altogether unimportant to our present argu- ment, for it does not affect the real exaltation of Christ, nor does it alter the fact of his complete dependence on the Father. We next refer to Phil. ii. 5, 11 ; in the sixth verse it is said of Jesus Christ, " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God ;" of which Calvin says, " The form of God here signifies majesty. I acknowledge indeed that Paul does not make mention of Christ's divine essence." To be in the form of God means only to be the image or manifes- tation of i^God ;• which is also the interpretation adopted by LeClerc and Macknight. The proper meaning of the words, " Thought it not robbery to- be equal wdth God," is that given by Bishop Sherlock, namely, " He was not tenacious of appearing as God ; did not eager- ly insist to be equal with God." This is the meaning adopted by Coleridge, Prof. Stuart, Luther, Melanc- thon. Archbishop TiUotson, Paley, and many others of the most eminent Trinitarian writers. But the exact 70 OTJB LORD JESUS CHRIST. meaning of the words is not important to our present argument. Whatever they mean, their limitation is found in the ninth and following verses. " Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is ahove every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall how, of those in heaven and those in earth and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father." One of the most important books in the New Testa- tament, in a doctrinal point of view, is the Acts of the Apostles. It contains their first preaching after they were fuUy instructed in their work. Whatever they knew of Jesus or believed concerning him ^^-111 un- doubtedly be found there. They were impelled at the same time by strong affection for their master, by a deep sense of their former unfaithfulness to him, and by the direct command of God, to declare the whole truth. Now what is the substance of their preaching ? Read yourselves the first ten chapters of that book and determine. I think that you will agree with me that it is a series of Unitarian discourses. There is not an expression, not a single word that I cannot use, or that I am not accustomed to use as a Unitarian believer. They indeed declare that Christ is a Prince and a Sa- vior, that he is both Lord and Christ ; but how is it OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 71 that he obtained this authority ? Let them answer in their own words: " Therefore let all the house of Is- rael know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ." Acts xi. 36. " Then Peter and the other apostles an- swered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." This is the utmost of their preaching ; further than this they never go ; and thus far we as Unitarians go with them. These scriptures aU of them speak of Christ in his highest nature. You hear them quoted every day to prove his absolute deity. Yet you per- ceive that aU of them, by showing his dependence on God the Father, prove the exact contrary, and teach that though so highly exalted, even above om- perfect comprehension, he is not the Supreme God nor equal to God the Father. In further explanation of this view I will quote the following passage from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 24, 28 ; which is a dis- tinct and full declaration of the Unitarian doctrine. " Then cometh the end when he shall have deHvered up the kingdom to God even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and pow- 72 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. er. For he must reign till he hath put aU enemies un- der his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put aU things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is mani- fest that he is excepted who did put all things under him. And when aU things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." I cannot express my faith as a Unitarian in plainer words than these. They are a brief statement in the most unequivocal terms of the general pervading doc- trine of the Bible. Such is the testimony of Christ concerning himself, and such the testimony of the apos- tles concerning him as their Lord and master. It is all consistent with the Savior's own prayer to the Father, " That they might know Thee, the Only True God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent :" and with the words of Paul " To us there is but one God even the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." There are however a few texts which, taken by themselves, are thought to teach a different doctrine. Among these the introduction to the Gospel of John is the most important. I wish to examine them fairly and carefully and must therefore defer them to another evening. In the meantime and in conclusion, let me OUR LORD JESUS CHBIST. 73 again say that with the plain words of Christ and of his apostles to guide us, we ought not to be troubled or shaken in our faith by a few comparatively obscure and difficult passages. In so large a subject we ought to expect some remaining difficulties, and we have rea- son to thank God that the general doctrine of the Bible is so plainly taught, that he who runs may read. OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. ISAIAH Till. 20: TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY. I have promised this evening to explain the principal texts in the Bible, which are supposed to militate against the Unitarian doctrine. The task is hy no means easy; not because there is inherent difficulty in any of such texts, or in all of them put together, but because the work, to be thoroughly done, would be very tedious. A single passage, if at all obscure, may require a great many words in its critical exposition. Nor is the hearer always able to decide whether the explanation is satisfactory or not; he must take a great part of the critical statements upon authority, and he is very apt to be suspicious of unfair dealing, when an interpretation is given to familiar words, different from that to which he is accustomed. He is apt to think that the language, instead of being explained, is ex- plained away. For this reason, I am accustomed, in explaining a disputed passage, to give " Orthodox" 76 OUn LORD JESU8 CHRIST. Trinitarian authority for the explanation which I adopt. It is not because I ttiink that such testimony is more respectable than that of our ovra writers, but because I would put the explanations given beyond the suspicion of unfairness. For if with reference to any particular text, I can show that eminent scholars in the Trinita- rian ranks have given the same explanation, although they have thereby weakened their own argument, it will foUow I think, that the words are fairly suscepti- ble of such a meaning. In adopting a Unitarian ex- planation, upon Trinitarian authority, we need have no fear that the words are distorted, or the meaning perverted, merely to suit our end. Now it is a very singular fact, and it is one which greatly confirms me in my Unitarian belief, that there is not a single text in the Bible with regard to which we cannot bring good Trinitarian authority for its Unitarian meaning ; or in other words, there is not a single text which is not abandoned by one or more of the most celebrated Trinitarian theologians. I repeat that this gives me great confidence in om- interpretations of the Bible. We might otherwise fear that our interpre- tations were made to suit ourselves — we might suspect ourselves of unfairness. After all, however, the explanation which we adopt of particular disputed passages, wiU probably be deter- mined by the general view which we take of the OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 77 scripture doctrine. When a text is ambiguous, that is, when it may be explained in accordance either with the Trinitarian or Unitarian belief, we should be guided in our choice of the two explanations, by the general meaning of the whole Bible. It would not be right to set aside a doctrine which is acknowledged to be the general meaning of a whole book, because there are a few sentences which will bear a different construction. Before proceeding therefore to the examination of the texts in question, let me again remind you of the great strength of argument, by which the Unitarian doctrine concerning God and our Lord Jesus Christ, has been proved to be the general and prevailing doctrine of the Bible. Let me remind you that the Old Testament not only declares the Unity of God, but that the express object of the dispensation under Moses and the Proph- ets, was to estabhsh that doctrine in the world ; that it was taught without any quahfication, and received by the Jews just as we receive it ; that when Christ came, he re-affirmed the doctrine, using the very same words which had been spoken from Mt. Sinai, without the least hint that they were to be understood in a different manner, but on the contrary, declaring in so many words, that the Father is the only true God; that the Apostles took up the same instruction, teaching that the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, " the 78 OUR tOED JESUS CHRIST. God of their Fathers," was also the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I think that it will not be disputed that this is the general instruction of the Bible. If we are to modify this instruction, it must be because the texts which we are this evening to examine, require it ; but if it can he shown that every one of them can be explained, and has been explained, even by Trinitarians themselves, in accordance with the general doctrines as above stated, we shall be justified, we think, in adopting such explanation, and thereby putting our minds at rest. 1. First, we will examine several of those texts in which peculiar names are given to Jesus Christ, of which the principal are, Isa. ix. 6 ; Jer. xxiii. 6, 6, and Matt. i. 23. In these passages, the names "won- derful, couiisellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace," " Jehovah our righteous- ness," and "Immanuel, or God with us," are applied to Christ, and there are no passages more rehed upon to prove his supreme deity. To understand them, we must have some knowledge of the scripture usage, in the application of such names to remarkable persons or places. By which we shall learn, that the use of such names proves nothing of the nature of the person to whom they are given, but are only descriptive of some circumstances attending his birth, or the offices he is expected to fill. OtTR LORD JEStrS CHHIST. 79 Nothing is more common in the Bible than such descriptive names as the following: An altar was called by Jacob " El-Elohe Israel"— God, the God of Israel ; another by Moses, " Jehovah, Nissi " — Jeho- vah my banner. The place where God provided the ram instead of Isaac, is called "Jehovah Jireh" — God wUl see or provide. In the same manner, the names of many distinguished persons in the Old Testament, if translated into Enghsh, have* similar meanings, and without a knowledge of this Hebrevy custom, would convey very false ideas. EUas means " my God," and you will remember, that when our Savior, on the cross, cried out " Eloi, Eloi," &c., those who stood near thought that he was calling upon Elias. Elijah means, literaEy, "My God Jehovah," and Zedekiah, "the righteousness of Jehovah." Gabriel means, literally, " the strength of God," or " the strong God," and it is worthy of remark that the Hebrew words comprising the name are identically the same as those which, in the text before us, are translated "the mighty God" — GiBon Ael. We are accustomed to these names, and as they are not translated in their ordinary use, we do not think of their literal meaejag ; but when just such names are applied to Christ, they are ti'anslated into English, and insisted upon as a literal proof of his di- vine nature. Whereas, properly considered, they 80 OUH LORD JESUS CHRIST. prove nothing upon the subject either one way or the other. We proceed now to a particular exaniination of the texts in question. Isa. ix. 6 : Of wliich we remark, first, that the words were originally spoken, not of Christ, but of King Hezekiah. The distinguished Hugo Grotius, and Samuel White, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, both of them Trinitarians, take this view of it. The words of the latter are as follows : "The Government sha'Ube upon his shoulders ; that is, that he. King Hezekiah, shall reign in the throne of David, as the metaphor signifies, and as the Prophet more fully explains himself in the following verse; which cannot be literally true of our Savior, whose kingdom was not of this world as David's w^as ; but in a second and svhlimer sense the expression denotes that power which God devolved on his Son, of governing his spiritual kingdom, the Church." Now we argue, that whatever the names may indicate, if in their pri- mary apphcation they were given to King Hezekiah, they cannot in their secondary application to Christ, prove his Supreme Divinity. In the phrase "the mighty God," the word translated " God" means liter- ally, strong. And we may therefore read "Mighty Potentate," if we prefer. The definite article also is wanting in the Hebrew, so that it would be, A mighty OUR LORD JBBUS CHRIST. 81 God or Potentate. This is the interpretation which Martin Luther gave, and he declares that the epithet "belongs not to the person of Christ, but to his work and oiSce." RosenmuHer, One of the rriost learned Orthodox commentators, says: " It is evident that ael denotes strong, powerful, and is used in Ezekiel xxxi. 11, of King Nebuchadnezzer, who is called aei. GoriM, ' the mighty one of the heathen,' or if ael means God, ' the God of the heathen.' " The phrase " The everlasting Father " can scarcely be applied to Christ in a literal sense, according to the Trinitarian system; for this would confound the dis- tinction between the Father and the Son. Accordingly we find that Calvin and Grotius translate the words "The Father of the age," or dispensation. Bishop Lowth, Carlile, (in his work " Jesus Christ the Great God our Savior,") and Dr. Adam Clarke translate it, " Father of the everlasting age," and in the same manner a great many other Orthodox writers. Such a rendering we are willing to accept, together with the meaning which Calvin gave to the words, namely, "He who is always producing new offspring in the Church." But we prefer the explanation of Dr. Wells, of the Church of England, who says, "that when Christ is called the everlasting Father, it means that he is "The author of our eternal salvation, and the Father or head of the world to come, that is, of the Gospel state." I 4 82 OCR I.OBD JESVS CHSIST. will also add the testimony of Luther, who says that the title everlasting Father denotes not a person, but his work, and that the Hebrew particle translated " everlasting," does not properly signify eternal, but of indefinite continuance. We next refer to Jer. xxiii. 6, in which Christ is called " Jehovah our righteous- ness; " but at so happens that in chapter xxxiii. 15, of the same prophet, exactly the same name is applied to the city of Jerusalem. "In those days shall Judah be saved and Jerusalem dwell safely, and this is the name wherewith she shall be called — Jehovah our righteous- ness." So that we have no difficulty in either case. Le Clerc explains the passage for us as follows: " The Messiah is said to be called Jehovah our righteousness to denote that in his days, and by his means, God would, in a remarkable manner, exhibit proofs of his own justice by punishing the wicked and defending the righteous; so in chapter xxxiii. 16, Jerusalem is designated by the same title, meaning that God would cause righteousness to flourish in that city, namely, in the christian church." In Matt. i. 23, it is written, " They shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." The words are a quotation of aprophecyfromlsa., viii. 14, of which Prof. Stuart, of Andover, says: " Originally and literally it is applicable only to the birth of a child ■yvithin a period of three years from the OUK LORS JESUS CRIIIST. 83 time when the prophecy was spoken ; for how could the birth of Jesus, which happened 742 years afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz that within three years his kingdom was to be freed from his enemies ? Such a child it would seem was born at that time ; for in chapter viii. 8, 10, he is twice referred to, as if then present, or at lt;ast,then living." That the application of the proph- ecy to Christ, proves nothing concerning his nature, I could bring abundant Trinitarian testimony, but content myself with that of thp eminent man just now quoted. In his reply to Dr. Channing, he says : " What you say respecting the argument concerning Christ's divine nature, from the name given him in Matt. i. 23, accords in the main with my views. To maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine in question is a fallacious argument, although many Trinitarians have urged it. Jerusalem is called Jehovah our righteous- ness. Is Jerusalem therefore divine ? " I have been more careful in explaining these passages, because the same explanation will apply to all other texts, in which similar names are given to Jesus Christ. 