I ll £ I if XLIIiIJA ItV ill- CONGRESS. J tut. } lap. jjjo. ; v/„//\$j * i \ DNITBD BTATES OF AMEEJCi v MISC i; L L A X I KB ■ I. LETTERS TO DK. CHANNING ON THE TRINITY II. two SERMONS <»\ THE ATONEMENT. III. SACRAMENTAL SERMON ox THE LAMB OF GOD. IV. DEDICATION SERMON— REAL CHRISTIANITY. V LETTER T<> DK. CHANGING ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. VI. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ANT) POSTSCRIPTS OF NLW ADDITIONAL MATTLK. BY M. STUART, PROF. SAC. LIT. IN Till; THEO' INSTITUTION AT ANDOVER. ANDOVER. ALLEN. HOBBILL, AX1) AVAKDAVELL. .NEW-YORK: MARK II. NEWMAN. 1840. - THE LIMA** Qf CONOmlM WAf HlNOTOIi 61 *1 ling !.» A. : of i longress, in the 3 ear 184$, by A11. in. M«»i:iMi.r.. am. WabDWB] I In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. LC Control Numbe: III mi nun tm P 96 029034 ]• R E FACE. Tin: present volume of Miscellanies owes its publication to pent calls made upon me to publish it. Those parts of it, fall but one Sermon), which had before been printed, were out of print, and were often called for at some of the book- stores which have particular connection with works published in this place. To print in an ephemeral pamphlet form, I tned (inadvisable ; as did also my friends; and hence the collection in the present volume of several discourses and letters, written at different times, and called forth originally by some special exigency. The sentiments expressed in these various compositions I still retain, after a somewhat protract- ed period of investigation, study, and experience. I wish to bequeath them to all who interest themselves in anything which I write, as my legacy. I cherish a desire to give my latest testimony in respect to the views which I have con- tinued to entertain, concerning the all-important topics of which these compositions treat. Unity is of course out of question, in a book of professed MrsCELLAXiES. Yet there is, after all, one point of unity, or one bond of connection, which links the whole together. The topics are such as constitute the very essence of the great questions, about which a struggle so long and arduous has arisen and been going on, in this quarter of our country. They are, moreover, vital themes of Christianity, \i TKi.rA- wkkk I Bfl inter ill times and in all places. i other a ledj for entering into a discussion of tli. -in, or for publishing the results of that rtinrtineion. in case install ler it deeirable. I doubted] at Bret, whether I should divest the various included in the present volume, of all their itame, and give them the dress of simple and absolute discussion. My deliberations on this -iii led in the conviction, that what is local and tempo- V will rath* to give interest to the dix'U.v-ion. In -mall a part of the whole, that I did not think the remodelling of the pieces in order to leave it out, either necessary or expedient I the observing reader may easily de- I ha\«- in a few instances interwoven with what was originally addressed to J)r. ('banning, facts or events which have happened nnct that period. It is an offence, gainst the rules of strict rhetorical propriety. But it w er, or at any rale more agreeable to my feelings, what 1 wished to say. in this way, than to load the text with cumbrous notes. The reader need not put it to the account of oversight Any formal vindication of doiag what I ha\ in this respect, would be a waste of time and words t<> little or no purpo The Supplementary Note to Letter I., and all the Post- gpting that to Letter III., have been written for the pre* nt edition ; and are addition* to the former publications, which have coM me more labour than the original eomposi- Of their value and importance, it belongs to read- i judge. In respect to tl ral Sermons, and the Letter on E&e- il w d wary to Bay more, in this place, r;;n \< i . vu than tliat the particulars which I wfak the reader lo know. are elaewhere given, being inserted at the head of each of thr-e composition* I need not here repeat what is there said. If my testimony and my arguments in regard to the topics disease I. Bhoald be of any avail in calling the attention of intelligent Christians and citizens of this Commonwealth, or . to the all-important subjects of which they treat, this publication will not be useless. Should they be listened to in this vicinity, or in a still wider extent, and Christians be roused up to a due consideration of the matters in ques- tion, or be satisfied with the defence I have made of the sen- timents which I have avowed, it will be an ample and the best reward of my humble labours. If, STUART. Jluol Seminary, Andover, May, 1846. COX I E N T S I. Letters to Dr. Ch.y.vmng on the Doctrine of the Trinity. LETTER I. Principles of Interpretation, page 3—13. LETTER IT. Unity of God, p. 13—20. Meaning of Person, 20—29, Nicene Creed, 29 — 31. Iniperfeetion of language, 31 — 34. Council at Constantinople in A. D. 381, 34 seq. Definitions of Person in mo- dern times, 36 — 40. Nature of divine Unity and objections to it, 40 —46. Twofold Nature of Christ, 47—53. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO LETTER II. Nicene Creed, 54. Brief Sketch of opinions respecting the Person of Christ, 54 — 59. Modern attempts to define Person, 59. Examination of them, 60 — 71. Christology of recent philosophers in Germany, 71 — 74. Sketch of what might be deemed a proper Creed, in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity, 74 seq. LETTER HI. Mode of Interpretation, 76—79. Testimony of Scrip- ture, 80—145. POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER III. Examination of Dr. Channing's Note, added to the second edition of his Sermon, 145—150. LETTER IV. Human Nature of Christ, 151 — 157. Examination of texts relied on by Unitarians, 158 — 164. Mode of Controversy, 1 65 seq. LETTER V. Mode of Exegesis, 167 — 172. Exegesis of special pas- sages, 173—175. Modes of evading the results of Exegesis, 176—181. x I OKTENTS, j]i«h Iiberattsts, 182— 184 Urn of Qeman Books ritim.uiim of Ptfltananism, 187—190. Arc the Ortho- dox fairly totted ' 190— 192. I'm- rSCBIPI 10 i-i-i i ii; v. nils in Germany and in this Country, 192—1 r i, |fn Dioi'i Letters in defence of Unitarianism, 196 — i'ii: Hysterics of Arianism, 207 — 210. Efumcmitarianism ezamin- IlOteq. Union of two natures person, 211 Beq. Om I ! 212—215. II. Etauiom on rue Atonemkiit, Disc. I. Er] I :.»--_'! Banks** na si tlic doctrine, 822— 281 Proofofthe 231 seq Philosophy nol judge, 281— 2 Justice oi [mprol ability of i\ be shown l >: - II B m 240—241. Principles < f Ea •_mi seq. Scripture proof 242 —24 -i Atonement, 245 — 251. This doctrine ran- H seq. 1: off ra high m< itemeht to holiness and vir: . III. BbRMOK ON Till. LAMB 01 (iJod. Inquiry hj whom ti John L: 29) on ' 262. Meaning of John's decla- • |. Credit doe to John, » ' a conveyed by the word / |. LamJ sins of the world, - :. Prope 1 lommunl ants, 271 \\ i 'amiatu trm i mstom i Relioion. Matt ! & 20, - ■•I- What is it to convene 1 I - i other I DM n N r-. xi in Christ as the Son of God and only Saviour of shiners, 186 — MA LerttoCMtJ is. Religions homage, tti--2*6. Obedience lo Christ, - W!kh it it for Christ to be in the midst ofhisdis- dplee ! 297 seq. D m of Hanover Stiver church to God, 298 V. I. irrr.il to Dk. Ciivnmmj o.v Rki.k.km < I.ir.r.kTY. Introduction Passages from Dr. Chaiming'fl works, 3< 3 — 308. Againsl whom are they aimed ! 308 — 318. First principle of true religions liberty, 313 — 31G. Second principle, 816 acq. Summary of complaints against the Orthodox, 381 seq. Cross of Chri-t compared with a gallows, by Dr. Channing, 336. Denial of charges againsl the Orthodox, 388. Challenge to Dr. Channing to support them, 341 seq. How ethers hare been influenced by such charges, 342 scq. Orthodox Creed, 34 G asq. State of feeling among the Orthodox, 349 seq. posxacnipx. Present state of parties, 353 seq. Cambridge University, 355 seq. — Rights of churches denied by our Courts, 362 seq. Pilgrim Fathers, 363 seq. LETTERS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED TO THE REV. WM. E. CHANNING LETTER I Revf.kknd and Dear Sir, I have recently perused a Sermon, delivered by you at the ordination of the l\ev. J. Sparks, in Baltimore, with no small degree of interest. The subjects of which it treats must be regarded as highly important by every intelligent man, who is a serious inquirer after revealed truth. And if the views which you have disclosed will stand the test of examination, and shall appear to be those which the word of God main- tains, or which it will justify, it certainly will be the duty of every friend to Christianity to embrace and promote them. I have endeavoured to read your Sermon, and reflect upon it, without prejudice or party views. Unless I am deceived as to the state of my own feelings, I have endeavoured im- partially to weigh the arguments and examine the reasonings which it presents, with a wish to know and believe the truth. I dare not flatter myself, indeed, that I have perfectly suc- ceeded in doing this ; for every man who is acquainted with his own heart, will find reason to believe, that he often has been, and may again be, deceived by it. Will you permit me, without further introduction or apology, to lay before you my thoughts in regard to three topics of your discourse, that stand in close connection with each other, and are among the principal points, in regard to which I feel myself com- pelled to dissent from your opinions ? The points to which I refer are : The principles of inter- preting Scripture ; the unity of God ; and the divinity and humanity of the Saviour. I limit myself to these three* be- cause it would require more time and labour than I can pos- 4 nmemjM OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. I. nbl] at pr«-rnt, and more health than I enjoy, to ex- ainin.- all the Statements of doctrines which you have made. I might adduce another reason for confining myself within these limits. If die principles of reasoning which yon adopt] and the results which you deduce from them iu regard to i. of the points Oil which I am about to remark, arc mi- tt -nahlc. of incorrect, the consequences of this most extend themselves e$$cntiaUy to most of the remaining topics, which yen have discussed in your Sermon. The genera] principles of interpreting Scripture, you de- ibe in the following manner. •W < regard the Scriptures as* the records of God's sue revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ Whatever doc- trines Beetn to OS td be clearly taught in the Scriptures, we re- OeiVe Without reserve Or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all tin- hooks in this collection. Our reli- gion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dis- P< osation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nohler system, and chiefly use- ful new as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scrip- tures. JesUS Christ is the only master of Christians, and what- ever be taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and proT t<> make the rule of our tives, "This authority which we give to the Scriptures, is a reason, we conceive, for studying them with peculiar care, and for in- quiring anxiously into the principles of interpretation, by which their true meaning may be ascertained. The principles adopt- ed hj the class of Christians, in whose Dame I speak, need to be explained, because they are often misunderstood. We are particularly accused of making an unwarrantable use of reason in the in t er p r eta tion rtf BcriptUre. We are said to exalt reason above revelation, to prefer our own wisdom to God's. Loose and undefined Charges of this kind are circulated so freely, and with such injurious intentions, that we think it due to ourselves, ! tO the cause of truth, to express our views with some par- ticularity. •■<>tii leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, !. l. PUVCIPL1 I CM in i i i:ii:i l'ATinN. 