2. An argument is drawn for the Supreme Divinity of Christ, from the fact that similar language is some- times applied to him and to God. The answer in all such cases is, that in its appKcation to God, we under- stand it in its highest sense ; but to Christ, only in that sense which belongs to him as the Son of God. Thus 84 0011 LOUD *E8U8 CHRIST. it is said, " I am Jehovah, and beside me there is no Savior." Yet Christ is called our Savior. Jehovah is called the Redeemer of Israel, and Christ is also called a Redeeriier. Such language gives us no trouble. In the highest sense, all salvation, and all help, and all guidance, and all support comes from God. He alone is the author and giver of every good gift, and thus, in the ascription of praise, we say, "To the only wise God, our Savior." But Jesus Christ is also in a true and real sense our Savior, our guide, our supporter, our Redeemer. Not by his independent power, indeed, but because, Acts v. 31, "God hath exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give re- pentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." In the same manner, many things are said to be done by God which are also said to be done by Christ; as, that God will judge the world, and also that Christ is the judge of all. But this is explained when we are taught, Acts xvii. 31, " That God wiU judge the world in righteous- ness by that man whom he hath ordained ; and so in all other instances of the same sort. Christ acts as the agent, the representative, the messenger of God, but we ascribe the work to him, always remembering, how- ever, that he does not speak of himself. John vii. 16, 18. To the same effect I will quote the following very clear language of Prof. Stuart: "Nothing can be more erroneous in most cases, than to draw the conclu- OtJR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 8S sion that because the scripture asserts some particular thing to have been done by God, therefore he did it immediately, and no instruments were employed .by him. In interpreting the principles of human laws, we say ' he who does any thing by another does it by him- self.' Does not common sense approve of this, as applied to the language of the scripture ? Nothing can be more evident than that the sacred writers have expressed themselves in a manner which recognizes this principle." On the same principle we explain those passages, which teach us to "honor the Son as we honor the Father," and that " he who denieth the Son denieth the Father also." For in all su(5i cases, the ambassador and the King, the principal and the agent, God and his Christ, are one ; and accordingly Christ himself said, " He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me." In further application of the same principle, it is said in Isaiah and Malachi, "The voice of him that erieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight;" and again, "Be- hold I send my messenger before my face;'' which words in Matt. iii. 3 are applied to the coming of John the Baptist to prepare the way for Jesus Christ ; for the coming of Christ as the messenger of God, was the coming of God- himself to be^w the blessings of a Bo OtTB LORD JESUS chuist. rew revelation. If you -mil keep this rule of interpre- tation in your minds, namely, that the same language will often be applied directly to the principal, and also to the agent, because whatever the agent does, the principal may be said to do, it will remove much of the obscurity of the sacred writings. 3. There are a number of instances in the" New Testament in which Christ is said to have been wor- shipped, either by his disciples or other persons. For instance, Matt, xxviii. 9, when, after his resurrection, his disciples "came and held him by the feet and wor- shipped him;" and verse 17, "When they saw him they worshipped him." Upon this passage Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Methodist commentator, remarks as follows : " This kind of reverence is in daily use among the Hindoos ; vs^hen a disciple meets a public guide in the streets, he prostrates himself before him, and taking the dust from his teacher's feet, rubs it on his forehead, breast," &c. And Dr. J. P. Smith, an equally good authority, says: "The prostrate position which de- noted the highest reverence and respect, is manifestly described, but the expression does not necessarily import more than the most exalted kind of ci^^l homage." In fact the word, worshiped, is very fre- quently used to signify respect and homage, and so it is used in appUcation to temporal rulers ; see Matt, xviii. 26, in the parable of the creditor who took his servant ODR LORD JESUS CBKIST. 87 by the throat, saying, pay me that thou owest; ''The servant therefore fell down and worshiped hira, saying, Lord have patience with me and I will pay thee aU." Also, see Luke xiv. 10 ; " Then shalt thou have wor- ship in the presence of those who sit at meat with thee." We must therefore in all cases determine by the circumstances the nature of the worship given ; but with regard to the highest or religious worship, we have the command of Jesus himself, " Thou shalt wor- ship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve." I will remark that the word here translated serve, when- ever it oc^3urs, means religious worship such as we give to God only, and there is no case of its application to Jesus Christ. There are two texts in which it is supposed, that direct prayer is offered to Christ, The first is Acts vii. 59, at the martyrdom of Stephen: "And they stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." By turning to your Bibles you will see that the word, God, is printed in italics, from which we know that it is not in the original, but supplied by the translators. We may read therefore calling upon Christ, or simply " calling out." Now we are to remember that Stephen is represented as seeing Jesus at the right hand of God, and his excla- mation was like an appeal made to one who was pres- ent. But apart from this, there is nothing in the 88 OUR LOUD JESIBS CHRIST. words of Stephen, which every believer in Christ may not adopt in his dying hour. Our brightest hope of heaven is to be with him, and the natural aspiration of our hearts will be, when the time of our departure comes, that he may receive us into his fold, and ac- knowledge us as his brethren. No one is more heart- ily Unitarian than I am, but I think that such words would come to my lips as the natural prompting of my heart. So have I often heard the dying christian, ■mth heaven already opening to his eyes, whisper the name of parent or child, or some dear friend long since departed, as if communion with the dead were already begun. How much more, may we thus speak the name of Jesus, with whom the spiritual bond is closest of all, whose intercession with the Father is for us, and who hath gone before to the blessed mansions, to prepare a place for us, that where he is, we may be also! It was only yesterday that I stood by the bedside of a dying friend, who, wearied with her long continued suffering, exclaimed " O how I long to go home ! O that Jesus would take me to himself." Yet her belief is as decidedly Unitarian as my own. Another instance of what is thought to be direct prayer to Jesus Christ is found 2 Cor. xii. 8, " For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me, and he said unto me, my grace is suf- ficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect is OUB LORD JESUS CHRIST. S9 weakness ; most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." Dr. Hammond of the English church, in- terprets this as a prayer to God. But I think that the connexion shows it to have been Christ, whom Paul addressed. It is not however what we commonly call prayer, but a personal request to his master. For he has been giving us an account of Christ's appear- ing to him in a vision, by a special revelation, and in that vision, with Christ present before him, he makes the petition here recorded. It cannot therefore be considered as an authority for prayer to Christ, under ordinary circumstances. Our proper and only suffi- cient authority upon this subject, is in the words of Jesus Christ himself, who says, speaking of the time when he should no longer be on earth, John xvi. 23, " In that day ye shall ask me nothing ; verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in n^y name, he will give it you; hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name ; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." This is the Christian doctrine of prayer ; We pray to God the Father only, but we pray through Jesus Christ, or in his name ; that is, as his followers and disciples, who believe in his words, who trust in his promises, who receive the benefit of his life, his suffering, and 90 OUB LORD JESUS CHRIST. death, who look to him as our advocate with the Fa- ther, and who receive through him, as the mediator between God and us and as the living head of his church, til a spiritual blessings which are needed to sus- tain our souls: further than this the scriptures do not authorize us to go. The frequent ascriptions of praise and honor to Christ give us no trouble. To him in fact under God, we owe all our spiritual blessings; and so long as we keep it distinctly in mind, that all should be done to the glory of God the Father, the ultimate source of all blessing, we may properly ascribe, " blessing and honor and glory and power," not only "to Him who sitteth up- on the throne, but to the Lamb forever." Rev. v. 13. You will observe in the words just quoted and almost everywhere else in the book of Revelations, how clear- ly the distinction is kept up between God and Christ; between him who sits upon the throne and the Lamb. Read the whole of the fifth chapter and it will appear still more plainly. There is no book of the New Tes- tament which offers so great difficulties in its interpre- tation as that to which I now refer. I do not pretend to understand it perfectly. It is written in the highest strain of poetry, and prophetic imagery, and no two writers can be found who agree as to its exact mean- ing. I think therefore, that it ought not to be used as a principal authority upon disputed points of doctrine. OCR LORD JESUS CBRIST. 91 If it is true, (which we consider by no means cei*- tain,) that it is Jesus who says, Rev. i. 11, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," its explanation is difficult ; for we can scarcely understand how such words are ap- plicable to any one but the Ahnig'hty. But the difficul- ty is at once increased and removed, when we find the words used by one who commanded John not to wor- ship him: " See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow- servant ; worship God :" for it was the same person who used these words who said directly after, " I am Alpha and Omega ; the beginning a,nd the end ; the first and the last." Rev. xxii. 8, 13. I am persuaded that it is better to look to the plainer books of scripture for our chief instruction. 4. The strongest support of the Trinitarian doctrine concerning Christ, and as it appears to most readers, the greatest difficulty in the way of Unitarians, is found in the introduction to the gospel of John ; to which I now ask your attention, for a few minutes. It is an obscure and difficult passage of scripture. But its ob- scurity arises, chiefly, from our failing to consider the object which the apostle had in view and the circum- stances under which he wrote- Upon these it chiefly depends what meaning shall be given to the word, Logos, and therefore to the whole passage in question. It is commonly supposed that his object was to declare that Jesus Christ was God, the second person of the 92 OUB LOKD JEBU8 CHRIST. Trinity. The Logos is taken as another term for Christ as if the apostle had said, " In the heginning was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was with God, and Jesus Christ was God." Of which we say, first, that it contradicts the apos- tle's repeated assertions concerning Christ and the oh- ject with which he wrote his gospel. There is none of the gospels which is so full in its declarations that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself, and it is in this gospel that we find record of Christ's distinct de- nial of any one of the Divine attributes. At its close, the apostle informs us plainly what his general purpose had been, as follows, John xx. 31: " These are written that he might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his name." Would he have so stated his purpose, if his real object had been to prove that Christ was him- self the Infinite God, whose Son he declares him to be and by whom he was anointed? Let me also remind you of his words, in this same first chapter which is sup- posed to teach that Christ is God: " no man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." This is the true doctrine. Secondly : Of theliteral meaning of the word Logos we have something to say. LeClerc translates it, Rea- son or Divine intelligence, and Dr. Wall, of the Eng^ OUR LOUD JESUS' CHKIST. 93 lish church, makes the following remarks upon it: " This term had ever be6n used in Greek to signify- sometimes reason, ratio ; and sometimes a word, verb- um; they that first translated the gospel into Latin translated it verbum, and so it has continued in the Vulgate and all Latin translations and Latin fathers, save that TertuUian, and some few of them who under- stood Greek as well as Latin, have thought that' the Reason of God or Wisdom of God is a fitter transla- tion of the word Logos." ¥ou will observe that Ter- tuUian, one of the Christian fathers whose authority is very high, is quoted as translating the Logos to be the Reason or rather the Wisdom of God; to which effect I might quote his own words in full if necessary. Sherlock, Macknight, Adam Clarke and others also admit that Logos may be translated Wisdom, or Rea- son, as well as Word, and every Greek scholar knows the same. It is thus that we would understand it. We have no objection however to the present translation, " The Word," if it is rightly considered, E'or by the.; Word of :Gpd, in such a connexion, we can understand- only God's power and wisdom, which is but an- other expression for the' Spirit of God, or God himself. This interpretation is not only allowable, but we shall find that it is absolutely required, when we learn the purpose for which the apostle wrote the introduction to his gospel. 94 OUR iOllD JESUS CHRIST. " On this subject, we are fortunate in having, among others, a conipetent and unimpeachable witness in Ire- Dffius — a friend and pupil of Polycarp, who was a per- sonal friend of St. John. It is the uniform testimony of nnliquity, that St. John wrote his gospel after the other three, and at Ephesus — the head-quarters of the Gnostic heresy, which was the first wide departure from the simplicity of the Christian faith ; and Irenaeus says, that the beloved disciple wrote his gospel for the express pur- pose of refuting the false and absurd notions, which the Gnostics were beginning to spread in Asia Minor. It concerns us then to know what the Gnostics believed. They engrafted upon the Christian faith a philosophy, in which Platonisra was blended with the oriental mysti- cism. They maintained that the supreme God dwelt in the remote heavens, surrounded by chosen spirits, ^ons, (as they called them,) and gave himself very lit- tle concern with what took place upon earth ; that the world was created by an inferior and imperfect being, who was also the author of the Jewish dispensation ; that Christ was sent by the supreme God to deliver men from the tyranny of this creator, and from the yoke of his law ; that there were also various created spirits, or j^ons, sustaining different oflfices, independently for the most part of the supreme Deity, the names of some of which JEons were Life, Light, and particularly, the Lo- gos which represented the divine Reason or Wisdom ; and that the ^on Light became incarnate in John the Baptist. All these spiritaal existences were represented OUK LOED JESUS CHRIST. 95' as distinct from each other, and from the supreme God, so that the system was a sublimated form of polytheism. To fuse these disjointed fragments of deity into one — to rebuke these babblings of philosophy, falsely so called, about a divided sceptre and a scattered divinity— this was the purpose of St. John's introduction. And not only so, but we find that the same pervading purpose gives shape, and character, and, as it were, the key-note to his whole gospel. With this object in view, it was incumbent on him to show that Life, and Light, and the Logos or Word, were not distinct from the supreme God : that the Supreme God created the world, and gave the Jewish law ; that the same God sent John, the fore- runner; and that the same God sent Jesus Christ, not to destroy, but to complete the law — not to deliver men from its tyranny, but to finish for them the work, which the law had begun. All this is shown in the first eighteen verses of the gospel — how comprehensively and beauti- fully you will see, if you keep in mind what I have told you of the Gnostic notion, while I read the passage to you, with such explanations as may be requisite. In the beginning was the Word, the Logos, the divine Reason or Wisdom — not a created being, nor yet an em- anation from the Supreme ; but it always existed — the Word was with Ood, and never had a separate exist- ence ; and the Word was God, was and is inseparable from his essence and his attributes. The same Word, the same divine Wisdom, repeats the evangelist, was in, 96 OTJB LORD JEBUS CHRIST. the beginning with God. And now St. John directs his attention to another of the Gnostic errors, namely, that of the world's having been created by an inferior divin- ity. All things, says St. John, were made by him, that is, by God, {him refers to God, which is the nearest pre- ceding noun to which it can refer.) All things were made by the supreme God, and without him was not any- thing made that was made. In him also was Life ; and the Life was the Light of men. Life and Light are not distinct existences; but God is the source of life, and, where it flows from him, light flows with it. And the Light shines in darkness ; hut the darkness comprehended it not. God has shed light upon men in the darkest times, though men have chosen darkness rather than light. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for a witness, to bear testimony of the light, that all men through Mm might believe. He was not that light, not himself an jEon, a spiritual emanation — he was a man, like other men ; but was sent to bear witness of the^ Light. He, from whom he came, God, was tlie true Light that enlightens every man that comes into the world. God had not removed himself from his creation, had not dwelt apart in the remote heavens. He was already, he was always in the world, and the world had been made by him ; yet the world knew him not. He had come to his own, to the Jewish nation, his favored and covenant peo- ple ; but his own received him not, that is, as a nation, OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 97 they had in general disowned and rejected him in heart and deed, though not in name. But to as many as re- ceived him, to the patriarchs and to the faithful among their posterity, to them who believed on his name, he gave power to become the sons of God, his own spiritual chil- dren, born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, (children not in any human or earthly sense,) but of God, And, in these latter days, the' Word, the divine Wis- .dom, became flesh, and dwelt among men ; and we, I and my fellow apostles, beheld its glory — the glory of the only begotten, of the chosen Son, of the Father, full of mercy and of truth. John bore testimony concerning him, and cried, saying. This is he, of whom 1 said, He that cometh after me, has taken precedence of me ; for he was before me. And of his fulness, of the rich truth and mercy of the Word made flesh, have we all received; yet not, as false teach- ers now say, mercy instead of wrath, a silken instead of an iron yoke, but grace for grace — one gracious dispen- sation to supersede another. For the law was given through Moses, and that was a law of mercy, adapted to its own times ; but now mercy and truth for all times have come through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him — has made him known. Thus we see that the introduction of John's gospel, so far from authorizing the breaking up of the divine na- 98 OCR LORD JESUS CHRIST. ture into a plurality of persons, is a noble assertion and vindication of the divine unity, well worthy the pen of inspiration."