5 and tl wit its meaning m to he sought in die him maim er a a thai »i 'other booka, We believe that God, when be condescends, to apeak and write, submits, if we may so say, to the eatabliahed rulea of speaking and \NritiiiL r . How alee would the Scriptures avail us more than if communicated in an unknown tongue? "Now all books, and all conversation, require in the reader or bearer the constant exercise of reason ; for their true import is only to be obtained bj continual comparison and inference. Human language, you well know, admits various interpretation*, and every WOfd and even sentence must he modified and ex- plained according to the subject which is discussed, according to the. purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principles of the writer, and according to the genius and idioms of the language which he uses. — These are acknowledged principles in the in- terpretation of human writings; and a man whose words we should explain without reference to these principles, would re- proach us justly with a criminal want of candour, and an inten- tion of obscuring or distorting his meaning, •• Were the Bible written in a language and style of its own, did it consist of words, which admit but a single sense, and of sentences wholly detached from each other, there would be no place for the principles now laid down. We could not reason about it, as about other writings. But such a book would be of little worth ; and perhaps, of all books, the Scriptures corres- pond least to this description. u The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand, which we see in his works. It has infinite connections and dependen- cies. Every proposition is linked with others, and is to be com- pared with others, that its full and precise import may be un- derstood. Nothing stands alone. The New Testament is built on the Old. The Christian dispensation is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion of a vast scheme of providence, requir- ing great extent of view in the reader. Still more, the Bible treats of subjects on which we receive ideas from other sources besides itself; such subjects as the nature, passions, relations, and duties of man ; and it expects us to restrain and modify its language by the known truths, which observation and experi- ence furnish on these topics. "We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now made on its infinite connections, we may observe, that its style no where affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold, 1* C l'KIN* ll'Lls Of IMI.IM'KI 5TATI0 [LKTT. I. And figurative, demanding mora frequent departures from the literal sense, than thai of our own age and country, and tonse- quentrj it demands more rontinual ezerciae of judgment We tin.l too, that the different portions of this book, instead of being confined i«> general truths, refer perpetually to tin- timet when :h( \ wn re written, to suttee of society, to modes of thinking, to eootrov* nice in the church, to feelings and usages, which have psed away, and without the knowledge of which we are esav stautlj in danger of extending to all times and places, what aras of temporary and local application. We find, too, that some of these books are strongly marked bj the genius and char- acter of their respective writers, that the Holj Spirit did pot so guide the apostles as t « » suspend the peculiarities of their minds, and thai a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences under which they were placed, is one of the preparat ions for understand in<; their writings. With these views of the Bible, we feel it em- bounden durj to exercise our reason upon it per- petually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, t<> seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the writer, his true meaninir: and, in general, to make use of what IS known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering in w initio. •• Need I descend to particulars to prove 4 that the Scriptures demand the exercise of reason J Take, for example, the Style in which the\ generally speak of God, and observe how habitu- ally the\ appl\ to him human passions and organs. Recollect the declarations of Christ, that lie came not to send peace, but a iWOrd; that unless we eat his flesh, and drink his hiood, we have no life in us : that we must hate father and mother; pluck out the right eye; and a vast number of passages equally bold and unlimited. Recollect the unqualified manner in which it is I of Christians that thej possess all things, know all tiling. and can do ail thin--. Recoiled the \erhal contradiction he- tween Paul and .lames, and the apparent clashing of some parts of Paul's writings, with the genera] doctrines and end of Chris- tianity. I might extend the enumeration indefinitely, and who does not see, that we must limit all these passages by the known attributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human nature, and by the circumstances under winch they were written, so as to give ihe language s quite different import from what it would re- quire, had it been applied to different beings, or \\>vd in differ- ent connections. " Enough has been Said to show in what sense we make use 1. I.] HUNClPLKfl Of INI I.KI'Kl.TA IKiN. 7 (>l'p';is(»ii in interpreting Scripture. From I VlrifQ of possible interpretations, we select that which accords with tin* nature of the subject, and the stale of the writer, \% i 1 1 1 the connection of the pass i je, with the general strain of Scripture, with the known character and will of God, and with the obvious and scknowl- n\j;ci\ laws of nature. In other words, we believe that God never contradicts, in one part of Scripture, what be teaches in another; and never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches in his works and pro* idenee. And we, therefore, distrust e\< i\ interpretation, which, alter deliberate attention, seems repugnant to any established truth. We reason about the Bible precisely civilians do about the constitution under which we live; who, \on know, ste accustomed to limit one provision of that vener- ahle instrument by others, and to fix the precise import of its parts by inquiring into its general spirit, into the intentions of its authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and cir- cumstances of the time when it was framed. Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly acknowledge, that we cannot defend the divine authority of the Scriptures. Deny us this latitude, and we must ahandon this book to its enemies." pp. 3 — 8. To a great part of these principles, I give my cheerful and most cordial assent. They are the principles which I apply- to the explanation of the Scriptures, from day to day, in my private studies and in my public labours. They are the prin- ciples, by which I am conducted to the opinions that I have espoused ; and by which, so far as I am able, I expect to de- fend these opinions, whenever called in duty to do it. AVhile I thus give my cordial approbation to most of the above extract from your Sermon, will you indulge me in expressing a wish, that the rank and value of the Old Testa- ment, in the Christian's library, had been described in some- what different terms? I do most fully accord with the idea, that the gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than the Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament. On what other ground can the assertions of Paul in 2 Cor. iii, in Heb. viii, and in other places, be believed or justified? The gospel gives a clearer view than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty and of our destiny ; of the objects of our hopes and fears ; of 8 PRINCIPLE! 01 ini BKPRE1 ATION. [tBTT. I. !• of God and the way of salvation. I agree fully, thai whatever in the Old Testament respects the -lews rfmplj at Jen . g. flieir ritual, their food, their d civil polity, their government, and (in a word) what- ever from its nature was national and local — is not binding upon u- under the Christian dispensation. I am well satisfied, tOO, that the character of Clod and the duty of men were, in many respects, less clearly revealed under the ancient dispensation. " The law was given by H06< - ;" yel M no man hath seen God at any time ; the only [en, who dwelleth in the besom of the Father, he hath him" In other words it was reserved for Christ to make a///// display of the divine character; no mere man ever had such a knowledge of Cod as enabled him to do it. I am aware that many Christian- do not seem to understand this passage ; and, with well meaning hut mistaken views, dedooethe character and d( r Cod as fully and as clear- ly from the Old Testament a- from the New.* I most believe too, that the duties of Christians are, in most things, more fully and definitely taught in the gospel than in the Old Testament; and I cannot approve of that method of reasoning, which deduces our duties principally from text- in the Old Testament that sometimes are less dear, when the New Testament presents the same subjects in BUch character- of light thai he who runneth may read. But when you say: "Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his person- al ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives ;" does not thifl naturally imply, that we are absolved from obliga- tion to receive the Old Testament, in any sense, as our guide; and that what it teaches we are not bound " to make nr lives f I do not feel certain that it was your * For more ample news of (his interesting topic, I would refer the ;• to the littk work which I have recently published, entitled Criti- < > unrepealed. There is a very sound maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human law>. which runs thus: Mcmmtt rati<>N<\ mam't ipsa A'-'\ i. 6. a la\s is unrepealed, while tin 1 reason of that law continues. Only- express repeal can exempt a law from the application of this maxim. And when our Saviour says : " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," he seems to me to have plainly declared the immutability of the ancient moral law, in the sense al- ready explained. What shall we say, moreover, of the devotional parts of the Old Testament, of the book of Psalms, for example? And what of those numerous prophetical parts, which are sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or predictions- of a future Messiah and of the nature and prosperity of his church ? Are these any more Jewish, (except as to the garb in which they are clothed), than Christian ? I admit that they are all less perfect, than that which the New Testament furnishes on the same topics, inasmuch as this is an account of the fulfilment of ancient prophecies ; but I believe both to be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar respect and deference. In regard to what follows, in the passage above quoted, I cannot hesitate to say, that nothing is clearer to my appre- hension, than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in language which is used by those whom he addresses. Of course, the language of the Bible is to be interpreted by the same law r s, so far as philology is concerned, as that of any other book. I ask, w r ith you : How else is the Bible a revela- tion ? How else can men ever come to agree in what man- ner the Scripture should be interpreted, or feel any as- N ri:iN( iru;> Of ivn:ui'i; >\. [lktt. I. hmmmm that tbey have attained to the meaning of it- lan- I Snd little from which I should dissent, in tin- remainder of poor observations upon the prineiphi of interpretation* I might, perhaps, make some objection to the manlier, in which Ihe oftee of reason in the interpretation of Scripture i- i sionallv described Bat I am confident, that I admitas fully as you do or can f reason to believe doctrines and facts which God has asM-rti-d to be true, and to obey his precepts; although many things in regard to the manner in which those tacts and doctrines can be explained, or those precepts vindic may be beyond her reach. In short, the Scriptures once j admitted to be the word of God, or of divine authority, Ike sole offloe of reason in respect to them is to act as the inh rprett r of Revelation, and not in any g ridentfron tin- later writings of Dr. Chaaning, tfeal be id- lnittcl tin- divine authority nf the Old Testament only in a very limited snd qualified sense Of die New Testament he would doubtless have laid: ■ it - the word of God;' hut nut: - it u the word of i . i. ri;i\-< [PLBi 01 in PI UPRIT1 PIOM. 11 K MOB ran only judge of the appropriate law- oi and direct the application of them in order to discover -imply what tin- sacred writers meant to assert This being discov- civ.i, it ie either to be received simply ai they bare asserted it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our oblige tion to believe all which they assert must be denied. There is no other alternative. Philosophy has do rigfrl to interfere hen*. If she ever interferes, it must he when the question II pending, whether the Bible is divine. Nor baa system, pre- judi uiriau feeling, orthodoxy or heterodoxy so called, anv right to interfere. The claims of the Bible to he author- itative once being admitted, the simple question is : What does it teach ? Of any particular passage we have only to ask: What idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpre- tation, it is authoritative. It is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word ; and everything which differs from it, which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is hetero- doxy, is heresy ; to whatever name or party it is attached. I hope you will agree, without hesitation, to these remarks. The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice, implies most clearly the very same principles which I have stated; and which every man must admit, who acknowledges the paramount claims of the Bible to be believed, and has any tolerable acquaintance with the subject of its interpretation. If there be anything in your statement, generally consid- ered, of the laws of interpretation, to which I object, it belongs mostly to the colouring which has been given to some of your language. You commence with saying, that your party are charged with " exalting reason above revelation ;" with u pre- ferring their own w f isdom to God's ;" and that " these charges are circulated freely and with injurious intentions." You In the first esse, only so much is admitted to be authoritative, as agrees with our views of what is reasonable; in the second case, the Scripture is acknowledged as the only rule of faith and practice. 12 PftOfCIFLBfl OF INTKKPKLTATloV. [LETT. I. will readily acknowledges as b genend fact, thai there is some difficulty in giving an impartial statement of opinions, which ^w• \ this truth we give infinite importance, and we fee] ourselves hound to take heed, lest any man spoil ua of it bj vain philosophy. The proposition that then is om CM seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand b] it, that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelli- LTnt tgent, and one only, to whom underived and infinite per- fection and dominion belong. We conceive, that these words could have conveyed do other meaning to the simple and uncul- tivated people who were Bet apart to he the depositaries of this great truth, and who were utterly incapable of understanding those hair breadth distinctions between being and ptrstm^ which the Bagacity of latter ages has discovered. We find no intima- tion, that this language was tO be taken in an unusual sense, or that God's unity was a quite different thing from the oneness of other intelligent beings. "We object to the doctrine of the 'Trinity, that it BUDVertS the unit} of God. According tO this doctrine there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Fa- ther, Son. and Holy (ihost. Bach of these persons, as described bj theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; DOT is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. \[l\{) then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different con- sciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, perform- ing different acts, and sustaining different relations j and rf these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterl\ at a loss to know how three, 1 minds or beings arc to he formed, It is difference of properties, and acts, and con- sciousness, which leads us to the belief of different Intelligent beings, and if this mark lail us. our whole knowledge fails; we have no proof', that all the agents and persons in the universe are not <»ne and the >ame mind. When wo attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can d*> nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to those, which separate the persons of. the Trinity; and when Common Christians hear these persons Spo k e n of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and performing ditferent acts, how- can they help regarding them as different beings, different minds?" — pp, 8, 9, I! IT. II.] I NMV «»i- (,ol>. 1.") M\ object in tkii letter, i> not wo much t<> controvert your ed, a- i<> remark on your exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended, by those with whom I am accustomed to think ami act. Admitting thai you have given a fair account of our belief; •mot Bee, indeed, why we are not virtually guilty of 7V/- or at least of something which approximates so near to it. that I acknowledge myself unable to distinguish it from Tritheism. But 1 cannot help feeling, thai you have made neither an impartial, nor a cornet, statement of what we be- lieve, ami what we arc accustomed to t«ach and defend. Ir needs but a moderate acquaintance with the history of the doctrine in question, to satisfy anv one, that a great vari- ety of explanations have been attempted by inquisitive, or by adventurous minds. All acknowledge the dilliculty of the subject ; I regret to say, that some have not refrained from treating it, as though it were more within their comprehension than it is, But among all the different explanations, which I have found, I have not met with any one which denied, or at least was designed to deny, the unity of God. All admit this to be a fundamental principle. All acknowledge that it is de- lated in characters of light, both in the Jewish and Chris- tian revelations; and that to deny it would be the grossest absurdity, as well as impiety. It may indeed be questioned, whether the explanations given of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some who have specu- lated on this subject, are consistent with the divine unity, when the language which they use is interpreted agreeably to the common laws of exegesis. But that their representations were not designed to call in question the divine unity, is what I think every candid reader of their works will be, or at least ought to be, disposed to admit. Now when 1 consider this fact, so plain and so easily estab- lished, and then look at the method in which you state the doctrine of the Trinity, as exhibited above ; I confess it gives me pain, to think that you have not conceded, or even inti- 1 6 I'M IV 01 <.<'I'. [LETT. II. mated, thai Trinitarians do, or can, admit the unity of God. V(»;i have :i light to Bay, if you so think, that the doctrine of tin- Trinity, AS tin and defend it, is at variance with the divine unity; and moreover, it' you bo believe, that tie two things are inconsistent with each other, lint to appro- priate to those solely, who call themselves Unitarians, the belief that there is hut one Godj or to construct an account <-t" i In- Trinitarian creed, (as it seems to me you have done, in the paragraph on which I am remarking), so as not even to intimate t<> your hearers or reader-, that your opponents ad- mit or advocate the divine unity ; is doing that whieh you, as I am apt to think, would censure in an antagonist, and which cannot well serve the interests of truth. But let 08 examine more particularly your statement of our I : u We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it suhverts the unit\ of <;<>d. According to this doctrine, then.' are three infi- nite and equal pei sons, po>s< tssing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Hoi} Ghost Each of these persona, as de- scribed hy theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each Other, and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is me- diator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking i. Here then we have; three intelligent agents, possi ssed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different percep- tions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations ; and it' these things do UOt imply and Constitute three minds or beings, we ;i re utterly at a !<»>s to know how three minds or beings arc to be formed." — p. !'. li not this account a very different one from that which many of your brethren are accustomed to give of us? By them it i- -aid, that there is a great variety of discordant and Contradictory statements and explanations of the doctrine of tin- Trinity, among those who embrace it. Do not you amal- Ufi all together; make us harmonious Tritheists ; and t.i.tt. ii.] i \! rv Of Gtn>. 17 then give as over to the reproach of Tritheism, <>r at least of glaring inconsistent After all, the statement which you exhibit of our view-, is very far from that which we. (or at lea.-t all Trinitaiianfl with whom I am acquainted), make of our belief, I do not deny, that ritera have given grounds for a statement not very diverse from yours, as it regards the doctrine of the Trinity. Even some great and good men, in their zeal to defend this doctrine, have sought to reduce the whole subject to human comprehension. How vain the attempt, experi- has demonstrated. Effbrta of this nature, however well designed or ably conducted, never yet have led to anything but greater darkness. " Who can by searching find out God ? Who can find out the Almighty to perfection ?" But though I readily admit, that efforts to explain what in the nature of the case is inexplicable, may have misled some in their exertions to acquire religious knowledge, or given occasion to others of stumbling ; yet I am not prepared to ad- mit, that the great body of Trinitarians have given just occa- sion to charge them with a denial of the unity of God, or with opinions subversive of this. You certainly ought not to deny them the same liberty, in the use of terms, which all men take on difficult subjects, for the accurate description of which, language is not framed, perhaps* is not in its nature adequate. They must discuss subjects of such a nature by using figura- tive language ; by using terms, which, (if I may be indulged the liberty of speaking thus), approximate as nearly to the expression of the ideas that they mean to convey, as any which they can select. If there is any obscurity in these general observations, I hope it will be cleared up in the re- marks that are to follow. Since I refuse assent to your statement of our belief, you will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, that you may compare this with the doctrine of divine unity, and judge for yourself, whether it is subversive of it or not. I cannot re- fuse my assent to a proposal so reasonable ; nor do I feel any inclination to shrink from the task of stating our belief, or to 2* 18 IXITY OF GOD. [LETT. II. proffer tbfi excuse for DO! explicitly stating it, that everything respecting the subject is too mysterious and recondite to be an object of distinct contemplation or statement. What we lo believe can be stated; what we do not profess to define Or explain can be stated, and also the reasons why we do not attempt definition or explanation ; and this is what I shall now attempt I must nut. however, be understood as pledging myself, that all those with whom in general I am accustomed to think and act. will adopt my statement, and maintain that it ex- hibit- the best method of explaining or defending the great doctrine in question. Notwithstanding we are so often changed with adherence to form- and modes of expression as contained in oreeds, we still employ as great a variety of lan- guage in expressing our views of the doctrine of the Trinity, a- we do in respect to the other doctrines of religion. With ird to the statement which I shall make, I can say only, that it is not the result of concert, in any degree, with my clerical brethren, for the purpose of making a statement to which they will adhere. It is the result of investigation and reflection on the subject, as it appears to be exhibited in the Scriptures, and in the writings of the leading divines whom I have been able to consult. I am now prepared to say, that I believe, I. That God is ONE, numerically one, in essence and attri- hutrs. In other word-, the infinitely perfect Spirit, the Crea- tor and Preserver of all things, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ha- numerically the same estate*, and the same perfec- tion^ BO far a- they are known to us. To particularize; the Son po not simply a si/nilar or equal essence and per- fection-, hut numerically the §ame as the Father, without division, and without multiplication. II. The Sou (ami also the Holy Spirit) does, in some ra- sped truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, dif- fer flDOQ the Father. I am aware, Sfl I have hinted above, that you may find Wllters Upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have Stated the T. II.] I M I V OF GOD. 10 of mj first » in a manner somewhat dit r ent. Bat after makinj lUowances for inattention to pre- . the difficulty of the subject, and the vari- ous expedients to which men naturally resort in order to il- lustrate a difficult subject, I am not aware that many of them at, substantially, from tl. oaent now made. Certain it is, that the Lutheran Confession exhibits the >ame view. TL The divine em . which i. and is. God ; eternal, incorporeal, indivisible ; of infinite • wisdom, and goodness : the Creator and Pre- of all things, visible and invisible."