* 5. The words contained in John x. 30 are much re- lied upon, to prove the Deity of Christ ; " Land my Fa- ther are one." We interpret the words, as meaning unity in counsel, design and power, not unity of sub- stance. I have before me, not less than twenty Trini- tarian authorities to confirm this view, from which I se- lect the words of Calvin and of Prof. Stuart, because their names are most familiar to you. No one will suspect either of them of leaning to the Unitarian side of the question. "In the present case it seems to me that the meaning of 'I and my Father are one,' is simply, I and my Father are united in counsel, design, and power. So in John xvii. 120, Christ prays that all who shall believe on him ' may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee ; so they also may be one in us.' See also Gal. iii. 28 and 1 Cor. iii. 8." — Prof. Stuart ; answer to Channing. 6. 1 John v. 20: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true : and we are in Him, that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." The word even you will find in italics, and may therefore omit it and read, " we * Leotares by JL. F. Peabody, an ftUo exposition oF Chlistian Dootrine, from wbioh I baTo seroral timos qaotod. OUR LOBS JESUS CHRIST. 99 are in Him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ." Of which expression Calvin says, " that the apostle intends to express the means of our union with God, as if he had said, that we are in God by Christ." Erasmus, Arch- bishop TiUotson, Adam Clarke and others, interpret it in the same way. Dr. Bloorafield even more plainly : " We are in union vdth the true God by means of his Son Jesus Christ." The words, this is the true God, may grammatically refer either to Christ, or to " Him that is true." We refer it of course, to God the Father, who is the chief subject of discourse. In which con- struction we have the authority of Erasmus, Grotius, Rosenmuller and others. The language of Grotius is as follows : " This is the true God : namely he and none eke whom Jesus hath declared to be the object of worship. The pronoun outos, this, not unfrequently relates to a remote antecedent: as in Acts vii. 19; x. 6. "And eternal life ;" this is said by metonymy. The apostle means that God is the primary and chief author of eter- nal life. So also Christ is called Life, John xi. 25 ; xiv. 6, because next to God the Father, he is the cause of eternal life." Zech. xiii. 7, "Awake O sword against my shepherd and against the man that is my fellow saith Jehovah of hosts." Here it is argued, that Christ is spoken of as the feEow, or equal of God. But in fact, the literal 100 OETB LORD JESnS CHEIST. meaning- of the word translated feEow, is " one with, me," or near me, and implies no equality at all. As to the meaning of the word, there is no dispute among^ critics. But as the passage is quoted with a great deal of confidence in many Trinitarian pulpits, it may be worth while to read the remarks of Calvin upon it. " The word translated fellow, means an associate, a neighbor, or a friend, and whoever is joined to us in authority. I have no doubt that by this title God dis- tinguishes his shepherds, because he represented him- self by them to his people. The prophet speaks of shepherds as God's associates on accoimt of their tmion with him and because, as St. Paul says, they are fellow workers and laborers together with God." Much reliance is placed on the exclamation of Thomas, John xx. 28, "And Thomas answered and said unto him, my Lord and my God." I am not sure what explanation of these words is the true one. They were not spoken as a confession of faith, as the words of Peter were, when asked by Christ, " whom do ye say that I am," but they were spoken by the most skep- tical of all the apostles, under the influence of the most profound astonishment. But I am quite sure that they are not a declaration that Christ is the Supreme God, for this simple reason, even if such a doctrine be true, neither Thomas, nor any other of the twelve, had any OUR XQfiB JEgCS CHRIST. 101 knowledge o£ it at the time. " It may be justly doubt- ed," says Dr. Bloomfield, Bishop of London, " whether the so lately incredulous because prejudiced and unen- lightened disciple, had then or at any time before the illumination of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, any com- plete nbtion of the divine nature of Jesus as forming part of the Godhead." Indeed it can be clearly proved, and is admitted by a great many Trinitarian writers, that the apostks had no conception of Christ's deity when Thomas spoke-. I therefore adopt the opinion of the celebrated Kuinoel, whose commentary on the scriptures is a standard work in "Orthodox" universities, and who says that if the worcs are addressed to Jesus, " Thomas used the word God in the sense in which it is applied to kings and judges (who are considered as representatives of Deity) and pre-eminently to the Mes- siah." 7. We next refer to Romans ix. 5, " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Ameh." The whole argument against us in this passage depends on the punctuation. You know that the original manu- scripts of the New Testament are without any punc- tuation. The sentences are not divided from each other by any marks, and the translators are obliged to punctuate as they think the sense requires. Now in this case, if we adopt the punctuation proposed by Gries- 102 ODB LOBD JESDB CBBIST. bach, or Rosenmuller, both of them Trinitarians and enninent in learning, the sense is materially changed. Let the period be placed after the word all, and it then reads, " of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all. God be blessed forever." Which words are added as a doxology by the apostle, in the way in which, in several instances, he has inserted a doxology in the midst of a paragraph. 8. In Acts XX. 28 we read, " Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." The true reading of this passage is the " blood of the Lord ;" but I do not care to insist upon this. The ex- pression is of course to be understood figuratively. No one will contend that it was literally the blood of God. It can mean nothing else than, that God pur- chased the church with the blood of his own Son Jesus Christ, which, on account of his intimate union with the Father, may be figuratively called God's owti blood. This is the meaning which is adopted by the celebrated Baxter, author of the Saints' rest. 9. John xiv. 9, " He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father, and how sayest thou then, show us the Father." The meaning of these words is suffi- ciently explained by the connexion in which they stand. If you will read the 14th chapter through, they will give you no trouble. Christ made a clear revela- OCB LOKD JESUS CURIBT. 103 tion of God, and therefore made known of the Father as much as it is possible for us at present to kno \v. So the words are explained by Dr. Wm. Sherlock ; " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, that is, in plain words, the will of God was fully declared to the world by Christ. Thus God was seen in Christ." It is but another mode of saying that God was made manifest in Christ — ^which leads me to speak of anoth- er text, 1 Tim. iii. 16, which expresses the same doc- trine : " And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen- tiles, received up into glory." It needs no explanation to the Unitarian believer, for that God was manifest in Christ, and that thus the wisdom of God, or his word, was made flesh, we strongly maintain. For although " no man hath at any titne seen God himself, yet the only begotten Son hath declared him." The essential difference still remains between God, who is manifested and Christ by whom the manifestation is made. We have now examined nearly all the important texts which are supposed to be at variance with the Unitarian belief. If I have omitted any they are such, I think, as are sufficiently explained by the connexion in which they stand. For we again say, the highest terms of exaltation applied to Christ give us no trouble 1U4 OUR LOBS J£BUi CHRIST, SO long as the connexion shows that he received his exaltation, " because it pleased the Father that in him aR fulness should dweU." We may be at a loss to de- fine the degree of his authority, but one such expres- sion as that proves, beyond aU doubt, that his authority was not independent or supreme. As to the greater part of these texts, I feel sure that our explanation is good and sufficient. In a few eases only it remains doubtful whether the Unitarian or Trinitarian explanation is the most natural. But even if there were a great many such cases, the weight of evidence which has been adduced from the general testimony of the Bible, is enough to decide us. For my own part, my mind rests upon this subject without any doubt or wavering, for to me the meaning of the Bible seems so plain, that if there were fifty texts which I could not perfectly understand, although I should feel the difficulty, they would not shake my faith. ARGUMENT FROM fflSTORY. ROMANS IK. 5: WHOSE XRE THE FATHERS. My object this evening; is to show the argument for the Unitarian doctrine, derived from Ecclesiastical His- tory. It is a subject to ' which more importance is attached than it really deserves. For as we have the Bible in our own hands, we can read the words of Jesus and of his apostles for ourselves, and these alone are enough to form our faith. They are indeed the only conclusive authority. To Jesus the Holy Spirit was given without measure. Whatever he declared himself to be, there- fore, we are bound to believe ; neither more nor less. Show us that he laid claim to be the Infinite and Su- preme God, and we wiE so receive him ; but as we can find no such words from his lips, but on the contrary, repeated and distinct declarations of his entire depend- ence on God the Father; we receive this doctrine and shall hold to it, let those who are called the christian 106 AKGDMENT TKOM HISTORY. fathers teach what they may. We do not therefore regard the suhject of this evening as essential to our general argument. It becomes important chiefly be- cause of the stress laid upon it by others. By the Roman Catholics, as you know, the early traditions of the christian church and the writings of the christian fathers are regarded as the strong bul- warks of their faith. They do not hesitate to say that the leading doctrines of Christianity cannot be proved by the Bible alone. Let me quote some of their lan- guage to this effect. " We beheve the doctrine of a triune God," says Cardinal Hosius, '^ because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in scripture."— Conf. Cathol. Fidei. chap, xxvii. " Those who bind themselves to scripture alone, and who do not set up any other rule of law or behef , labor to no purpose, and are conquered by their own weapons, as often as they join battle vrith such pests, (the Unita- rians,) that conceal and defend themselves likewise with the language of scripture alone. And we know from history, that this frequently happened to them in the conferences and disputes into which- they entered with the Ehotinians, and tlie Arians." — Petavius, De Trin. lib. 3 Cap. xi. 9; Theol. Dog. vol. 3, p. 301. " That the Son is of the same essence as the Father, or consubstantial with him, is not manifest in any part of sacred scripture, either in express words, or by cer- ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 107 tain and immutable deduction. These and other opin- ions of the protestants, no one can prove from the sacred writings, the traditionary word of God being laid aside. This request has often been made, but no one has made it good. Scripture itself would in many places have seemed to exhibit the opposite doctrine, unless the church had taught us otherwise." — Masenius, Apud Sandium pp. 9, 11. To the same purport I might quote many other Ro- man Catholic authorities. " It is also a remarkable fact, that the Roman Cathohc has often trimnphed over his Protestant antagonist by demonstrating that the great principle of Protestantism, thei right of individ* uals to interpret scripture without resting on tradition and the authority of the church, inevitably leads to Uni- tarianism." "- Protestant beHevers in the Trinity will not of course go so far as this, but even among them, concessions have been made of almost equal importance. Many of their best vsrriters, as Hooker, Bishop Beveridge, Bish- op SmaUridge, and even Carhle, (author of the work " Jesus Christ, the great God our Savior,") and many others, admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is not " di- rectly and explicitly declared, but a doctrine ol infer- ence, which ought not to be placed on a footing of equality with a doctrine of direct and explicit revela- tion."— CarHle p. 81, 369. 108 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORT. I do not know whether to quote the Oxford tracts, which were ivritten by Newman, Pusey and others, before they became Roman Catholics, as Catholic or Protestant authorities. Newman was certainly a nom- inal Protestant when he wrote the following words : "the most accurate consideration of the subject wiU lead us to acquiesce in this Statement, as a general truth, that the doctrines in question have never been learned merely from scripture ; surely the sacred vol- ume was never intended and was not adapted to teach our creed." (Nevraian: Arians of the fourth century, p. 55, quoted in Wiseman's lectures, p. 93.) You may say, that ahhough a Protestant, he was on the high- road to Cathohcism, and should . not be quoted as a Protestant authority, but I think that this was the chief thing that made him a Roman Catholic, namely, that he was not able to prove the doctrines of his church by the Bible alone ; and therefore appealing to the authority of the church in their defence, he came upon Catholic ground, and step by~ step traveled from Oxford to Rome, (not a very long journey,) aknost before he was aware of the inevitable result. For I believe that it is strictly true that the doctrines of the church of England, and of the " Orthodox" church generally, upon the subject we are now discussing, cannot be con- sistently held by those who admit the exclusive author- ity of the scriptures, and the right of private judgment. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 109 In some sliape or other the authority of the church or of tradition, or of the catechism or creed or prayer book, must be brought in, or the doctrines themselves wiE soon be abandoned. Accordingly I read sometime ago, in an orthodox pa- per, what was called a receipt for making a Unitarian church, and the first item was this, " Let the Assem- bly's catechism and the thirty-nine articles, and all other confessions of faith be rejected as human inventions, and let a general belief in the Bible^te declared suffi- cient."* It is also an experiment which has been fre- quently tried, and we are willing to abide by the result in aU cases. Whenever I hear that ajl human creeds, or statements of faith, are discarded by any christian connexion, and the New Testament alone adopted as the confession of faith, I feel that their conversion to Unitarianism is already half accomplished. From considerations such as these great importance is attached to the christian fathers. Many persons, who are really in doubt whether the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the Bible, are held in its belief, because they suppose that it has been the doctrine of the church from the very beginning, and therefore must have been taught by the apostles ; and probably the same opinion is a source of difficulty to many Unitarians. For if it * See.iv)te at &nd of this sermon. 110 AEGtTMENT FROM HISTORY. were true, that that doctrine was taught in the first two or three centuries, as it is taught now, we might have some trouble in accounting for it. It would have been very strange, for such a doctiine to have grown ,up all at once, if not derived from the apostles themselves. I shall therefore attempt to show, and think that I shall succeed in showing, that the departure from the Unitarian or Evangelical faith was very gradual, and that the doctrine of the Trinity as now taught was not estabhshed in the christian church until the last part o£ the Fourth and beginning of the Fifth centuries. This I shall attempt to do, first by two arguments of a gene- ral nature ; and secondly by quotations from the chris- tian fathers themselves. 1. In the early ageS of the church we find mention of two sects, the Ebionites and Nazarenes. They are sometimes called " Judaising christians," because they adhered, the former strictly, and the latter more loose- ly, to the Mosaic law. The Ebionites beheved that Christ was a mere man, and were alvyays reckoned among the heretics by orthodox believers. The Naz- arenes " believed in the miraculous birth of Christ, and that he was in some way united with the divine nature ; they refused to discard the ceremonies prescribed by Moses, but did not obtrude them upon tlie Gentile christians. They moreover rejected the additions to the Mosaic ritual made by the doctors of the law and ARGUMENT FROM HISTOKT. Ill by the Pharisees." This sect was ' never codttted AMONG THE HERETICS in the first three centuries. Mosheim informs us that " Epiphanius, a writer of the fourth century, of no great fidehty or accuracy of judgment, was the first who branded them as heretics." But these Nazarehes were Unitarians, beyond all doubt — and would they have escaped the brand of her- esy, if the majority of believers had been Trinitarians? What I have now said is upon the authority of Mo- sheifn, and Neander, both of them Trinitarian writers of high repute. My own belief is, that the Nazarenes were the primitive christians, converts from Judaism, who retained a little too much of their Jewish predilec- tions, just as the apostle Peter did, in his early minis- try. But in other respects they were Primitive Gospel Christians. I think so, partly, because they were in such good repute in the christian world, that even' their judaising tendencies did not separate them from the orthodox communion, and partly because their name is that which was given, (at first by wdy of reproach,) to ail the disciples of Christ, because he was a citizen of Nazareth. Acts xxiv. &. Secondly : We derive a second general proof from Ecclesiastical' history in the creeds or confessions of faith, used in the first four centuries. By their exam- ination, we shall find there was a gradual departure froin the simplicity that is in Christ, and an equal de- 112 AKGUMENT FEOM HISTORY. parture from the Unitarian belief. The confession of faith used by the apostles themselves, as recorded in the book of Act's, was very brief an^ simple. " I be- lieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Acts viii. 37. This creed was the yock on which our Savior as- smed Peter that he would build his church. Matt. xvi. 16. It was this which the apostle Peter taught to the assembled Jews on the day of Pentecost. Acts ii. 36. The Apostle John wrote his gospel for the special pur- pose of inculcating it. John xx. 31. And when Paul was miraculously converted to a knowledge of the truth, the great burden of his preaching was, to convince his hearers of th? same." Acts is. 22. When converts were made from among the hea- thens, another article was necessarily added, expressive of the belief in One God, even the Father. Hence was formed, with some further additions, what is called the Apostles' Creed. It was not wrritten by the apos- tles themselves, but it was in general use in the first three centuries, and was regarded as containing the whole apostohcal faith. Now, we contend that it is nothing more or less than a Unitarian creed. We can adopt it, word for word, without any explanation. " I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord; who was, by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; under Pontius Pilate, he vras oiuoified and bm'ied ; the thii-d day, he rose ARGUMENT FROM HISTORT. 113 from the dead ; he ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit ; the holy church ; the forgiveness of sins ; the resurrection of the body and life everlast- ing." " This is the exact form in which the creed was used in the 2d, 3d, and 4th_ centuries, and it was considered the sufficient rule of faith in the church until the year 325. I think that it would not have beeji regarded as sufficient if the Trinitarian belief had generally pre- vailed. It would not be regarded alone as sufficient in - in the present day. It would not be considered safe in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches 'to discard the Nicene and Athanagian creeds and to' retain this as the only confession of faith ; nor in the Presbyte- rian church, yvould it be considered safe to adopt it, instead of the Assembly's catechism. But it satisfies us, as Unitarians, and if we thought it right to use any confession of faith, other than the New Testament itself, I know of none which we could adopt more heartily than this which is called the Apostles' Creed. As corruptions of doctrine prevailed more and more, the Apostles' creed was found to be insufficient. At the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, another creed was es- tabHshed. It was adopted against great opposition, although the whole authority of the Emperor Constan- 6* 114 ARGUMENT FBOM HISTORY. tine was exerted, and it was more than fifty years be- fore it was firmly estatlisked in the church. So reluctantly did the christian world depart from its first formulas of faith. It is to be especially remarked, that the Nicene creed, as at first adopted, does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, for it says nothing of the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Nor does it teach the absolute equality of Christ with the Father, although it uses unscriptural language, such as a Unitarian cannot adopt. The idea of derivation of the Son from the Father is stiU retained. He is the Son of God, the begotten of the Father, God or God — that is, derived from God, not absolutely God in the same sense with the Father. If you will examine the history of the Council of Nice, you will find that this is the meaning then attached to the words. The first creed in which the Trinitarian faith is stated, as no\v received, is the Athanasian creed. It was not composed by Athanasius, but by some unknown author in the fifth century. It is such a creed as was needed in the church, after it had completely aban- doned the Unitarian faith; and it is a strong argument in our favor that no such creed is to be found until the fifth century, a time when corruptions of every sort abounded. You will thus perceive how gradually the transition was made, step by step, and "as the first creed is avowedly the one held by Unitarians, and the ARGUMENT FROM HISTOHY. 115 last one lield by the Trinitarians, the inference is irre- sistible, that the church, which was Unitarian in the beginning, gradually became Trinitarian. 2. Having given these two general arguments, from undisputed facts in the history of the church, I' now proceed to give several quotations from the early Fathers. Among those of the highest authority, and whose names will be familiar to you, are Justin the Martp-, Ireneus, Clement of Rome, Clemens Alexan- drinus, Origen rand Eusebius. These are the most highly esteemed of the christian Fathers before the' Council of Nice, and .they all concur in giving Unita- rian testimony. Clement of Rome, a personal friend of Paiil, men- tioned in- the Epistle to the Philippians, (Phil. iv. 3,) calls Jesus "the sceptre of the majesty of God," we find near the close of his Letter to the Corinthians the fol- lowing doxology, which is such as a Unitarian would have written : " Now God the inspector of all things, the Father of all spirits, and the Lord of all flesh, who has chosen our Lord Jesus Christ, and lis by him to be his peculiar people, grant to every soul of man that calleth upon His great and holy name, faith; fear, peace, long suffering, patience, temperance, holiness and sobriety, unto all well-pleasing in his sight, through our high priest and protector Christ Jesus, by whom be glory and majesty and power and honor unto 116 ARGUMENT FBOM BISTOBT. Him now and forever." Again he says, " Have we not all one God, and one Christ, and one spirit of grace poured upon us all ? " which is exactly the language of the Apostle Paul himself, with whom, hg Was in part cotemporary. Justin Majityr, who addressed a defence of Christianity to Antoninus Pius, about the year 140, wag among the first to use that language concerning Christ, which, afterwards grew into the doctrine of his supreme divinity, and holds a high rank among the Orthodox fathers; he has diis language concerning Christ: " The Father is the author to him, both of his exist- ence and of his being powerful and of his being Lord and God." You wiU observe that Christ is here called God, but the connexion shows that it is in a subordinate sense. In another place he says, "he was subordinate to the Father, and a minister to his wHl." Ibeneus, vvho wrote a large work upnn the subject of heresies A. D. 172, says: "AH the Evangehsts have delivered to us the doctrine of one God and one Christ, the Son of Gpd;" invoking the Father, he calls him " the only God," and according to several of the most considerable of the early christian writers, a com- mon epithet by which the Father is distinguished from the Son is, that he alone is Auiotheos, or God of himself. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 117 CtEMENs Alexandrinus calls thp Father alone " without heginning," and, immediately after character- izes the Son as " the beginning and the first fruits of things, from whom we must learn the Father of AU." He also says, " The Mediator performs the will of the Father ; the word is the Mediator, being common to both, the seal of God, and the Savior of men, God's servant, and our instructor." TERTULLiiir expressly says, "That God was not al- ways a Father or a Judge ; since he could not be a Father before he had a Son, nor a Judge before there was sin, and there was a time, when both sin, and the Son, which made God to be a Judge and a Father, were not." Origen, the most learned of the fathers, wrote about the year 225 ; he says " the Father only is ' the Good' and the Savior, as he is the, image of the invisible God. so is he the inoage of his goodness." Again he says, I " If we know what prayer is, we must not pray to any created being, not to Christ himself, but only to God, the Father of all, to whom our Savior himself prayed." We are not to pray to a brother, who has the same father with ourselves; Jesus himself saying, that we must pray to the Father, through the Son." If this be not Unitarianism, what is it ? Yet this same Ori- gen frequently calls Christ, God, although: in a subor- 118 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. dinate sense. For wlien accused of believing in two Gods, he explained himself as follows: "He who is God of himself is The God ; for which reason he says in his prayer to the Father, that they may know Thee the only true God; but whatever is God besides him, (who is so of himself,) being God only -by a communication of his divinity, cannot so properly be called The God, but rather A God," or Divine. Such language is very common until the beginning of the fifth century ; and whenever Chi-ist is called God before that time, the word is to be understood in the sense in which Origen used it. Thus Ahnobius says, " Christ, a God under the form of a man, speaking by the order of the principal God." Again, " Then at length did God Almighty, the only God, send Christ." And Lactantius says, " Christ taught that there is one God, and that he alone ought to be worshipped ; neither did he ever call himself God; because he would not have been true to his trust, if being sent to take away Gods and assert One, he had introduced another be- sides that one. Because he assumed nothing at all to himself, he received the dignity of perpetual Priest, the honor of Sovereign King, the power of a Judge, and the name of God." I shaE quote but one other authority, Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history, who ^vrote about the year 320. He says, " There is one God and the only augtjment feom histokt. 119 begotten comes from him." Christ being neither the Supreme God, nor an angel, is of a niiddleMSature be- tween them ; and being neither the Supreme God nor a man, but a Mediator, is in the middle between them, the only begotten Son of God." " Christ the only be- gotten Son of God, and the first born of every creature, teaches us to call his Father the true God, and com- mands us to worship him only." These quotations are, I think, plain and conclusive. I might multiply them to a great extent, if needful. But these are enough for our present purpose, which is to show that the changes in Christianity were very gradual, from the plain and intelligible doctrine taught by Christ and his Apostles, to the difficult and unscrip- tural doctrines of the Athanasian creed. The chief source of these changes or corruptions, was the Platonic philosophy. Justin Martyr, Tertul- lian, and nearly all of the early christian fathers, were Platom'sts, before they were christians.- They brought into their new rehgion as much of their old philosophy as they could. They thus ingrafted many ideas bor- rowed from Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, and other Platonists of that age ; and what was equally bad, they applied Platonic language to the expression of their christain faith, by which great confusion of ideas was introduced. Among the terms thus borrowed, was the Greek word Trias, used by the Platonic philosophers to 120 AEGCMENT FKOM HI8T0ET. express some subtile distinction in the divine nature usually called the Platonic trinity. It was not a distinc- tion of persons properly so called, nor is it easy to say exactly what it did mean. The word was first introduced into the discussion of the Godhead among christians by Theophilus of Antioch, in the second century, and was afterwards used by Origen in the third century. It was translated into the Latin by Tertullian, about the year 200, by the word Trinitas, of which the Enghsh word Trinity is the exact translation. Many other words in the newly invented phraseology came from the same source, and many peculiar ideas concerning the Logos, or Word of God. I shall not trace them now; but to show the extent to which "Orthodox" christians of later times, when the Trinity was becoming estabhshed, considered themselves indebted to the Pla- tonic philosophy, I will quote one sentence from the celebrated Augustin. He says, that he "was in the dark with regard to the Trinity until he found the true doctrine concerning the divine word, in a Latin transla- tion of some Platonic writings, which the Providence of God had thrown in his way." I do not suppose that any one wHl accuse me of intentional unfairness, in the representation now made of the christian fathers. I have not claimed any one of them as being what we would call a somrd Unitarian. The best of them used language and inculcated ideas, ARGUMENT PEOM HISTORY. 121 which came from the Platonic school quite as much as from Christ. All that I contend for is this: that the further we go back the nearer we come to the, true doc- trine which is life eternal, namely, "to know the Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent." And also that there is no proof whatever, that what is now called the doctrine of the Trinity, was in existence before the Council of Nice. To this effect I will quote the authority of George Christian Knapp, an eminent Trinitarian writer, whose " Lectures on Christian Theology," as translated by Leonard Woods, Jr., are a standard work with Trinitarian believers. After a fuU and learned discussion of the whole subject, he distinctly admits that it is " impossible to prove the agreement of the earliest christian writers with the common Orthodox doctrine as established in the fourth century. Vol. 1, p. 294, 299, &c. Again he says, "It is obvious, that the Unity, of which these philosophical, fathers speak, is nothing more than unanimity, agreement, correspondence in feelings, consent in will, in power, and in the application of power to particular objects. They do not mean by the use of the word to signify that the Son and Holy Spirit were God, in the full meaning of the word, and in the same sense in which the Father is God. In short, these philosophical christians asserted rather the divineness of th.e: Son and the Spirit and theji 122 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. divine origin, than their equal deity with the Father. Thus it is obvious, that they entertained far different views of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, of which they often speak, than we do- at the present time.'' " Indeed the belief in the subordination of the Son to the Father, for -which Ananism was the later name, was commonly adopted by moat of those fathers of the sec- ond and third centuries, who assented in general to the philosophy of Plato. And had not Divine Providence interposed in a special manner, there is reason to think it would have been the estabhshed doctrine of the church." And again, " With regard to the Holy Spirit more particularly, we may remark that during the three first centuries of the christian era, there was nothing decided by ecclesiastical authority respecting his nature, the characteristics of his person or his relation to the Father and the Son. Nor was any thing more definite established at the Council of Nice. To believe in the Holy Spirit was all that was required." p. 313. Such is the fact concerning the fathers of the first three centuries. The writer just quoted accounts for it, being himself a Trinitarian, by saying that the true doctrine was corrupted, by the infusion of the Platonic ideas. But if that true doctrine had been the Trinity, we should find it more distinctly stated, the further we go back in the record ; of which the exact contrary is true. The earliest writers are the most distinctly Unitarian, ARGUMENT mOM HISTORY. 123 and in proportion as the Platonic philosophy came in, there was a gradual, but rapid departure from the truth, until, after long- and violent struggles, the chris- tian world settled down into the Athanasian crsed. It was undoubtedly b^«tEe ^permission of Divine Provi- dence, but it was through the direct influence of the civil power, and the result of the most terrible persecu- tions. From that time, until the sixteenth century, compar- ative darkness was over the face of the christian world. But no sooner was the hght of the Reformation kindled, than the Unitarian doctrine again appeared. Resisted alike by Catholic and Protestant, it was held at the peril of a man's hfe ; yet many were found to profess it. In Geneva, Michael Servetus was ateaed to death, at the instigation and by the authority of Calvin, who thereby gave another proof that " the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church," for Geneva is now one of the strongholds of the Unitarian' faith. We might name many others, in Germany, in France, and in England, who bore a like testimony ; for, from that time to this, our faith has never been without its martjrrs and faithful confessors. Nor have we any reason to bd ashamed of those who have borne our name. They have been comparatively few, for the doctrine has been unpopular and opposed by all the strength of the christi^ri world. But although until 124' ARGDMEKT FROM HISTOKT. modern times they were few in numter, they were great in intellect, profound in learning, and eminent in piety. John Milton, England's great poet ; Sir Isaac Newton, her greatest philosopher : John Locke, her profoundest metaphysician , iMonnrel Lardner, author of the most learned work on christian evidences ever written, were all of them close students of the scripture, and all of them helievers in the Divine Unity, as we receive it. Even Dr. Isaac Watts, whose h3rmns are the music of every church, became in the last years of his life a Unitarian. If great names could support a cause these would do it. We might add to them many others of the living and the dead, equally good. But we do not rely on such arguments. We rest not upon an arm of flesh. We appeal to the sacred scriptures alone, to the glorious company of the apostles and to Christ their Hving head. Yet surely we may be par- doned, when we hear our church vilified and ourselves excluded from the christian commiznion, if we remind our opponents, that so many of the names, of which Christendom is most proud, are found in the Unitarian ranks. In the present day, we have every reason to be sat- isfied with the progress of our faith. It is extending itself far more rapidly than most persons are aware ; not only by the growth of Unitarian societies, so called, but by the diflfusion of Unitarian ideas every where. ARGUMENT FltOM HISTOHV. 