* The Confession of Helvetia (written A. D. 1566) declares, that k% God is one in essence or nature, subsisting by him- . all sufficient in himself, invisible, without a body, infinite, eternal, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, etc." It add- : " We detest the multitude of gods, because it is ex- written : The Lord, thy God, is one God, etc." The Confession of Basil (A. D. L532) declares, that there • One eternal and almighty God, in essence and substance, and not three gods." The Confession of the TTaldenses states, that the Holy Trinity, is in essence one only true, alone, eternal, almighty, and incomprehensible God, of one equal and indivisible es- sence." The French Confession (A. D. 1566) says : M We believe and acknowledge one only God, who is only one and simple essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite, etc." The English Confession (A. D. 1662) states, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, u be of one power, of one majesty, of one eternity, of one Godhead, and one substance. And although these three persons be so divided, that neither the Father is the Son, nor the Son is the Holy Ghost, nor the Father; yet, nevertheless, we believe that there is but one very God." * Una esl - itia divina. qua:- appellator, et est. Decs j a.-ternu-. in- corporeus. impartiMlis : immensa potentia. sapientia, bonitate ; Creator et Conservator omnium rerum. visibilium et invisibilium. (Art. I.) 20 UNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II. The Confession of Belgium (A. D. 1566) declares, that " There is one only simple and spiritual essence, which we call God, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, etc." The Articles of the English episcopal church declare, that " there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions, etc." The Confession of the Reformed churches in the Nether- lands, revised at the Synod of Dort (A. D. 1618—1619), declares : " We believe that there is one only and simple, spiritual Being, which we call God ; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, etc." (Vide Harmony of Confessions.) With these agrees the Westminter Confession, approved by the general Assembly of Divines in A. D. 1647, adopted by all the Presbyterian churches in Great Britain and Ameri- ca, and assented to by a great part of the Congregational churches in New England. Its words are : " There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, etc." (West. Con. p. 32.)* Now is this the denial of the divine unity, with which we are implicitly charged? Can Unitarians present a more complete description of the divine unity, than is presented by these Symbols of different denominations of Christians, who admit the doctrine of the Trinity ? But, admitting our statement of the divine unity to be cor- rect, you will probably aver, that my second proposition is subversive of my first. Whether this be so, or not, is what I now propose to investigate. The common language of the Trinitarian Symbols is, that " there are three persons in the Godhead" In your com- ments upon this, you have all along explained the word per- son, just as though it were an established point, that Trinita- * So too the Westminster Catechism : " The same in* substance, equal in power and glory." LETT. II.] MEANING OF PERSON. 21 rians use this word in such a connection, in its ordinary ac- ceptation as applied to men. But can you satisfy yourself that this is doing us justice ? What fact is plainer from church history, than that the word person was introduced into the creeds of ancient times, merely as a term which would somewhat strongly express the disagreement of Chris- tians in general with the reputed errors of the Sabellians, and others of similar sentiments, who denied the existence of any real distinction in the Godhead, and asserted that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were merely attributes of God, or the names of different ways in which he revealed himself to mankind, or of different relations which he bore to them, and in which he acted ? The Nicene fathers meant to deny the correctness of such views, when they used the word per- son. They designed to imply by it, that there was some real, not merely nominal, distinction in the Godhead ; and that something more than a mere diversity of relation or ac- tion of the Godhead in respect to us, was intended. They used the word person, because they supposed it approxima- ted nearer to expressing the existence of a real distinction, than any other which they could choose. Most certainly, neither they, nor any intelligent Trinitarian, could use this term in such a latitude as you represent us as employing it, and as you attach to it. We profess to use it merely be- cause of the poverty of language ; merely to designate our belief of a real distinction in the Godhead ; but not to de- scribe independent, conscious beings, possessing separate and equal essences and perfections. Why should we be obliged so often to explain ourselves on this point ? Is there any more difficulty here, or anything more obnoxious, than when you say : " God is angry with the wicked every day ?" You defend yourself in the use of such an expression, by saying, that it is only the language of rhetoric and figure ; that it is merely intended to describe that in the mind of the Deity, or in his actions, which corresponds in some measure, or in some respect, to anger and its consequences in men ; not that God is really affected with the passion of anger. Why will you 22 MI.ANIX'; OF PERSON'. [LETT. IT. not p e rmit me then to say that we speak of persons in the Godhead, ia order to express that which in some respect or other corresponds to persons a- applied to men, i. e. gome f/is- r \<>,, ; /( >,( tliat we attach to it the meaning of three be- BgS, with a separate consciousness, will, omnipotence, om- niscience, etc. ? When- then, considering the poverty of lan- guage in respect to expressing what belongs to the Deity, is our inconsistency in this, or how is there any absurdity in our language, providing there is a real foundation in the Scriptures on which we may rest the fact of a distinction, which we lx lieve to exist ? I could wish indeed, on some accounts, that the word ]>cr- son had never come into the symbols of the churches, be- cause it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary dispute and difficulty. But since it has been in common use so long, it is difficult now, perhaps impossible, altogether to reject it. If it must be retained, I readily concede that the use of it ought to be so guarded, as not to lead Christians generally into erroneous ideas of God. Nor can I suppose that the great body of Christians have such ideas, or understand it to mean that which you attribute to us as believing. Then surely it is not the best mode of convincing your opponents, to take the word in a sense so different from that in which they understand it, and then charge them with the absurdi- ties consequent upon the laiKjuage of their creed. It has al- ways been a conceded point, that in the statement of difficult subjects, or the discussion of them, terms might be used aside from their ordinary import. And what can teach us in a plainer manner, that Trinitarians do use the word person in tlii- way, than that they do universally agree that God is one, both in essence and in attributes? [t might have been justly expected, likewise, that before they were charged with subverting the divine unity, the meaning of the word person, in the ancient records which de- il)c it- first introduction into the symbols of the church, should have been carefully investigated. One of your rules of l kSj to which 1 have with all my heart assented, de- IT. II.] MlAMMi 01 WW30H. 23 oumdfl that "every ward. . . . BhoaU be modified and » i x- plained according t<> the mbfed which is discussed, accord- ing to the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principl of the writer." Do us the justice to apply this law of inter- pretation to our language, and the dispute between us about the meaning of person is forever at an end. Whal then, you doubtless will ask, is the specific nature of that distinction in the Godhead, which the word p/'rso// i> meant to designate? I answer without hesitation, that I do not know. The fad that a distinction exists, is what we aver; the specific definition of that distinction is what I shall by no means attempt to make out. By what shall I, or can I, define it ? What simile drawn from created objects, which are necessarily derived and dependent, can illustrate the mode of existence in that Being, who is underived, independent, unchangeable, infinite, eternal ? I confess myself unable to advance a single step here, in explaining what the distinc- tion is. I receive the fact that it exists, simply because I be- lieve that the Scriptures reveal the fact. And if the Scrip- tures do reveal the fact, that there are three persons in the Godhead, (in the sense explained) ; that there is a distinc- tion, which affords grounds for the respective appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; which lays the foundation for the application of the personal pronouns, I, Thou, He ; which renders it proper to speak of sending and being sent ; to speak of Christ as being with God, being in his bosom, and of other things of the like nature in the like way, and yet to hold that the divine nature equally belongs to each ; then it is, like every other fact revealed, to be received simply on the credit of divine revelation. Is there any more difficulty in understanding the fact that there is a distinction in the Godhead, than there is in under- standing the fact that God possesses an underived existence? With what shall we compare such existence ? All other be- ings are derived ; and, of course, there is no object in the universe with which it can be compared. To define it, then, is beyond our reach. We approximate towards a conception 2-1: mkaxinv; OFPBBSOW. [LETT. II. of it. merely by n egativ e e. We deny, for example, that the divine existence hafl any author or cause ; and when we have done this, ire have nut defined it, bat simply said that a certain thing does not h<-lon'_ r to it. And here ire must rest ; for archangels, it i< probable, cannot proceed beyond this. The distinction in the Godhead, I ought to say here, do not, and cannot, consider as a mere subject of speculation, which lias little or no concern with ardent piety, or the best hopes of the Christian. Webelieve that some of the most interesting and endearing exhibitions of the divine character are founded upon it ; and that corresponding duties are urged upon us. and peculiar hopee excited, and peculiar consola- tions administered, by it. In regard to this distinction, we say: It a mere dis- tinction <>f attributes, of relation to us. of modes of action, or of relation hrtiro, ,, attributes and substance or essence, so far they are known to us. We believe the Scriptures justify us in these negations. But here we leave the subject. AVe undertake, (at least the Trinitarians of our country with whom I am acquainted undertake), not at all to describe af- firmatierh/ the distinction in the Godhead. When you will give me an affirmative description of underived existence, I may safely engage to furnish you with one of person in the Trinity. You do not reject the belief of the divine self-ex- istence, merely because you cannot affirmatively define it ; neither do we of a distinction in the Godhead, beca cannot affirmatively define it. 1 may ask moreover: What is the eternity of God? You answer by telling me, thai there never was a time when he did not exist, and never can be one when he will not exist True; but then, what was flfne, before the planetary system which measures it had an existence ? And what will time be* when these heavens and this earth shall be blotted out? B< tides, passing over this difficulty about time, you have only iriv.'ii a negai ription of Qod'a eternity ; you deny c tian things of him, and then aver that he ifl proposition, thai is the thing itself, or the agent, loftoerning winch the fact is asserted, is uadefinable ; and, excepting in regard to the fact in question, perhaps wholly unknown to M. How easy now to perplex common minds, by callii Mopoeitiofl unintelligible, the subject of which is merelj finable. In confounding things so very different, consists, as I apprehend, the whole ingenuity of the piece in question ; an ingenuity, which may excite the admiration of those who love the BUbtilties of dispute, hut cannot contribute much to illuminate the path of theological Bcien I have been thus particular, in my statement of this very difficult part of the subject, in order to prevent misapprehen- sion. I certainly do nut hold myself bound to vindicate? any of the attempted definitions of person or distinction in the ( .odhead. at V -ast any which I have yet seen, because I do not and cannot adopt them. My reason for this is, that I do not and cannot understand them ; and to a proffered definition I cannot with propriety assent, still less undertake to defend it, until 1 do understand what it signifies. It is truly matter of regret to me, that some great and good men have carried their -peculations on this subject to such a length, that, as I cannot help thinking, they have bewildered themselves and their reader-. I would always speak with respect and ten- derness of such men. Still I have no hesitation in saying, that my mind is absolutely unable to elicit distinct and cer- tian ideas, from any of the proffered definitions in question which I have ever examined. Hay I be indulged with the liberty here of producing a few examples? In this way, I Shall be able more readily to illustrate and establish what I have JUSJ said. Lot mr begin with Terlullian, who flourished about A. D. 2<><>. In his book against Prazeas (eh- 2) he says: u This perversity [viz. of Praxeas] thinks itself to be in possession of pure truth, while it supposes that we are to believe in one Qodf not otherwise than if we make the Father. Son, and Boly Cihost, the sell" same : as if all were not Oft*, while all i. ii.] mi w \. 27 of one, viz. by a unity of subetmftee j and still, the myi omy which distributes unity into a Tr i m&fy k^b» served, marking out [distinguishing] Father, Son, and Holy Grbotfc There arc three, net in ooodition but in rank ; not in < but form ; not in power but in kind ; but they are substance, condition, and ]>o\vn\ for there 18 (MM God from whom those ranks, and forms and kinds, are reckoned by the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." A little farther on he says: "Whatever, therefore, the of the Word (Logos) is, I call him a PB&SOIT, and defend the application of this name to him; and while I acknowledge the Son, I maintain that he is second from the Father. . . . The third is the Spirit from God and the Son, lie fruit from the stalk is the third from the root; a sluice from the river [the third] from the fountain ; the point from a ray of light [the third] from the sun. So the Trinity pro- Is, by interlinked and connected grades, from the Father." In Cap. 0, he says : " They (the Trinity) are not separate from each other, although the Father may be said to be di- verse from the Son and the Spirit." And again : u We are baptized into the persons [of the Trinity] severally, by the use of their several names." »* * ,: Perversitas hoc (sc. Praxeae) se existimat mcram veritatcm Mere. i dicatur alium esse Patrem, alium Filium et Si)irituin. — " Ad singula Nomina, in personas singulas tingimur." 28 mi \.\iv. m im-:kson. [lktt. ii. Ii h prop r to observe here, how plainly and definitely the IPQtdi person and Trinity are applied by Tertullian to the ad; which contradicts the very confident affirmati of many writers, that these terms were merely an invention of later ages and of schola-tic di\ inity. I may add, that the Familiar and habitual use which Tertullian makes of them, proves that they were commonly understood, or at least com- monly used in the church, at a very early period, and in ivf- crenee to the veiy distinction in the Godhead which is the present subject of discussion, [believe the writings of this father afford the earliest specimen, now extant, of the techni- cal nse (if I may bo speak) of the word Trinity and Pert His object cannot he mistaken. His antagonist, Praxeas, denied that there existed any distinction in the Godhead, or any except a mere verbal one. Tertullian means t<> assert the existence of a threefold distinction ; and to designate this he uses the word Trinity. To signify that this distinction is '/. and nut merely nominal, he uses the word person* The Latin word permmOf which he employs, means, when ap- plied to 0M //, that quality, state, or condition, whereby man differs from a brute, or whereby one man differs from another. Analogically with this meaning, Tertullian applies the word to the Godhead, i. e. to tin.' distinctions which he supposed to exist in it, and which he regarded as real. But to explain Tertulliaifs similitudes, so frequently copied in after;, j« ^. ig more than I shall undertake. Who does not Bee, that all similitudes drawn from created, limited, depend* cut beings or things, must be utterly inadequate to illustrate the mode iii which an uncreated, infinite, and omnipresent Being exists? What is even the attempt at explanation, but " darkening * counsel by words without knowledge?" J be- lieve with Tertullian in a threefold distinction in the Ciod- bead ; but I believe simply the fact of a Trinity, and do not venture t<> make any attempt at explanation, by comparison with material objects. In like manner. Origan, who began to flourish bel 1 1 rtullian'a d reprehends those ik who do not attribute IJ.1T. II.] Ml WIN 29 pers tatv) to the Word or I " and shortly after he adds : M /'/ rroa, TzarroKpurnpa, ttuvtcjv oparuv re kol aopurur TTonjr^v ■ kcil ek ha KvpiOV 'h/Govv XptGTov, tov vlqv tov 0eoi>, tov yewff&evra Ik tov TrciTpbc fiovoyevrj, tovt' Igtlv Ik ttj$ ovaiag tov Jrarpof, dsdv £k deov, (pur Ik 6iotoc, deov a/.7/$tvuv Ik $eov a?>r/&i- vov, yevv7i&£vTa ov TzoirjdivTa, ouoovctov t£> TraTpi • 6C ov tu izdvTa tyevETo, k.t/a. — Svmb. Xicaenum. 3* 30 NI< I M ri:i.l.l». [LETT. IT. which consists with a tolerable explanation of these word-, without virtually conceding thai Chris! ia not God tupreme. After all thai has been said, or can be .-aid. about the mysteri- manner of Christ's generation, and in fact conceding for the moment thai all which has been said in respect to it is true it -till remains a thing BO plain as to be incapable of reasonable denial, that the generation of the Son in bis (Urine nature, however mysterious or incomprehensible, imports at least a derivation in some sense or other. It is impossible to deny this, unless all regard to tin proper meaning of words is laid aside. And if the Logo*, i. e. Christ in his di vine nature) Was derived, then he can be neither self-extstent nor Nfc Indeed, the Mrenuous and consistent advocates of the 1 Xieene creed do not admit the ttlf-exietenct and the inde- i the Son. Taking it for granted that sons/tip is applicable to the did no nature, (and the Nicene creed is plainly built on this), and that it must of necessity imply de- lation in some sense, or at least with respect to that nature, they must of course, in order to be consistent, deny that Christ El KV*6&Bo$ or self-existent; and consequently, if still con- sistent, they must maintain that he is not independent. With this view of the Xieene fathers I cannot here enter into Controversy ; but it may justly be demanded of me, in present circum-tanccs, to be explicit as to my own views of this doc- trine. Very briefly then would I say, that, instructed as I have been in iv»p< et to the nature of true Godhead, it is im- posBible for me to predicate this quality of any being who is neither tdf~existent nor independent These are the ulti- mate, highest, plainest, and most certain of all the discretive attribute^ of Godhead, i. e. attributes which separate the di- vine Being from all other possible beings. If the Son pos- H not these attribute-, then he can be only a frtfe fafce- po£, i. <•. a God of secondary rank j and so Origen and others have actually named him. The ancient lathers, many of them nurtured in the bosom of a heathen religion which ad- mitted the endless generation and multiplicity of gods, felt much less difficulty in believing in the generation of a nature IT. 11.] i. CREED. 81 which was in their view truly divine, than we of the present day must feel 3 all the discussions which havr taken plac< il the true > I nature of the Godhead. Ap- plying the p of Christ t<> his divine nature, and over- looking the declarations on this Bubjeci of a celestial interpre- ts r (Luke 1: 35), they felt themselves bound to maintain a leration of the divine nature iA' the Son. while they still xplicitly avowed their belief in hi- true divinity ; for v tz \hov uhftivoVy i. e. very God of very God, in ly implies this. I believe that what they substan- tially aimed at, is a doctrine of Scripture. But I cannot sub- scribe to their terminology, for the reasons stated above. If their words are to be interpreted by any of the common laws ofe ~. they must import a derivation and dependence of the Son, in his divine nature. But how can a being be re- garded as supreme God, who is neither self-existent nor in- dependent ? Still, if the Nicene fathers failed as to proper modes of expression, this should not be put to the account of the Bible. John says not one word of the Logos, as such, which would lead us, in the way of simple interpretation, to conclude that in this nature he is either derived or dependent ; and John is the only New Testament writer who has ex- pressly treated of the Logos, and disclosed to us his original state. The Nicene creed then is not, I must confess, sufficiently orthodox for me. I believe that Christ is " God over all, and blessed for ever ;" that he is " the true God and eternal life ;" that " he made all things ;" and that " he who did make all things is God." A frees dtvzeoo^ — a God of sec- ondary rank — seems to me altogether incompatible with the true spiritual doctrine of scriptural Christianity. Yet I am far from thinking that the Nicene fathers designed to assert and maintain the actual inferiority of the Son; although they do so strenuously maintain his generation or derivation. We must not scan their metaphysical notions by the philoso- phy of the present day. I agree with them in their most im- portant position, (i. e. in what I deem to be their most impor- lMlM.in r.CTToX OF LANGUAGE. [LETT. tt. tant One), vi/. that the Son is opootHftO? up muni, and of eofl thnffrtfog, i. e. of the same substance with the rfier, and therefore true God. You will not allege, that their metaphysical views <>t' the connection between Father and Son, (»!