125 So far as they are true, we hope that they will continue to prevail more and more. If they are untrue, if they are a perversion of God's word, we hope that they may soon pass away. If we hold error, we do so igno- rantly, for we honestly believe that we hold the truth as it is in Jesus. I will therefore close this sermon in the words, al- most the dying words, of Dr. Watts, in his solemn address to the Deity. As sincere inquirers after scrip- tural truth, we may adopt them as our own: " Dear and blessed God ! hadst thou been pleased, in any one plain scripture, to have informed me which of the different opinions about the Holy Trin- ity, among the contending parties of Christians, had been true, thou knowest with how much zeal, satis- faction, and joy, my unbiased heart would have opened itself to receive and embrace the divine dis- covery. Hadst thou told m& plainly, in any single text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three real distinct persons in thy Divine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of assent- ing to the mere inventions of men, instead of Divine doctrine ; but I should have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the only rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased so to express and include this 126 augtjment feom histoby. proposition in the several scattered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience, might with ease find out and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfuUy employed all my reasoning pow- ers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into my soul." " Thou hast taught me. Holy Father, by thy prophets, that the way of holiness in the times of the Gospel, or under the kingdom of the Messiah, shall be a high- way, a plain and easy path; so that the wayfaring man, or the stranger, 'though a fool, shall not err therein.' And thou hast called the poor and the igno- rant, the mean and the foolish things of this world, to the knowledge of thyself and thy Son, and taugl^ them to receive and partake of the salvation which thou hast provided. But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so diiBcult, and so abstruse a doc- trine as this, in the explication and defence whereof, multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtilities of dispute, and endless mazes of darkness ? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going to make up one true God be so necessary and so impor- tant a part of that Christian- doctrine, wliich, in the Old Testament and the New, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings? " ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 127 Sach were the last thoughts of a pious and learned man after more than twenty years of examination of the scriptures. They are full of instruction to us, and well calculate^ to confirm us in our present belief. If such a man as Dr. Watts was forced out of Trinitarian- ism by pqi^erful and conscientious study of the Bible, we, as Unitarians, have reason to thank God and take courage. i NOTE TO PAGE 109. * To show that! am not guilty of unEairncss ia what is said on the 109tb page, I will here give a remarkable quotation from the Quarterly Christian Spectator, an " Orthodox Congregational" Journal: "They who idolize the form of the Lord's Prayer would do well to remember that it says nothing of Christ or redemption through his blood. When it was given to the disciplts, the great doc- trines o£ the Cross could not properly be introduced astopits of prayer, for the time had not come. But now, since redemption is completed, the Lord's prayer has ceased to be, strictly speaking, a Chriet-an prayer, because it has no allusion to Christ. We regard it as a most admirable form, considering its date. We approve of its occasional U3e,»and would not detract from its s.icredness or value. But it is a singular fact, that for reasons already stated, it is much admired by Deists and Unitarians. See Pope's Universal Prayer. Had Christ given a form of prayer, after his ascension, we doiibt not it would have been essentially different." This is very curious. The writer was wiser than the Savior. The prayer taught by Christ himself " not a Christian prayer ! " " very good considering the date ! " Yet we think that the writer was consistent. The Lord's prayer is not a Trinita- rian prayer. The same is truo of his own prayer to the Father, before his crucifixion. Is not this worthy of remark ? The Lord taught his discjples to pray and prayed himself, and in both cases the prayers are Unitarian ; nor is there any form or prayer expressed in scripture language, ■which a Unitarian cannot adopt. The phraseology which drives us out of many of the ehurches is not to ho found in the Bible. ;THE ATONEMENT. KOMAJSrST. 10. FOR IF WHEN WE WERE ENEMIES, WE WERE RECONCILED TO GOD BY THE DEATH OF HIS SON, MUCH MOItE, BEING KECONCII.ED, WE SHALL BE SAVED DT HIS LIFE J AND NOT ONLY SO, BUT WE ALSO JOY IN GOD THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, BY WHOM WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE ATONEMENT. The word, which is translated reconcile in the tenth verse, is translated atone in the eleventh. Of course therefore the meaning is the same. The two words were used by the translators as exactly synonymous, and the word Atonement was printed in the first edi- tions of the English Bible, At-one-ment. It is used in the same manner by other writers in the time of James I., so that its meaning is well estabUshed, and as this is the only passage in the New Testament where it occurs, we^aire authorized to say that the doctrine of Atonement and the doctrine of Reconciliation are the same thing. If we so regard it, this is the great doc- trine of religion. It is the substance of religion itself. Other truths may be important, but they are so only as they are subsidiary to this. In a practical point of view. 130 THE ATONEMENT. they concern us, only as they teach us how to be recon- ciled to God, and help us in becoming so. Or, in other words, aU religious truth is important in proportion as it shows to sinners the way of salvation, and helps them to walk therein until salvation is attained. The necessity of reconciliation rests upon the fact that we are sinners. " God made man upright and he has sought out many inventions." " For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." How this came to pass is not, here, the mate- rial question. The fact is undeniable, and from it corties the necessity of the Gospel redemption. If there is any man who has committed no sin, for him the mission of Christ has no personal interest. " God was in Christ reconcihng the world to himself," but where there has been no rebellion, there can be no reconcili- ation. "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick ; " and therefore Christ said, that " he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." It is because we feel ourselves to be sinners, that we come to Christ. We have lost our way and desire to find it. We have rebelled against God and desire to make peace with him. We are ahena- ted from him and desire to be again brought near. Our sins rise up in judgment against us, and we desire that the record of them should be blotted out. Through sin we are at enmity with God, and as his creatures, THE ATONEMENT. 131 dependent on his power, as his children, whose only hope oJE happiness comes from the Father's love, our chief concern, I may say our only concern, is to find the means of reconciliation with him; to obtain assu- rance of pardon and acceptance with God, of whose love wc have made ourselves so unworthy. This is our inquiry to-night. Not an abstract sub- ject of metaphysical research, but the great practical question of religion. How shall the burdened conscience throw off its load? where shall the despairing heart, self-accused, find hope ? Where shall the weary and heavy laden find rest ? Is it not a question which con- cerns us all ? May God in his mercy guide us to a right answer ! And that we may be so guided, let us consider it, not as a disputed subject in Theology, but as a practical subject in vital religion. How shall the sinner be reconciled with God ? How shall he be justified, or restored to God's favor ? How shall he obtain forgiveness and remission of sins ? We look for an answer — First, to the laws of God's gov- ernment; to that which we call Nature, interpreted by our unenlightened reason. An answer comes, but it is not an answer of peace. It is not forgiveness, "but pay me that thou owest." If thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, «m lielh at the door." It is the voice of stern unpitying exaction. "Every where in Nature we read Law, inexorable, 132 THE ATONEMEKT. unrelenting Law. She governs by laws, which indeed are always adapted to the good of the whole, to the ad- vancement and perfection of the race, but beneath them the individual continually is crushed. Nature never pardons. Her wheels thunder along their iron track, nor turn out to spare any helpless mortal who has fallen beneath them. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Helplessness is no exemption. There is no appeal to any court of error, but prompt execution follows judg- ment. The innocent child, who ignorantlytouchesfire, is not the less burned. The man who in the night, ignorantly, walks over a precipice, is not the less des- troyed. In nature, therefore, we find no word of pardon for those who have broken the law, whatever may be their excuse or sorrow." If the laws of God's moral government are equally stern and unbending, there is no hope for man ; his sins will surely find him out, and sooner or later will work his destruction. If we look to our own moral nature, the same answer comes, equally stern, equally unpitying. Perhaps I may say even more so. The wound upon the physical frame will be healed by the curative power of nature herself; and although a scar is left, the injury may be forgotten. But the wounds of conscience are not healed; sin once committed can never be forgotten. Or if for a time it be put out of mind by the hurried pursuits of life, it will still rise up again like the ghost THE ATONEMENT. 133 of a murdered friend, to spoil our bealenjoyment and to rebuke us in our proudest imaginings. Conscience speaks no word of pardon; it gives no assurance that God's favor will be restored to those by whom it has been once forfeited. Its rebuke is equally stern for a sin committed years ago as for those of yesterday. The intervening years may have been spent in the sor- row of repentance, or in works of obedience, but con- science remains unappeased. Perhaps the more nearly we come to a righteous life, the more deeply we feel the stings of remorse, for the iniquity of bygone days. Such is the natural working of a tender conscience. It cannot find comfort for itself; it cannot blot out the record of its own sins. It looks upward, but it clothes the Almighty in attributes of vengeance ; its own fears read anger in his face ; its own sense of ill-deserving anticipates the sentence of condemnation. It drivesthe sinner to cruel penances, to self torture and scourging, vainly striving to expiate the sins of the soul by the sufferings of the body; and yet after years of such pe- nance, the poor sufferer, at each renewed remembrance of his sin, will strike the bleeding scourge more deeply into the flesh and cast himself to the ground in renewed and hopeless agony. History will tell of a thousand such, and this is the Voice of Pardon which the awa- kened conscience speaks. 134 THE ATONEMENT. Or sometimes, it will deceive the sinner with the hope, that by ofTering payment to the most High his debts may be discharged ; and thus, by sacrifices upon the altar, or by the building of costly churches, or by the splendor of external worship, or in more enlight- ened times, by institutions of charity and other works of philanthropy, men have sought to make their peace with Him, against whose majesty they have rebelled. But stiU, however costly the sacrifice, the conscience cannot be thus satisfied. Still there has been a whis- pering, that it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin; or that God should be appeased by the imperfect offerings of those \^ho, when they have done all, are but unprofitable servants. There needed something more than this, some higher and better teaching. It is a necessity which every one of us, who acknowledges himself to be a sinner, must feel, and we shall feel it more and more deeply, in proportion as we rise higher in purity and goodness. We need to be assured that God is merciful. Reason itself may teach us that he is good towards those who do not violate his laws ; for the provisions of nature are always bountiful and land, both for man and beast, so long as they are not perverted by the selfishness or folly of those, for whose good they were intended. But from the retributions of a violated law, reason alone THE ATONEMENT. 135 finds no way of escape. From the anger of an offended God, reason alone points out no refuge. There is a debt which cannot be paid, and reason alone gives no assurance that God will remit it. This is what we need to learn, that God is merciful. This is the balm in Gilead, by which the wounded conscience can be made whole ; this is the voice from Heaven which we need to hear, speaking peace to the broken and contrite heart. We need some assurance, that " if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The religion which can give us that assurance, is the religion for which the sinful heart yearns. Let us but learn that there is forgiveness with God, that upon certain conditions, with which we are able to comply, he will not impute to men their past offences, but will freely justify them and graciously accept them, in the exercise of his infinite mercy, and it is all we need to know. The wall of separation between us and our God is then thrown down. The way for reconciliation, and for the redemption which follows it, is open. He who brings that assurance, who instructs us in these condi- tions, is inde«d our Savior. But if he not «nly does this, but gives us encouragement and help in complying with the conditions, and goes before in the way where- in we must walk, and disarms death of its terror, and reveals God to us as a Father clothed in the attributes 136 THE ATOKEMENT. of tenderness and love, and opens to our eyes the Heavenly abode wheie God and his angels dwell, and to which he, the messenger of love, has gone before to prepare a place for us, that where he is we may be also; — In what words can we express our gratitude, except to say, "Thanks be to God, for his imspeakable gift," in our Lord Jesus Christ. Such are the glad tidings of great joy, " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace, good wiU to- ward men." Syllabings of the same message had been spoken in the world before. To Abraham and to his children, to the righteous men and prophets of olden time, some intimations had been given of God's abounding love towards the sinner ; " For I have no pleasure, saith the Lord God, in the death of the sin- ner, but rather that he should tm-n and Uve." By such words many hearts had been comforted. The penitent sinner had been made to hear joy and gladness, and the bones which had been broken were made to rejoice. Nay, I believe that in all religions, even in those most obscured by superstition, there" have always been some rays of divine truth, received through the first revela- tion which God made of himself to his human family, by which a stronger hope of God's mercy has teen given, than reason alone could suggest. The spirit of God has always striven with man ; the light has always THE ATONEMENT. 137 been in the world everywhere, and men have preferred darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. But when through the manifold corruptions of sin and human error, the whole head had become sick and the whole heart faint, it became necessary that a clearer revelation of God's mercy should be made. And it was then, when the full time had come, that " God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the wotld, but that the world through him might be saved." The christian religion is throughout a revelation of mercy; even as we read, "Of his fullness have we all received, and grace for grace." I do not mean that it annuls God's law; on the contrary, Christ came to ful- fil, or to make perfect and complete, the moral law under which we live and by which we must be judged. The christian law of morals is the strictest that has ever been given to man. It is the strictest that we can conceive. It takes hold not only of the actions, but the motives from which action springs ; of all our secret desires and thoughts and purposes. It holds before us the standard of absolute perfection, of which it gives an example in Jesus Christ, and commands us never to be weary of well doing, until we have attained to the fullness of his stature. But for the past offences of the penitent sinner, and for his continued short comings in the christian race, it has woi-ds of blessed healing, of heavenly comfort, of eternal encouragement. "If any 6* 138 THE ATONEMENT. man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous." When we have learned with humility of heart to confess our sins, to acknowledge ourselves guilty he- fore God, and that hy the deeds of the law — ^by our own imperfect righteousness — no man can be justified in his sight, then do we also learn, that God is ready to justify us, to restore us again to his favor, if we come before him with beheving, trustful hearts, seeking to do his will as followers of Christ. That he ^vill jus- tify us ; not because we deserve it, for from such a claim every mouth is stopped, by the acknowledgment of sin. But that he will justify us freely, by his grace, his infinite mercy, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom he hath foreordained to be a m^r- cy-seat for those who approach through faith in him, to declare that the sinner shall be justified — treated as though he were righteous, received to the arms of God's love, even as the returning prodigal was received by his father — ^by the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. This ^^•as Christ's mission ; to declare God's justification of the repenting sinner. That he might show God to be at the same time just and the justifier of him who beUeveth in Jesus. We can therefore rely upon the mercy of God; we can feel sure that if we go to him as children to a father, he THE ATONEMENT. 