• their mode of Stating them, are fairly to be put to the accoillll of the Bible, or of the orthodox Christianity of the present day. They may have erred in respect to both these, and -till not he chargeable with any intention to deny the proper divinity of Christ ; much less with any intention to mislead Others, or even to substitute their own speculations in the room of those views which the sacn d writer- maintain. J Have one thing more to say, in relation to this whole sub- ject, which I may as well say here ; for, if correct, it ought to have an important hearing on modes of expression in relation to the whole matter before us. Jt is this, viz. the imperfec- tion of lang ua ge is such, that words can scarcely be employed with regard to some parts of the subject under discussion, without liability to be misunderstood. Every word is a sym- bol of some idea of our minds : and all our ideas are the re- sult of sensation, consciousness, and reflection. Now the es- sential nature and relations of the divine Being are not within the circle of either of these sources of ideas and words. Of course, no part of language was originally formed in reference to expressing the internal constitution (so to speak) of the Godhead. A secondary and tropical sense, therefore, in a greater or less degree, must of necessity be attached to all the word- which we employ respecting the essence of the ( lodhead. The sober inquirer, who is fully cognizant of this, will never think of believing or denying what the mere literal sense of woid- thus employed would convey. lie must not believe in theism, because Trinity and three persons in the Godhead are spoken of in his creed ; nor should he insist that such words necessarily infringe upon the unity of the Godhead: fer it ifl only by taking the words in a literal sense, that he can make this out It ifl here we may well say: " The letter kill, th, but the Spirit maketh alive." A familiar ( sample may illustrate this. John says : " The IT. II.] IM: .1 A.GK. nth ( - 'in the time of Ariua downwards, it 1. id(1 asked with an air bespeaking confi- dence that no satisfactory a ild be given: 'How Word be with God, unless be was a being different i him ? -V being who is with another, cannQt be that 1 I would reply, provided two things are first made out, viz. first, thai the two beings men- tion shown to be separate or different beings, in the usual g word- ; and secondly, when it is made it the word with has the Bame sense hero as it se a similar assertion were made of two be- 3 known to be distinct But who can establish either of these!" From the tenor of the context in John, it is plain enough that the Logo- is not an inferior being; for lie is rep- V, and as the Creator of all things. If so, then he has an underived existence himself; and therefore must be U in his nature. What then is it for such a Spirit to be with God ? This cannot be made out from any notion of ours about mere physical proximities or nearness of material objects. . The nearest that we can come to the meaning of the word with here, seems to be that which is expressed by the phrase conjuactissimus cum Deo, i. e. most intimately con- nected with God. But why should John say the thing in question at all ? My own apprehension is, that the need of saying it lay in some Gnostic errors of the day, which af- firmed of the Aeon Logos, a state of existence entirely sepa- rate from its original source. As John felt himself obliged to employ the same name (/.o;'o>), he took care duly to dis- tinguish his Logos from that of the Gnostics. Mewed in this light, the word with designates that which is adverse to the position of the errorists in question, rather than something itive and affirmative in its nature. At all events, the word with stands in such a connection, that none of its ordi- nary and local meanings can be attached to it, in consistency with the true nature of the subject to which it has relation. So is it with a multitude of objections raised against the doctrine of the Trinity, from the mere forms of expression 34 IMPERFECTION OF LANGUAGE. [LETT. IT. employed in the New Testament. Their efficacy or validity, rtiuns. depends entirely on interpreting language, as applied to the Godhead) according to its ordinary meaning when applied to other things. This eannot be any more cor- rect, tlian it i< to say, with the Bwedenborgi an s, that God has a \ bible material form, because man is said to be made in his huge, and because the ordinary partfl and powers of a hu- man body are ascribed to him. The nature of a being must always direct the sense of words which are employed to de86iibe him. We concede this, in the interpretation of all other books; and why should we deny it. when the meaning ■ripiural language is the subject of examination ? But 1 must refrain from further remarks here, and remit the reactor to the Supplementary Note, added to the present edition, and in>er(ed at the end of Letter n. In this, 1 have attempted an outline of the yrouitds of dispute in regard to the nature and person of Christ, in ancient times, and a sum- mary account of attempts in modern times to define the word JMT5"//. as applied to the Godhead. I have added to these such reflections a> the nature of the case seemed to require. I would hope that what has cost me very serious labour, may not be without some value to the reader. One word more, at present, in respect to the Council of Nice. The Nicene fathers seem to have intended to make out something like an (tjlir/notire or positive definition of the dis- tinction between the Father and the Son, by asserting his mal generation. That they have failed to do this in a : -factory manner, is snlliciently evident. But I eannot think that they are fairly exposed to a charge ot designed in- trusion into the mysteries of the Godhead, or even of intend- ing to introduce useless and unmeaning words into their Symbol. The Council of Constantinople, reckoned as the second ecumenical Council (A. J). 581), in their synodic address to the rhmvl v, that "it is the most ancient faith, and agreeable to baptism, to believe in the name of the Father, i, and Holy Ghost; and of course one godhead, power, LETT. II.] COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. and substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is be- lieved, and equal dignity and ooeternal dominion in ihi most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons i 10 that neither the pest of Sabellhlfl shall have place, which confounds the persons, i. e. tak< a away their distinctive peculiarity nor the blasphemy of the Kunomians, Arians, and opposeiv of the Holy Spirit prevail, which destroys the substance, or nature, or godhead, by adding to the uncreated. eonsubstan- tial, and coeternal Trinity something of posterior origin, or of a cr nid heterogeneous nature."* This Council liavc left somewhat undefined the manner in which they mean to use the words, M three most perfect hy- postases, or three perfect persons ;" excepting that they have avowed their belief in one godhead, potver, and substance. A question might be raised, whether they really mean nu- merical unity of substance and power in the persons of the Godhead, or only equality of rank and homogeneousness of substance. The spirit of the times, and the state of philoso- phy at that period, would favor the latter supposition ; although I do not think that it can be made out with certain- ty. One thing however is clear ; which is, that they aim at vindicating the unity of the Godhead and the equality of the hypostases or persons of the Trinity, without sacrificing the distinctive attributes of these hypostases. My belief is, that the main thing which they mean to assert is true ; but they have left a little too indefinite what they meant by the dis- tinctions in the Godhead. There can be no doubt that they * — ttcgtevelv eig to bvojia tov r:aTpog, tov viov, nal tov Trviv/iaroc uylov ■ 6e/*ad*}j ^eottjtoc re nal Swufieug nal ovaiaq \iiaq tov TxaTpbq, tov viov, nai tov TzvevfiaTor aylov ttlctevo/ievijCj dfiOTLfiov te Trjg a^iaq nal (Xwaddiov t7,c paotXeiag kv Tpio~l te/.eiotutciic vkggtcigiv, yy>w TpUJ r 7Cpoacj~Oir • tjr firjTE TTjV 2d 1;//'-)V v6 assert, in the strongest terms, their antipathy to •ellianism and Arianism. Let u- now leave antiquity, and glance for a moment at lame of the similar attempts in modern times. The celebra- ted Leibnitz, was requested by Loefler, who had underfc to refute the writing- of a certain English Antitrinitarian, to give him an affirmative definition of the , in the ( head. He sent for answer the following: " Several pen in an absolute substance numerically the same, signify B0V- eral, particular, intelligent Mibstances essentially related."" ( )n further consideration la 1 abandoned this, and sent a second answer; which was, that "several persons, in an absolute substance numerically the same, mean relative and incom- municable modes of subsisting*"! IfLeibnitf actually and definitely understood this, I must believe that he was a good master of metaphysics. Still if lie had added to the latter clause the word uiidcfinahh or in- ffiaUs, his definition might be regarded as being as good M the nature of the case admits. I should also prefer to leave out the word inco mmum ccMe ; inasmuch as we cannot be quite certain of the fact which it asserts, (provided person implies neither esse fitted essence or attribute), and because many Trinitarians have regarded and defined personality as = mo- dus subsist* luli, and as something which might be communi- cated. In fact, Leibnitz himself appears not to have I entirely satisfied with his own attempt at definition; for, not long after, he wrote to a friend as follows: "We must -ay. that there are relation* in the divine substance, which dis- tinguish the j>< rso/ts, since these persons cannot be absolute Substances. But we must aver, too, that these relations are s"bs?rt, tfi'i/. At least we must say, thai the divine persons are not the same concrete, under different denominations or * Plures persona, In eadem aumero substantia absolute, significant plum mbstantiafl singulares, intelligentes, essentialiter relatrraa. t Phires personae, in eadem numero substantia absoluta, intelfigun- tur per modoa subsistendi relatiros, incommunicabiles. d.] DF.FIN1 I ! relation i man may be, at the same time both i poet aiul an orator. \\ e tDUSl Bay, moreover, that the three per- not as absolute sabstaneei as the whole/ 1 * With a> little success, did that somewhat original thinker and reasooer, the celebrated Toellner of Frankfort, labour to define the distinction in question, " It i- certain, 1 be* '•that we must conceive, as coexisting in God, tin rnal and really different anion-, the action of operation, of idea, and of the desire of all possible good within and without him. •• Three really different actions, coexisting from eternity, essarily presuppose three really different and operative games It is thus, through the aid of reason quickened by the Scriptures, we come to know, that the power, the under- standing, and the will, in God are not merely three faculties, but three distinct energies, i.e. three- substances."t * Remarques sur lc livre d' an Antitrinitaire Aii-!<>:^. j>. 26. I can- not think, however, that he has added much explicitness to his former statement. What are relations substantial ' He must mean, as it seems to me, r< /at /'<»is thai /» rtam to substance ; for the substantiality of a relation, in any other sense than this, is not intelligible to me. The last clause, " that the three persons are not a- absolute substances as the whole.*" has added nothing to the perspicuity of the matter. The implication seems to he. that the three persons are so many substances, hut not ahsolute. Now what i- i '■< in God, which is not absolute '. And if numeri- iitij of substance i< predicable of the Godhead, how can diversity of substances he attributed to him? Personality, which implies diversity, cannot well he predicated of essential substance or of essential attribui for these are numerically one. Ili^ former definition, therefore, comes nearer to the mark. See Sup}). Note, at the end of this Letter. t Es 1st gewiss, dass wir uns in Gott drey ewige wahrhaftig von einander unterschiedene Handlungen neben einander, gedenken mUs- die Handlung des Wirkens, der VorstelhniL:. and dv^ 15eLiehrens alles moglichen Guten in und ausser ihm. Drey wahrhaftig verschiedene Handlungen, zugleich von Ewigkek her neben einander, erfordern audi von Ewigkeit her drey von einander wahrhaftig verschiedene handelnde Grande. Und so rerkennen wir mit der durch die Schrifl erweckten Vernunft, dass die Kraft, der Ver- stand. und der Wille. in Gott nicht drey blosse Vermogen, sondeni drey von einander versehiedene Kriiftc. da- i-t drey Suh.