139 will receive us; " he will in no wise cast us out." But we cannot claim the merit of this reception ; it is not because of what we have done and all the boasting of the self-righteous is excluded. It is to God's mercy alone, in Jesus Christ, that we owe our acceptance. The prime and perhaps only condition, on which we receive forgiveness of our past sins, is an act which, by its nature, excludes merit. It is an act of self re- nunciation; the prostration before God of the self con- victed sinner ; the act of sincere confession and repent- ance ; in a word, the act of self surrender to God which by the scripture is called Faith. Not belief only, that belief which the devils also may have even while they tremble ; not that belief which is often an exercise of the barren intellect, and is no more than the willing or unwilling acceptance of certain opinions; but Faith, which is the deepest experience of the soul — an Act by which our whole relation towards God is changed ; by which we are brought from the attitude of distrust and rebellion, to that of children who, although with tears in their eyes, exclaim, Abba my Father; — this is Christian Faith. This is the condition on which God has promised, through Christ, <■■ to forgive our sins. If it be fulfilled, he has promised that the record of the past shall be blotted out. At the foot of the cross, where we learn to believe, the burden falls from our back, and we start 140 THE ATONEMENT. forward upon a new race with heaven in our view. A long and arduous race-^but we hegin it with light hearts, full of hope, sure of obtaining the prize, if we run with patience, looking unto Jesus who is the author and finisher of our faith. The law of God is therefore not made void. We acknowledge its full force by that act of faith, which is the condition of pardon. We place ourselves under the condemnation of God's law ; we wait for sentence to be passed upon us; and instead thereof, hear the words of the Divine Savior, " Depart in peace, thy faith hath saved thee;'' "Go and sin no more." The law of God is not made void ; it is estabhshed as completely as if its utmost penalty had been exacted. The continuance of God's favor is also made to depend upon a renewed life, a life of filial obedience, without which we again fall into -condemnation. Nay, something more than this is true. The forgive- ness of sin does not remove all evil consequences. It removes the worst, which is our estrangement from God, but there are others which remain. Although we may be restored to his favor and may feel in our hearts the earnest of heavenly bliss, it requires long years of striving to rid our souls of the stains wliich sin has left there. The intemperate man may be reformed, he may feel that his reconciliation with God is made, but wiU THE ATONEMENT. 141 the evil effects of past transgression quickly disappear? Will not even the appetite for that which was his ruin remain and return upon him, a morbid craving for that which he strives to hate 1 And so it is with all our sins. We may repent of them, we may forsake them, we may feel that through God's mercy in Jesus Christ they are forgiven, and yet their evil consequen- ces may remain — increasing the difficulty of our on- ward progress, returning upon us in perverted tastes, in sinful imaginings, in weakness of resolution, so that we are often compelled to exclaim, " that which we do, we allow not, but "ihat which we would not, we do." Such is the true experience of the sinner even of him who has found hope in Christ. It is a further vindica- tion of God's law ; it is a further evidence that those who trifle with their souls incur a dreadful risk and must, to a certain extent, reap that which they sow. God may forgive them but he stiU leaves a token in their souls, by which they may see how narrow has been their escape. They may be saved, but it is so as by fire. Therefore it is that the redeemed in Christ, while they labor to work out their own salvation, must do it with fear and trembling. Thus again do we see that the law of God is not made void by the terms of reconciliation which he offers ; yea it is rather estab- lished. 142 THE ATONEMENT. One part, therefore, of the doctrine of reconciliation we can understand perfectly. I mean so far as it re- quires a change in us. The change from worldliness to devotion ; from rebellion to childlike self surrender ; from distrust to faith; from self seeking and pride, to self denial and humiHty. It is a change which begins in a renewed heart and is completed in a renewed life. This is our reconciliation to God. We also understand how it is effected in us. By the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus ; by the messages of love which he brings to us from the Father ; by his holy exam- ple ; by his instructions in righteousness ; by his suffer- ings and death ; by his promises of eternal hf e ; by his resurrection from the dead ; by his ascension into heaven; by his intercession for us with the Father, and by the influences of the Holy Spirit, which are given through him — By the whole gospel dispensation. It is not only that Christ has taught us of the Father, but much more, because the Father is manifest in the Son. The divine attributes, however explained to us, we could but imperfectly understand. We might still have a lingering fear, that the justice of an Infinite being could not be satisfied, without the full punish- ment of the offender. But when we read the history of Christ himself, the image of the invisible God, and see how perfectly justice and mercy are joined togeth- er in him, not as conflicting attributes, but as only dif- THE ATONEMENT, 143 ferent exhibitions of the same parental love, stern or gentle, according to the necessity of each case, we can understand how God is just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus ; how he can condemn sin and yet pardon the. sinner ; " Not desiring the death of any but that all should turn to him and live." It is thus that Christ showed himself to us, and it is in this attribute of justice, tempered by mercy, that we re- ceive him as the manifestation of the Father — the Word made flesh. We contend that there is no view of God's justice, which can be correct, that does not find its manifestation and development in Christ. Such is the effect on us, and such are the means by which it is produced. This is therefore the practical part of our subject. So far as we are concerned in the work of reconcihation with God, this is all that we need to know. We know that God is willing to receive us ; we know the conditions on which we shall be re- ceived; every motive for coming to him and every encouragement is given; we see from what source help will come to our infirmities; we know enough of God's counsels to be sure that our seeking will not be in vain. Upon all this there is scarcely any controversy among christians. Here, as in almost all other doc- trines, the controversy is not concerning that which is practical, for the practical is almost always plain. It 144 THE ATONEMENT. concerns questions to which we can give no positive answer. It is upon subjects which are for the great part beyond our reach. There are some points of dif- ficulty of this sort in the doctrine of atonement ; ques- tions of theology rather than of religion. Such for example as these : In the work of reconciUation, is not a change in God also needed as well as in us? How did the death of Christ make it safe for God to forgive sin in a sense in which it was not before safe ? What effect upon the counsels of God does the mediation of Christ produce? In what sense did Christ die for us and suffer in our stead? The questions are of great interest, but while I state them you see that they are chiefly above our comprehension. We may speculate concerning them but cannot arrive at certain conclu- sions. We shall attempt to answer them however, so far as the scripture guides us, next Sunday evening. THE ATONEMENT. 2 COBINTHIANF, V. 19. GOD WAS IN CHRIST, IIECONCILINU THE WORLD UKTO HIMSELF, NOT liirUTIKa THEIU TRESPASSES UNTO THEM. In our inquiries last Sunday, we examined the more practical part of the doctrine of atonement or reconcili- ation. We saw that to effect reconciliation with God a radical change is needed in us. The question now arises, is a corresponding change 'needed in God him' self. Let rae again say that until we can 'penetrate more deeply into the divine nature than we now can, it is a question to which we can give no clear answer. Of all the attributes of God there is none more com- pletely beyond our comprehension than his uncliange- ableness or immutability. We are taught, on the one hand, that in him there is no change neither shadow of turning; but on the other, that he is a Father who pities his children, who does not afflict willingly, who answers our prayers, who forgives our sins. AH of which implies that his countenance towards us changes, 146 THE ATONEMENT. that his deaUngs with us change, that he regards us with different feelings at different times, according to the relation in which we stand towards him. I think that this is the general representation of God in the scriptures. He is shown to us not as an abstract or- der of the universe, stern and unvarying, uninfluenced by prayer, unchanged by repentance, but as a heaven- ly Father, with all the attributes of tenderness and compassion which belong to that name. If that is the true representation, it seems impossible that his feelings should be the same towards the hard- ened rebel, and the repentant sinner, and the glorified saint. Our own hearts tell us that it cannot be. Yet if God is immutable, how can it be otherwise ? Some will answer, that he is like the sun in the heavens, al- ways shining with clear and benignant rays ; and that the clouds which vail him from our eyes, namely our sins, work no change in him, although they change his relation toward us. Perhaps it is a right answer, but I confess it seems to me to make our whole rela- tions with God too mechanical. The heart yearns for personal affection. We long for the smile of appro- bation, not a seeming smile, but the real smile of ten- derness and parental love. Whether it is weakness or not, I do not know, but I am sure that our hearts are more moved by the representation of God in the para- ble of the Prodigal Son, where the Father cannot wnit THE ATONEMENT. 147 to be sought for, but goes out to meet his returning child and falls upon his neck and kisses him, than by all the abstract arguments of God's unchanging good- ness that have ever been written. It may be Wphilo- sophical, but perhaps when we know more, we shall find that the philosophy which requires us to be untrue to our natme, is "falsely so called." I cannot but look with suspicion upon any system of religion which philosophizes away our natural affec- tions. When we lie under the burden of sin, our hearts tell us that we are at enmity with God and that he is thereby estranged from us. Not that he regards us with anything like human anger, for he loves us even then; but there is the estrangement which holi- ness must feel towards sin. There is a desire for our return and the feeling of approbation, the renewal of that kind of love which had been withdrawn, when we come to him and say, " Father we have sinned against Heaven and before thee." In our theory, we may say that there is no change ; but it is a theory which our feelings do not recognize. It is an intuition of our nature that God lo/es us in a different sense, when we return to him, from that in which he loved us before. You will see, however, from my whole manner of speaking, that I do not believe in such a change in God a^is sometimes taught. Many persons teach the doctrine of atonement as though the chief difficulty 1^ THE ATOKEMENT. were on the side of God and not on that of the sinner. They speak of God's being reconciled to man, much more than of man's being reconciled to God. They represent God as having been full of anger, of vindictive wrath, ready to hurl punishment upon sinners, unwill- ing and unable to forgive them, until his anger was appeased by the sufferings and death of Christ, who endured the punishment of the guilty. We reject this view, first, because the scripture uni- formly represents that the cause of Christ's coming inio the world was not the wrath of God, but his love. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begot- ten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should have everlasting life." "Herein is love, not that we loved God but that God loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." And still more strongly, "In this was manifettid the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might Uve through him." I repeat that this is not the occasional, but the uniform statement of the scripture. There is no passage which says or im- plies that God's anger with the sinner was the cause of Christ coming, or that Christ came to make him mer- ciful. His coming was a Proof of mercy ; it was the effect of God's love. God's anger is not of a kind that needs to be appeased. THE ATONEMENT. 149 Another reason why we reject such a theory of God's anger is this: The scriptures represent that Christ is the manifestation of God. In his character therefore we learn the attributes of God. This is our best instruction concerning the meaning of God's jus- tice and mercy, of his anger and love. But according to the view of the divine wrath just now considered, God and Christ are placed in the strongest contrast ; one all anger, the other all love; one all justice, the other all mercy ; one seeking to punish, the other seek- ing to save. Such a view cannot be correct. God is love and Christ is the image of his love. In no respect is the Son more perfectly the manifestation of the Father, than in this. Thirdly: We are confirmed in this view, because there is not a single passage in the Bible in which God is said to be reconciled to man, but always that man is to be reconciled to God. " For if, when we were ene- mies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life." Rom. v. 10. ' AU things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation ; namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath com- mitted unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did 150 THE ATOHEMENT. beseech you by us, be ye reconciled to God. 2 Cor. V. 19. Here is a full statement of the subject before us. It is God pleading with us through Christ, as a Father pleads with his erring children. He is ready to be reconciled to them, whenever they will come to him. He encourages them to come, he waits for them, he goes out to meet them. In the work of reconciliation which must be effected before they can be received, the difficulty is not on his part, but on theirs alone. If therefore we admit that a change takes place in the feehngs of God towards the returning sinner, it is not a change from vindictive wrath to overflowing love, from a God who is all justice to a God of all mercy, but it is a change from one kind of love to another. As the earthly parent loves his children, both when they are rebellious and when they are repentant, so does God love us all andalways. If it is a different kind of love, it arises from the necessity of the case, in the dealings of a being infinitely holy towards those who are frail and sinful. We think that no other view of God is either scrip- tural or reasonable. It presents him to us not only as a God but as a Father, wise in his compassion ; in whom the attributes of ""justice and mercy are only the different exercise of the same love. The next question which arises is this : What effect upon the counsels of God does the mediation of Christ TBS ATONEMENT. 161 produce? By the mediation of Christ we mean not only his sufferings and death, but the whole gospel dis- pensation. His coming down from heaven, his in- structions, his life and holy example, his precepts, his sufferings and death, his resurrection, his ascension into heaven at the right hand of the Father, to make intercession for us. This is the whole gospel dispen- sation. V(e understand it all to be included in Christ's work as the mediator between God and man. What effect did it produce upon the counsels of God towards the sinner ? Here again our limited faculties present a difficulty. It is a question which we cannot answer perfectly, until by our searching we can find out God and enter into the secret places of his wisdom. We believe the gospel dispensation was needful. It does not express the whole truth to say that the coming of Christ was desirable, as a means of salvation, for it was indispensable. From the beginning, it was a part of God's counsel towards man. It is an essential link in the chain, by which God draws the sinner to himself. In the plan of salvation we cannot dispense with Christ: " No man," he says, " can come to the Father but by me." " I am the vine, ye are the branches. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me." Words cannot express more strongly than these, the personal necessity of Christ to us. I could give you an 152 THE ATOREMEICT. hundred instances of the same sort, teaching in the strongest terms our dependence upon the Gospel dis- pensation, for the hope, and in the work, of salvation. But if you ask me why God has so appointed, or if he could not have devised some other means by which the same gracious work would have been accomplished, you ask me unwisely and it would be unwise in me to at- tempt an answer. It is enough for us that there is one way ; that if we come to God in penitence and faith, as Christ has taught us to come, we shall find forgive- ness and acceptance mth him ; that under the gospel dispensation there is no stumbling block in our path to Heaven, except deliberate and continued sin. If we are delivered from the body of this death, we should thank God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, without be- ing too curious to know whether God could not have £ound some other means, equally efiectual, for our de- liverance. There is no difficulty in the beKef that man's sah-a- tion depends upon the mediation of Christ. Consider it either as a work done for us, or as a prayer offered for our sake : In either case, the scripture doctrine of the absolute necessity of Christ's coming, and of his suiferings and death, is according to the analogy of God's general deaUng with us, and to our behef'as christians in the efficacy of prayer. Nearly all the blessings which come to the woild, come through the THE ATONEMENT. 153 faithful exertions of the good. It is to the holy throng of apostles and martyrs, God's saints on earth, that all progress in wisdom and goodness, and all triumphs over evU are due. If they had not lived, or if they had been unfaithful, a thousand blessings for which we are now thankful would never havereached us. It is in ac- cordance with the same law, although in a higher exem- phfication of it, that the work of Christ was performed. We may not understand its full efficacy, but we can understand its necessity, and that from its faithful per- formance our salvation proceeds. And,so, if we consider Christ's mediation as a pray- er, or continued intercession with God for our sake, the scriptural doctrine of its efficacy presents no greater difficulty, than the doctrine of prayer in general. We believe that our prayers are aaswered ; that God is more ready to gi^ his Holy Spirit to those that ask him, than an earthly parent is to bestow good gifts upon his chil- dren. But who shall explain this? Who shall tell us how prayer is answered? How can human asking change the mind of God towards us? We do not know, yet our affections, our inward experience, not less than the scriptures, assure us that prayer is answer- ed; that by prayer and in answer to prayer, we obtain blessings which otherwise wo idd never come to us. Nor can I perceive any greater unreasonableness, in 154 THE ATOSEMENT. the belief that our prayers, one for another, are answer- ed. It is an instinct to pray for those we love. We cannot explain how the prayer can bring the blessing, but yet we cannot help praying. Such spiritual instincts should not be slighted because they are beyond the reach of intellect. To me they carry their own evi- dence. I believe in Goii, not so much because it can be proved by argument, as because it is a necessity of my nature. For the same reason I believe in prayer, and the scripture strongly confirms the behef. It teaches that the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. If we knew more of God, and of the spiritual world, and of the laws by which all spiritual beings are bound together as in one mysterious chain, from the lowest to the highest, we might be able to understand, how the prayers of the good may be an- swered in behalf of the wicked, and that the nearer to God we come in purity and love, the more effectual our prayers will be. We then might understand, how the intercession of one like Jesus, the beloved Son of God, can be an indispensable influence and a real agency, in the redemption of the world. Such, at least, is the scriptural doctrine, and as such we are content to receive it. Christ then becomes to us the Uving head of the chmxh. He is not only our benefactor through his Jifp ?nd sufferings on earth, but he also liveth to THE ATONEMENT. 165 make intercession- for us with the Father. In our strug-glings against sin and. our efforts to rise, it is an unspeakable comfort to know, that we have the sympa- thy and prayers and spiritual aid of one so pure and good, who was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, who was made perfect through suffering, and is now exalted at the right hand of God. We now proceed to a point, which has involved much discussion and given rise to a multitude of theories. How did the sufferings and death of Christ make it safe for God to forgive sin, in a sense in which it was not before safe ? There are some who say, that it was by Christ's suffering the full penalty of sin, and there- ■ by making f uH satisfaction to the law, that he enabled the sinner to go free. A theory which we cannot re- ceive, chiefly for two reasons. First, it leaves no room for God's mercy. If a debt is fully paid, we owe thanks to him who paid it, but not to him who exacts the payment. Such is not the doc- trine of the Bible, which teaches us that God freely forgives; that our trespasses are " not imputed to us, through his forbearance," not through his exaction of the penalty from another. Christ teaches us to pray, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," which is not consistent with the idea of the debts being paid, either by the offender 156 THE ATONEMENT. himself, or by any one else for him. If a debt is paid, there can be a release, but properly speaking, there is no room for remission. Secondly, the chief penalty of sin, the only real pe- nalty, is remorse of conscience and estrangement from God, and by the nature of the soul no one can endure this penalty for another. As a matter of fact, also, Christ did not endure it. No remorse of conscience ever visited him. However mysterious and inexplica- ble his sufferings may have been, this never made any part of them. Never for a moment did he feel es- trangement from God, never for a moment was the love of God withdrawn from him. In the agony of human suffering, he exclaimed, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But perhaps even these words were spoken, as calling to his mind the whole of the triumphant psahn of David from which they are taken ; and even in that dreadful hour, we perceive his near- ness to God, in the comforting words spoken to the repentant criminal, and in his prayer for his enemies, and in his dying words, "Into thy hands I conunend my spirit." No; Christ truly suffered, the just for the unjust, but he did not suffer as a sinner, and there- fore he did not suffer the punishment of sin. By the blindness of human judgment, he was numbered among the transgressors, and suffered an ignominious and cruel THE ATONEMENT. 157 death, but he was always the beloved Son, in whom God was well pleased. He was never nearer to God, he was never further removed from the punishment of sin, than when his sufferings for our' sake were the most terrible. We cannot believe, therefore, in the theory of Christ's sufferings just stated. But we can perceive that in another way, the gospel dispensation, in which we include the sufferings and death of Christ, has made it safe that sin should be forgiven, under God's morsd government, in a sense in which it might not other- wise have been safe. The two essential requisites to make pardon safe are these : first, to secure in the of- fender such a disposition as will lead him to a true and permanent reformation : and secondly, to maintain the sanctity of the law so that it shall not be brought into contempt, but that while the sinner is forgiven, his abhorrence of sin may be increased, and the heinous- ness of sin, in God's sight, be made more plainly to appear. When these two requisites are attained, for- giveness of sin becomes safe. It is safe to the sinner himself, because his reformation is secure ; it is safe to the moral government of God, because his law is not brought into contempt, but is honored even more highly. This is precisely the result which the gospel dispensa- tion accomplishes. It arouses the sinner to those 158 THE ATONEMEK^. emotions, by which alone his reconciliation with God can be effected, and his reformation secured — the emo- tions of repentance, of self-renunciation, of love — which are in themselves a complete renewal of the inward life, and thus brings him to such a relation towards God, that the word of pardon can be safely- spoken. Such has been the experience of hundreds of thou- sands. The ministry of Christ, and especially his sufferings and death, have been the influence by which more souls have been aroused from the sleep of sin, than by all others beside. But at the same time the hatred of sin has been increased. The manner in which pardon is brought to the sinner, is the most dreadful condemnation of sin. It is offered to us at the expense of so much suffering, that when we read the account of it, we lament our sins, by which it W'as made necessary, more bitterly than at any other time. If it had been proclaimed from Heaven, that God is ready to forgive the repenting sinner, the message would have been the same that we have now received, but how different would have been the effect! We might then indeed have supposed that sin is a light evil, and its record easily blotted out. But when we read the narrative of Christ's sufferings, we perceive how heinous sin must be in the sight of God ; our consciences THE ATONEMENT. 159 are awakened to discern how terrible its consequences must be, here and hereafter. If it were a small evil, if escape from it were easy, if its corjsequences were temporary and trivial, would the Heavenly Father have appointed his holy child Jesus to a life of such suffer- ing, and to a death of such agony for its removal ? We think not ; nay, we are sure that it could not be. The whole gospel dispensation, as God has directed it, im- presses us deeply with the awfulness of sin, it brings before us the vision of its terrible consequences more distinctly, by its accents of love niingled with the records of suffering, than could have been done by the most fearful threats of punishment, or the most vindictive execution of the law. Something of the same benignant purpose we see in God's general providence. It is through the suffering and sacrifices of the good, through their pains, self- denials and martyrdoms, that the sins of the wicked receive their sternest rebuke, and the sinner himself is reformed. Nor are there any circumstances, under which we hate our, sins so much, as when suffering is endured by those whom we love', for the sake of their removal. How much more do we feel, this, when brought home to us by the sufferings of one at the same time so pure and so exalted as Jesus Christ. In pro- portion as we believe in them, the effect is deepened. 160 THE ATONEMEITT. it grows with our spiritual growth, it strengthens with our spiritual strength. It is not a mysterious influence, but natural and unavoidable ; the working of the human heart, when softened by the dews of God's grace. It leads to the perfect vindication of the sacred- ness of God's law, at the same time that pardon is oflTered to the sinner and his return to righteousness secured. There is one other question under the doctrine of Atonement, which we must consider, although in but very few words. In what sense did Christ die /or vs 1 The larfguage of scripture with reference to it is vari- ous and strong — sometimes figurative, sometimes literal, sometimes obscure. He is our ransom, our sacrifice, our sin-ofFering ; he is made sin for us, he bore our punishment, the chastisement of our peace is laid upon him, by his stripes we are healed; he has borne our griefs, he was bruised for our iniquities, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all. All of this is scriptural language. What does it mean? A part of it is manifestly figurative, as when it is said "he hath made him to be sin for us," and " upon him is laid the iniquity of us all." Some persons have understood even this literally, and thus Martin Luther taught that Christ was the greatest sinner, murderer, robber and the like that the world ever saw, because all the sins of THE ATONEMENT. 161 all the world were accumulated in him, to receive their condemnation and their punishment. I do not know what men mean, when they use such language, and it is charitable to suppose that they do not know them- selves. There is no danger of any one using it at the present day, and no need of proving its absurdity. In the same manner the word ransom has been interpreted literally, and some of the christian Fathers taught that the sufferings of Christ were the ransom, or purchase money, paid by God and received by the en- emy of souls, the devil, as the price of the sinner's release. We shall not foUow such interpretations fur- ther ; they belong to days gone by, and are a monu- ment of human weakness. The whole language which we have quoted we think means no more nor less than "this: That Christ suf- fered for us, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. Whatever is expressed more than these words imply is figurative, and not literal. If we believe that in bring- ing and confirming the message of his Father's love, his sufferings and death were necessary, then were his sufferings and death endured in consequence of our sins. " The chastisement of our peace was laid upon hitti," because this was the ifieans through which our peace was obtained. " By his stripes we are healed," 1* 162 THE ATONEMENT. because the healing of our souls, in the forgiveness of our sins, is the result of that dispensation ol which his sufferings were a needful part. " We are washed in his blood," because the shedding of his blood leads to our cleansing. He suffered and died in our stead, (although this is not a scriptural expression,) because Ms sufferings and death save us from condemnation. As to all this language, there has been much disputing about words. I find in orthodox creeds and books a great deal to which I cannot assent. But whenever I converse with individuals who receive such creeds, and learn what they mean by the words used, the differ- ences gradually fade away. I believe that the majority of them hold in fact nearly the same doctrine which I have now explained. Even when they speak of a vicarious atonement, they very often mean no more than we can accept. There is a plain and real sense in which I can use that word, for it is true that Christ suffered/or us, and by this means, through the grace of God, we escape the suffering which our sins would otherwise have brought upon us. If he had not come upon earth and fulfilled his ministry, we must have died in our sins, for we are not able to guide ourselves nor save ourselves, and it is through him alone that we come near to God. There may be others who believe more than these words convey, and who teach that the THE ATONEMENT. 163 wrath of God was literally laid on Jesus Christ, but I seldom meet them, and think that their number is daily- becoming less. For ourselves, we are satisfied to know that " God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." The way for our return to God is open, and he is waiting to be gracious. EEGENERATION. JOHN III. 3, 6. Jesus answered and said I'nto him, vekily, vekilt, i sat vsto tbee, except a man be born again, he canrot see the kingdom op god. that which is born of the piiesh; is flesh, and that which is born of the srisit, is sfibit. Our subject this evening is the christian doctrine of Regeneration, or the new birth; the nature of the change implied in those words, the means and agency by which it is produced, and the evidences by which we may judge of its reahty. It is a subject whose impor- tance all christians acknowledge, for whatever views^we take of it, as theologians, we must admit that in practi- cal religion, every thing depends upon its application. To ask who is regenerate, is to ask who is a christian. To become regenerate is to become a christian. We may dispute as to what the new birth is, but we cannot dispute the Savior's words, that " unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." There are some persons who suppose that Unitarians deny 166 REGENERATION. this doctrine. But there could not be a greater mis- take. It would he the same as denying that a man can become a christian, or that there is any real difference between good men and bad, between those who serve God, and those who serve him not. There are some explanations of the doctrine which we reject, because they are unsound and unscriptural, but we do not reject the doctrine itself. For example, we do not believe in an instantaneous and miraculous change, by virtue of which he who is at one moment totally depraved, can become in the next one of God's saints. But we do believe, that by the blessing of God a radical change may begin at any time, by which the direction of a man's life may be changed from that which leads downward, to that which leads upward. We do not beheve that this change will always be accompanied, either with the panic of an agonized con- science, or the extacies of rejoicing, but that its inwetrd experience will be different in different individuals, according to their various temperament and education, to the degrees of their guilt, and to the influences under which they have been placed. The outward evidences of the change wiU also differ in an equal degree. I have seen men at a camp meeting under such strong excitement, that they have been tied, hand and foot, to prevent them from some bodily injury; others pass REGENERATIOir. 167 through an equally strong experience, to whom the kingdom of God comes without observation. We do not deny the reality of the change effected ii;i either case. We must judge of them both, as we judge of the tree, by its fruit. We give our preference indeed to the latter, because observation leads us to distrust all violent excitements. There is danger that they wiU not . last, and that the spiritual fever wiU be followed by a corresponding and perhaps fatal prostration. This is particularly true, where the excitement is produced by artificial machinery, by the sympathy of crowds and, the appliances of fear. At such times men are carried beyond their own convictions, and are very liable to be deceived as to their real feehngs. The result very often is, that after a few days they see every thing in a different light, and sometimes the scriptm-e is fulfiEed in them, that the last stage of such men is worse than the first. We have gteater confidence in the change which comes through the quietness of thought. It may promise less at first, but will accomplish more in the end. It may be accompanied with less of the rapture of religious triumph, but it is more likely to bring us to that peace, which passeth all understanding. For such reasons, we do not enter into what are called " revivals of religion," and the protracted meetings by which they are generally excited. Our observation of them has not been favorable to their permanent usefulness. It is 168 REGENERATION. not that we deny the change of heart which is needed in becoming a christian, nor that we would limit the action of God's spirit in producing it. We may rightly pray to him, " revive thy work in the midst of the years ; " and in the progress of every reUgious society, as in the experience of every individual, there wiU be times of awakening, in which the lukewarm become zealous, and the cold hearted and sinful are rebuked. Such seasons of refreshing, when they come from the use of the ordinary gospel meags, are always to be welcomed, and their result is always good. But when they are brought on almost forcibly, by the use of what we may caU religious machinery, it is quite a different thing. They are artificial in their origin and unnatu- ral in their result. Their good effect, which seems at first very great, is seldom permanent. I have known instances in which, out of an hundred converts, less than one tenth held fast to their profession for six months. In such cases the evil is greater than the good, and it is from the fear of such results, that we prefer more quiet modes of proceeding. Once more : we believe that every real change in the character and in the heart, must be begun, continued, and ended in God. It is he "who worketh in us both to will and to do, of his good pleasure." In the chris- tian course, from the very first to the last, we are dependent upon him. As in the natural world, the regenehation. 