-tan/.en sind. [ Vet* mischte Aufsatze. B. i. p. 81. edit. 1769.] 4 38 DEFINITIONS©! I [LETT. &• Thia does not, indeed, seem to be very intelligible. But still, the baria of thia attempt at definition has something in it deserving of notice. It hi simply this, \i/. that time noflofl of development in the Godhead, presuppo pendent diversities, in some i or other, in the Bubstanoe or attribntes of the Divinity- I will produce hut one instance more ; which is found in the works of the celebrated Leasing, himself far enough (rem h< Lng a theologian, but sometimes inclined to speculate about subjects of difficulty. "Must not God," says he, "have the most perfect idea of himself? That is, an idea which comprises everything that is comprised in himself. Could this however be the case, if of his necessary reality, as of his other attributes, there were merely an idea, merely a possibility ( This possibility exhausts the being of his other attributes; but can it exhaust his necessary reality?* Con- [Uently, God can either have no perfect idea of himself ; or this perfect idea is even as necessarily actual as he himself If now Le8siitg himself understood his own problem, I think that I hazard nothing in declaring my conviction, that he was the only man who has been able to understand it. I have not produced these instances, merely in order to satisfy you, that all attempts of this nature are and must be * I have rendered the German Literally here; bctl lam not certain that I understand the meaning. I suppose < thaust meat quab to miiij ends to Uu wkolt of, represents Uu whole. Quicunque melius intelligit, corriget Muss Gott aicht die vollstandigste Vorstellung von sich selbel ha- ben ! r . to justify myself, in ood measure, for not attempting a definition in which led; the second, to show, that notwith- iding all the fruitless attempts at definition which have d made, and notwithstanding the varieties of method in which men have chosen to make these attempts, yet, lor tub* there i- a tar greater unanimity of opinion among Trinitarians, than von and your friends seem to be willing to concede. That there is a great variety in the modes by which an attempt at definition or illustration U made, is in- 1 clear enough. But this does not prove bo much an ac- tual variety of views as it illustrates the difficult nature of the undertaking. With my present feelings I am disposed to look upon all attempts of this nature with regret. I expect no light from them. But I am far from accusing such at- tempts in general of any ill design; and surely I would not treat them with contempt.* Patient investigation and candour will lead one to believe, as it seems to me, that the iking aimed at in the main ivas, simply to assert the idea of a distinction in the Godhead. To do this with the more success, as the writers hoped, some of them endeavoured to describe affirmatively the nature of that distinction. But here they have all failed. But how can this prove, that there is actually a great variety of opinion among Trinitarians, in regard to the substance of the thing in question, merely because endeavours to define this thing have been unsuccessful, and have produced a great variety in the attempted methods of illustration ? I cannot help feel- ing that this matter is sometimes misrepresented, and that very generally it is imperfectly understood. But quitting this topic, permit me now to ask, whether you feel yourself able, by any argument a priori, to prove to me that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with itself, * See the subj< ns a- further illustrated, in the Supp. Note at the end of the present Letter, 40 DEFINITIONS OF PERSON. [LETT. II. or (as you aver) " subversive of the doctrine of divine unity," s&d therefore untrue ? We say thai the divine essence and attribui numerically one, bo far as they ate known to ii- : hut that there are in the Godhead some real distinction for example, between tin- Father and the Son. (1 omit the eonsideration of the Holy Spirit here, because your Sermon merely hints at this subject* and because all serious difficul- ties in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, are essentially connected with proving or disproving the divinity of Christ). F abjure, for myself, all attempts to < stinctions; I admit them simply ox c fact ; and this, on the authority of (Urine revelation. Now how can you prove, that a distinction does not exist in the Godhead? I acknowledge that the want of evidence in the Scriptures to establish the fact, would 1m- a sufficient reason for rejecting it. But we are thus far making out a statement of the subject, and answering objec- tions that are urged, in an a priori way, or independently of the Scriptures. The proof which the New Testament ex- hibits, we are hereafter to examine. How then, I repeat it, are you to show that we believe in a sclf-contmt fiction, or in an impossibility ? If the distinction in question cannot be proved, independently of the Scriptures, (and most readily I acknowledge it cannot), it is equally certain that it cannot be disproved in an u priori way. In order to prove that such a distinction contradicts the divine unity, must you not be able, first of all, to tell what that distinction is, and then what the divine unity is? Can you do either? Will you allow me to dwell, for a moment, on this point of 1 >/. It is clear, as I think, that the unity of God cannot be Satisfactorily proved without revelation. It may perhaps be rendered probable. Then we must depend, as it would seem, on scriptural proof lor the thorough establishment of thi- doctrine. But have the Scriptures anywhere told US what the divine unity is? Will you produce the pas The oneness of God they often assert But this they assert, always, in opposition to the idols of the heathen — to the poty- theism of tic Gentiles — to the gods superior and inferior IT. TI.] I \1 1 J -l>. 41 which the heathen worshipped. In BO other way have the defined the oneni ss of the Deity* What then is w, in the uncreated, infinite, eternal B In created an bul one, and not two, nor moiv. All this is mere gation. In what, I ask, does the divine unity actually and consist ? God surely has different and various faculties and powers. Is he not almighty, omniscient, omni- present, holy, just, good ? Does he not act differently, i. e. va- riously, both in the natural and in the moral world ? Unity, therefore, is not an universal sameness of attribute or of ac- tion. Does it consist, then, appropriately in his essence? But what is the essence of God ? And how can you assert that his unity consists appropriately and solely in this, unless you know what his essence is, and so be able to judge, whether oneness can be more certainly predicated of this than of bis attributes and action- ? Your answer to all this is : ' The nature of God's essence is beyond my reach ; I cannot define it. I can approach to a definition of the divine unity, only by negatives.' In other words, you deny the numerical plurality of God ; or you say, that there are not two or more essences, omnisciences, om- nipotences, etc. But here all investigation, at least all know- ledge, is at an end. Is it possible to show what it is, which constitutes the internal nature of the divine essence or attri- butes? To show how these are related to each other, or what internal distinctions exist ? Of all this revelation says not one word; and certainly the book of nature gives no in- struction concerning it. The assertion then that God is one, means, when fairly and intelligently understood, nothing more positively than that he is numerically one, i e. it simply denies polytheism. Beyond this it can never reach. The 4* -12 l MI V OF <.<'I). [lktt. II. man who makes this assertion, doe- not pretend that ho h made an analysis of (he divine substance or essence, and proi i <1 in this way. (if I may so speak), a unity of constituent mate- rial. Thai God i- on*) does not mean that there is but one simple element in his nature, (for this wo do not and cannot know), but that there is in him only one intelligent agent But how does Buch a position prove, or how can it prove, that there may not be, or that there are not, distinctions in the Godhead, either in regard to attributes or in respect to essence, the nature of which is unknown to us, and the actual existence of which is proved by the authority of the Scriptures only? When Unitarians therefore inquire: What is that distinction in the Godhead in which you believe ? We answer, that we do not profess to understand what it is ; we do not undertake to define it positively or affirmatively. We can approximate toward a definition of it, only by ncr/a- tircs. We deny that the Father is, in all respects, the same a- the Son ; we deny that the Holy Spirit is, in all respects, the same as either the Father or the Son. AVe rest [he/act, that a distinction actually exists, solely upon the basis of revelation. In respect to principle, then, what more difficulty lies in the way of believing in a threefold distinction of the God- head, than in believing in the divine unity? I am certainly willing to allow r , that the evidences of the divine unity in the New Testament are sufficient But I may be permitted to suggest, here, that in my view, the ]>as- s(f>/ ting it arc considerably fewer in number, than the pas$age$ which assert or imply that Christ is truly divine* I cannnl bat think that the frequent assertions of your Sermon, and of Unitarians in general, with regard to this subject, are very erroneous ; that they are made at hazard, and without a diligent and faithful comparison of the number of texts in the New Testament which respect the divine unity, and the number of those which concern the divinity of the Saviour. Alter all, to what purpose is it, that so great a multitude text- should be required in order to prove the divinity of r. ii.] im iv OF s to do, that the decisions of the Scriptun of dithie authority? The text, fairly made oal by the laws of exegesis, uthoritative as th«( of a thousand. Would a law a thousand tinn - ited, have any more txuthority attached Ii kin consequence of tl. tition? It might be better lained, by the repetition in different connections; but its 'v would be uniformly the Bame, But to return from this digression ; suppose I should affirm that two subjeets A and B are numerically identical in re- 1 to what may be called X, but diverse, or distinct, in re- unething else called Y; is there any absurdity or contradiction in this affirmation? I hope I shall not, by making this supposition, be subjected to the imputation of endeavouring to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by the nee of algebra; for my only object in proposing this statement is, to illustrate the answer that we may make to a very common question, which Unitarians put us : " How can three be one, and one three ?" In no way, I readily answer, provided the one and the three both relate to the same speci- fic thing, and in the same respect. " How then is the doc- trine of the Trinity in Unity to be vindicated?'' In a way I would reply, which is not at all embarrassed by these, or by any of the like, questions. We do not maintain that the Godhead is tiiuki: in the same respects that it is one, but the > j rse. In regard to X, (if I may resort once more to this mode of illustration), we maintain a numerical unity; in re- gard to Y, we maintain a threefold distinction. I repeat it: We maintain simply the fact that there is such a distinction ; and we do this, only on scriptural authority. We do not pro- fess to understand specifically in what the distinction consists, nor that we are able to define it. Will you not concede, now, that there is some reason for complaint on our part, that, from the time in which Tertul- lian maintained the doctrine of the Trinity against Praxeas down to the present hour, the views and statements of Trini- 44 IMTY Of <.