169 seed is formed by his creative power, and germinates and grows up and is developed into a plant or tree, through the benign influences of nature, which are only another name for the divine working, so it is in the human soul, that the seed of righteousness is at first planted, and is developed by the sweet influences of God's grace. With this difference however, which should be carefully remarked, that in the latter case, the soul must ateknovvledge the working of God and feel itself sustained by his presence. In proportion as we feel our dependence on God, we become strong. If we rely upon ourselves alone, we become weak. We are never so much in danger of falling, as when we boast in our hearts that we stand firmly. It is thus that God teaiches us, by the practical experience of life, that we depend on him, that we are not sufficient to ourselves. But while we receive this as the scriptural doctrine of God's grace, we do not the less insist upon the neces- sity of our own working. In one sense, we depend for the whole work of our salvation, from the first dawning thought of goodness to the last complete tri- umph of christian faith, upoJi the awakening and saving influences of God's spirit; and we can therefore join in the prayer of the poet, " Direct, suggest, control this day, All we desiga oi do oi sa;." 170 hegeneratiok. And in that of the Psahnist David, " Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me ; " for it is the prayer not only of weakness, but of faith, and to every sincere christian it will surely be answered. But on the other hand we too must work ; we have no right to expect miracles to be done for us. We have no right to expect that the spirit of God will come to us unsought. God helps those who try to help themselves. He wiU not save us in spite of ourselves. It is of those who are striving to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, that the scripture says, " God worketh in them both to will and to do." To those only who use what they already have, is it promised that more will be given. Nor can we separate the divine working, from that which we call the natural operation of our own minds, and the natural influences of our daily life. A thought of righteousness comes to the hardened sinner, he scarcely knows how, nor is it important that he should know. It is of God's sending, whether you call it the direct suggestion of his Spirit or not. It is an angel visitant, and if cordially received others wiH fol- low in its train, until the heart becomes the temple of the living God, fall of his ministering spirits. From that first impulse towards goodness, as he advances, step by step, contending against sin, reaching towards heaven, the christian can never tell exactly how much REGENERATIOK. 171 depends upon his own exertion, and how much uppn a higher power. He knows that when his heart is full of prayer, he progresses most rapidly ; but he also knows that a blessing never comes upon his indolence. He finds no encouragement to wait until God does his work, but no sooner does he take hold of it than he feels sure that God is helping him. He thus feels the equal necessity ofrhis own exertions and of the divine bless- ing, and is kept in that healthy progress of mind and character, which belongs to the true_ christian life. Such we "think is the wise ordering of God. In the influences of his Spirit upon the soul we cannot say, " lo:here. or lo there ; " he cometh down like rain upon the. mown grass, as showers that water the earth," and the proof of his coming is found in the fruits of right- eousness, in pure and holy thoughts, in heavenly aspi- rings, and in every christian grace. It is supposed by many persons, that the doctrine of Regeneration depends upon what are called the doc- trines of Original Sin and Total Depravity. This is a mistake which it is important to remove. We must therefore consider these doctrines for a few moments before going fm'ther. In fact, there are few persons who explain them at the present day, in the same man- ner in which they were taught fifty years ago. The Calvinistic doctrine of original sin is, that in the fall of Adam, the whole human race were made sinners ; that 172 KEGENEKATION. in consequence thereof, sin is imputed to every human being at his birth, in such a sense that he is under the wrath of God and is subject to eternal damnation; that his nature, being essentially corrupt, is capable of no good thing, not even to wish or pray for good. Its best actions therefore are hateful in the sight of God, and absolute, total depravity is the necessary result of its development. For a nature such as this, there is but one hope of salvation, which is in the miraculous and irresistible grace of God. The change of heart is therefore, according to this view, an absolute change of nature ; it comes not because of a man's own seek- ing, but irrespectively thereof. Those to whom it comes are thereby God's elect. Those to whom it does not come remain under the sentence of condemnation, from which they cannot by any means escape. Such is the theory which Calvin taught. But I think very few of his adherents now receive it. It is so much modified, that even when the same words are used, different ideas are conveyed. By original sin, the majority understand no more than original imper- fection ; and by the imputation of Adam's sin, no more than the evil consequences, which the child inherits from his parents, in an impaired physical and mental constitution. In this sense, we all beheve in original sin. We are certainly born imperfect, with many ten- dencies to evil. These tendencies are also, to some REGENEKATION. 173 extent, inherited. In this sense, the sins of the father may be said to be visited on the children, as I have known whole famihes to be born with depraved appe- tites, which have followed them to their graves. But if, on the one side, there are evil tendencies, there are, on the other, equally strong tendencies to good ; amia- ble dispositions and a natural love of truth and purity. These also come to us in part as our birth-right. We do not call them virtue or religion, nor do we say tliat these alone make us acceptable to God. Nor on the other hand, do we say that the evil tendencies with which we are born make us hateful to God. In both cases, the natural constitution of our minds, together with all the circumstances of our birth and education, will be taken into account by a just and merciful God, in his final judgment of us. To whom niuch is given, of him much will be required. To whom httle is given, of him little will be required. No one will be con- demned because, of the sins which his father committed, although he may suffer in consequence of them. " The SDul that sinneth, it shall die." Such is the theory of original imperfection, wliich is sometimes improperly called original sin. With regard also to total depravity, most persons who profess to believe it mean nothing more than this, that the best actions of a selfish and worldly man par- take of his selfishness and worldliness ; that until we 174 REGENERATION. have learned to deny ourselves and to take the law of God as our supreme law, our most amiable qualities partake of the character of sin. In such a sense, therefore, you may say that the unregenerate man is totally depraved, because there is no part of his conduct or his character which is fuUy conformed to the divine law. The pervading principle of his life is vfrong, and, in this sense, all is wrong. Change that pervad- ing principle and you change everything. It is like infusing healthy blood into the physical frame. It will gradually, but certainly, change every part of the physical and mental constitution. We shall not follow this train of thought further. What I have said will serve my purpose to show, that while the doctrines in question continue the same in words, they may be very different in idea. The truth concerning our nature by birth, and the spiritual condition to which we are brought by regene- ration, or the new birth, seems to be this. We are born with a mixed constitution, physical, intellectual and moral. These, as they originally came from the creative hand of God, were pronounced to be good. The moral nature is the highest, that is the soul, and to this the physical and intellectual, the body and the mind, should minister. But, by the necessity of the case, the physical is developed first, " the first man is of the earth earthy." Our first wants, our first enjoy- REGENERATION. 175 ments and sufferings, are purely physical. The first exercise of the faculty of thought takes that direction. Self love, which is needful for self preservation, is thus early developed. Self indulgence in what is pleasant, and angry resistance to what is unpleasant, are thfe natural consequences. All this is not sinful, it is sim- ply of the earth, earthy. It is our physical nature. Gradually the higher nature begins to appear. The sweet affections of the child, pure and truthful, begin to expand. A sense of right, of jus.tice and of truth, gradually shows itself. At first very weak, but also very correct, for the instincts of childhood upon all moral subjects are sure to be right. In the progress of development, the intellect adds strength either to the physical or moral constitution, according to the natu- ral temperament and the circumstances of education and example. The period when moral responsibihty begins is hard to determine. It certainly does not begin until there is a clear perception of right and wrong and a choice of one or the other ; but whenever it begins, the child is conscious of difficulties. His first exercise, as a moral being, is a struggle, a conflict. There is an enemy to be conquered, a victory to be won. Conscience claims the supremacy ; it says, " thou must or thou must not ;'' but the body, with its wants and its enjoyments, resists its commands. Reason pleads for the right, passion 176 HEGENEaATIOir. and appetite for the wiong. It is the struggle (Jf life commenced, the spirit against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit. The result, if human weakness re- ceives no heavenly aid, is but too evident. The phys- ical, that is to say the powers of the flesh, being first develo^^ed, is strong and vigorous, while the moral has but an infant's strength and soon gives way. The pas- sions gain strength by what they feed on ; the intel- lect is brutalized and brought into their service ; the conscience is buried under the accumulated rubbish of sin. Even in christian lands, and under the influences of christian education and christian example, which is a strong divine helping to the principle of right, the great majority of men and women, when they come to the age of mature life, find that the work of moral disci- pline is stiU to be accomplished. There is a difierence in their degrees of sinfulness, but with nine out of ten, the pervading principle of conduct is self love, or self indulgence, or worldly ambition. In nine cases out of ten, therefore, a radical change is needed, before they can properly be called christians. I caJl it a radical change, for if you change the principle of life, as I have already said, you change everything. It is not only an outward change, for the proprieties of life may aheady be observed. It is chiefly an inward change, which concerns the motives and the affections. In begeneratioit. 177 many instances where the outward conduct continues the same, the real change of character is equally great. I have said, in nine cases out of ten, that such will be the result ; perhaps I might have used even stronger language, for there are very few persons who are not under the necessity, sooner or later, of that strong moral exercise, through which by the blessing of God the worldly and selfish heart becomes religious. . Some times it is a violent and short struggle, sometimes a slow and laborious self discipline ; sometimes we can tell the day and the hoiir when it begins, and some- times we almost doubt whether it has commenced or not, until it is nearly accomplished. But with nearly all, in some way or other, the change must be accom* phshed from the earthly to the spiritual, from the worldly to the religious, from the selfish to the self de- nying character, after we have come to the years of conscious self direction. In a few instances, equally rare and beautiful, the development of our nature is so healthy that the soul, almost from the first, asserts its rightful supremacy. This is sometimes the result of pure christian influen- ces, the wise training of parents, the example of good and pious teachers, which may be called the human agency by which the divine spirit is working. Somer times, even when surrounded by the worst influences of sin, in the dens of iniquity, or in the high places of 178 BEGENEHATlOIf. worldliness, the child is seen to grow up tvith almost stainless purity, through some mysterious guiding of which it is not conscious, bat which leads heavenward as by an angel's hand. In such cases, there seems never to be a struggle between the flesh and the spirit. The soul grows up to the heavenly life, almost as the seed grows up to its appointed beauty. Yet I beJieve that even in such cases, if we could understand the full Vvorking of the soul, we should find here, as elsewherej what is called the new birth, which is the passing froin the earthly, or natural state, to the spiritual or heavenly. It may take place very early and very gradua^y, but I think that it is not the less real. The life of the spirit is not that to which we are first bom, tut the life of the flesh. The second man, and not the first is the Lord from heaven. When Christ is formed in the soul, it is the redemption of the soul from the natural earthly influence. If it is efiected before that influence has brought degradation, the thanksgiving to God may be greater, but it is not less a redemption. Upoii this subject, however, I tvould not dispu^. Suoh instances are as rare as they are blessed. Wi4 by far the greater ipart of ihe hiOnan -family, the €xpe» rierice is very diflferent and far more painful. We find ourselves laden with sins, we scarcely, know how. We are walking in a wrong direction, sdmost before we have thought whither the path leads. Our first serious KEGEWERATIOW. 179 thoughts of heaven are awakened, by our seeing that our faces are not turned heavenward. It is the rest- lessness of the soul under the bondage of sin, that arouses us to assert its true dignity. Through some human agency, or through the working of our own mind, God speaks to us, and if we hearken the conflict begins, the result of which is properly called a deliver- ance and a victory. Fr*)m what has been now said, although ina desul- tory manner, you will understand my views upon this important topic, the doctrine of Regeneration. By this new birth, we mean a change from the carnal to the spiritual; that is, not an absolute change of nature, which Would be the creation of a new soul, but the subjection of the lower principles of our nature, which are of the flesh, to the higher principles which are of the spirit. It is a change therefore in the motives and the afifections, that is a change of heart. It is a new direction given both to the inward and outward life iBtod the whole meaning of life is thereby changed. I do not mean smything mystical or mysterious by tWs; in propwtion as weTsecome religious persons we shaU understand it. Secawdly: It i* a ohaMge needed by all. Sooner or later it must be experienced by aU, before they can be called the followers of Christ. For we are not bom christians. Innocence, or freedom from actual trans- 180 KEGENEKATIOir. gression, is the utmost we can claim, which is a very different thing from moral excellence or righteousness. This must come from the discipline of life, and to ac- pomplish it is precisely the purpose of our being placed in the present state of probation. Thirdly : The manner and process of this change, of this spiritual development and growth, are very dif- ferent in different individuals ; — as different as men's natural constitutions and the circumstances under which they are placed. To prescribe an invariable rule by which the spiritual experience of aU shall be governed, is nothing but religious empyricism, and is the mark of a narrow-minded teacher. It is not necessary that aU should walk in the same company and wear the same badge, to be followers of the same Master. , Fourthly : In the formation of our religious charac- ter, which is our Regeneration, we are chiefly indebted, as we are in everything, to the Divine guidance and help. Without God, we are nothing and can do no- thing. But we too must work. His working is through our working, nor can we, generally speaking, separate the one from the other. The operation of the Divine Spirit is real and effectual: but as "the wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth, so is every one born of the spirit." HEGENERATIOW. 181 Finally: The proof of RegeneratioU'-is in the life. " Let no man deceive you ; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John iii. 7.) It is not in professions, nor in ecstacies, nor in flaming zeal, much less in the self-righteous condemnation of others ; but in a life of genuine goodness, purity and truth. The evidence of the christian spirit is in the christian character. By their fruits shall ye know them. " Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep ourselves unspotted from the world.'' ERRATT7S!. Page 33, line 16, read " the literal meaniog of whioh is Wind or breath." The qnotatioa on pages 131. 132, is Trom a new and adoairable irork on the r*3- tri&e oC Forgireneas hy James Freemaa ClariLe, of Meadville, Pa. ..;.iiulL;L,-::lllld;;li!!8l