<»!>. [LETT. II. taiians, in regard to this subject, should have been so fre- quently misunderstood or misrepresented? I have dwelt sufficiently on my statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, and on the difficulties that lie in the way of proving this statement to be erroneous or contradictory. Before I proceed to the next topic, I will merely mention, in a brief way, two of the most formidable objections to our views which I have seen, and which were adduced by two men, who must be reckoned among the most intelligent that have embraced the cause of Unitarianism. The iirst is from FaustUfl Socinus, and runs thus: k * Xo one is so stupid) as not to see that these things are contradictory, that our God, the creator of heaven and earth, should be 0fM onlij in number, and yet be three, each of which is our God. For as to what they affirm, that our God is one in number, in respect to his essence, but threefold in regard to persons ; here again they affirm things which are self-con- tradictory, since two or three persons cannot exist, where there is numerically only one individual essence, and to con- stitute more than one person, more than one individual es- sence is required. For what is person, but a certain individ- ual, intelligent essence ? Or in what way, I pray, does one person differ from another, unless by the diversity of his indi- vidual or numerical essence? .... This implies, that the di- viie ceil numerically one only, yet there is more than ])< rson ; although the divine essence which is numerically one, and the divine person, are altogether identical."* (Opp. torn. i. p. 697.) * Nemo est tain Btolidus, qui qoe \ ideat, pugnare base inter so. ilium Drum D08tmm coeli terraeque creatorem esse unum tantum in numero, et tames tres esse, quorum anusquisque -it Hie Deus aoster. Nam quod aiunt unum qnidem esse numero Deum, sed ratione essentia©, trinum reti i ratione peraouarum : rursus lii<- sibi mvioem repugnantia loquuntur, cum foes wl ctiam duae personae esse oequeant,ubi est una tantum nu- mero live indi vidua essentia, et ad pluresuna persona constituendaa plu- etiam una individtue essentise requirantur. Nam (jui. 19 Here, however, it is obvious that the whole weigh! of the jection, lies in an assumed, and (I may add) errooeoasj ate n and - Socinua attaches to them a material and human sense, one which enlightened Trinitari- S do not admit. How then can Trinitarians bo charged !i Inconsistencies, in propositions which they do not make, or which at least they do no! design to make? Of the same tenor with the objection of Socinus, is the ob- tion mentioned by the famous Tollner, (tbeol. I 'ntersu- chungen, 1>. I. p. 29), which, to save room. I shall merely translate, without subjoining the original "The most eon- rable objection," says he, [against the doctrine of the Trinity] "is this, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are each a particular substance endowed with understanding ; and at the same time, neither of them is said to have his separate being, his separate understanding, his separate will, his sepa- rate power of action ; but all three together have only one being, one understanding, one will, one power of action. As it appears then, it is affirmed that there are three real beings, truly separate ; each, consequently, having his own individ- ual power of action, and yet not having it ; three separate persons, and three persons not separate." All the difficulty, which this acute writer in his usual w T ay has so strikingly portrayed, lies merely in the representations of those Trinitarians, who have expressed themselves on this subject so incautiously, as to be understood to affirm, that there are three separate beings, (persons in the common sense of the word), in the Godhead, with distinct powers, volitions, etc. If there be any now, who defend such a statement of this subject, I must leave them to compose the difficulty with Tollner, as they can. The view 7 of the doctrine of the Trinity given by Tollner, is not that which I have presented, or which I should ever undertake to defend. Of course it can- unius numero essentia ! . • . . Implicat divinara essentiam imam tantum numero esse, qod tamen unain tantum esse divinam personam, sed pln- cum (livina essentia numero una,et divina persona, idem onmino re- apse shit. I XI TV Of GOD. [LETT. II. not be fairly adduced as an objection, against the statement which I hai a and undertaken to defend. I cond objection, to which I referred i at firs! Bight more formidable and perplexing. It come- from Taylor, and was inserted in the English Theological Maga- zines (V<'1- J. No. 4. p. 111. 1770). I have not opportunity of access to the original, and take the ideas from a Latin translation of the piece, which was published in Germany. "There ean,*' says Taylor, "be no real distinction be- tween the Father and the Sun, unless they 50 differ from each other, that what is peculiar to the Father, is wanting in the Son; and what is peculiar to the Son, is wanting in the Father. Now that property which belongs exclusively to the Father, or the Son, musl be numbered among the per- fections of Godj Jbr in the divine nature no Imperfections can exist It follows then, that some perfection is lacking, both in the Father and in the Son, so that neither is endowed with infinite perfection, which is essential to the divine na- ture. It must he conceded then, that the essence of the Fa- ther and the Son is not one and the same." Ingenious and specious at first view, I would readily con- cede this to be ; but still I am unable to see that it settles the point in debate. The essence and attributes of God, so far as they are known to us, are numerically one, as we have already admitted. If Taylor means to extend the idea of '/// to all which belongs to the Godhead, then I would answer him merely by saying: ' It is essential to the perfec- tion of the Godhead, that the distinction of Father and Son should exist ; for otherwise there would be imperfection,' My right to make such an assertion, is ju-t the same as his to make the assertion, that the distinction between Father and Son involved an imperfection in each. Tic very fact of j)((- ternity and $on$hip t (not literal), make up. the perfection of the Father as Father* and of the Son as Son ; and did not thee tmething would be wanting to complete the per- don of the Godhead. 1 acknowledge that this is a-suinp- n ; } ")t bo Is Taylor's statement \ and an argument which IT. IT- j TWOFOLD HRIST. 47 h built on an assumption, may rarely be opposed by another which has the same basis. My object in the present letter has been, thus far, to oom- e our views of the Trinity with those which you have nribed to os ; to show thai we are not exposed kg be justly charged with gross and palpable absurdity, or with "subvert- ing the unity of tin- Godhead :" and to prove dial the ques- tion, after all, whether there is in fad BODAC distinction in the dhead, mast he r< ferred Bolely to the decision of the Scrip- tun To them I shall appeal, as soon as I have made a few re- marks on the twofold nature, which we ascribe to Christ You say (p. 11), u We (Unitarians) believe in the unity of Jisus Christ. We be- lieve that Jesus is one mind, one BOlll, one being, as truly one as we are, and equally distinct from the one God. We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus intro- duces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus." You will admit that this is expressed in terms of strong confidence, and with no small degree of severity. Whether you have so clear a right to the former, and whether we are really deserving of the latter, every lover of truth will per- mit to be brought to the test of fair examination. I am not certain that I have rightly apprehended your meaning, when you say that the twofold nature of Christ is " repugnant to common sense/' Do you mean, that com- mon sense may determine first, independently of revelation, that the doctrine cannot be true ; and then maintain the im- possibility that revelation should exhibit it? If SO, then we are able to decide a prion' and of ourselves what can be re- vealed, and what cannot ; consequently what we may be- lieve, and what we must disbelieve. It follows, then, that a TWOFOLD HATCH [LETT. II. revelation is unnecessary, or rather that it is impossibl least such an one as Bhall be obligatory upon our belief; for we have only to Bays thai our common sense decides against , ropriety or the possibility of the things said to be re- ded, and then we aw at Liberty to reject them. But u this the propersphere in which M common sense" should act ? le it not true, that common sense is limited to judging of the evidence- that the Bible is of divine origin and author- ity ; to establishing the rules of exegesis common and appli- cable to all languages and books ; and finally, to directing a fair and impartial application of those rule.-, in order to de- termine what the original writer of any portion of the Scrip- tures designed to inculcate? Having once admitted, as you have, the divine authority of the Scripture in deciding all questions ; and your obligation to submit to its decision, when you can understand the meaning of it by using the common rules of interpretation ; how is it to be determined by com- mon sense, whether Christ lias two natures or one ? Com- mon sense may investigate the language of the inspired wri- ters, and inquire what they have said; and if, by the sound rules of interpretation, it should appear that they have as- Cribed two natures to Christ, or have asserted that which un- avoidably leads to the conclusion that he lias two natures, then, it is either to be believed, or the authority of the writers i> to be Ca8l off. In rejecting any doctrine which the lan- guage of Scripture plainly teaches, common sense must ea-t off the divine authority of the Bible. To receive the Bible ;i- a r< \ elation from God. and yet to decide a priori what the Scriptures can and what they cannot contain, and then to make their language bend until it conform with our decision, cannot >urely be a proper pari to be acted by any sincere lover of truth and sober investigation. When 1 lay this, I must not be understood to mean, that our reason cannot exercise, in some eases, what 1 would call :i negative power or right in regard to revelation. What oar reason spontaneously and with absolute certainty decides to be itradiction or an absurdity, (e.g. that a thing can be and LETT. II.] TWOFOLD I. OF ( EIRIi 40 :inc time and j *1 in the same r . or that two and two mak or tli.it God i> purely spiritual and yet at the same time material) and the like), cannot be b elation from the Author of truth. I <>i within our will or power to command, or even fc ich propo- ne : and the evidence that they are not true is, by the very constitution of our minds, of much greater force and au- thority to ns, than any evidenee can possibly he. that then Lation from God which contains such things. Cat of such a natu: :eept of course from the tenor of my re- marks in the preceding paragraph. When you say, that the doctrine which teaches that Christ has two natui •• repugnant to common sense/' I must presume that you, who profess to admit the divine authority of the Scriptures, wish to be understood as meaning, that the rules of exegesis, applied by common sense, lead unavoidably to the conclusion that Christ has but one nature. If this be your meaning, what I have to say in reply, will be contained in my next letter. In regard to the impossibility that Christ should possess natures, and the absurdity of such a supposition, I have not much to say. If the Scriptures are the word of God, and do contain the doctrine in question, it is neither impos- sible nor absurd. Most certainly, if it be a fact that Christ possesses two natures, it is a fact with which natural religion has no concern ; at least, of which it has no satisfactory knowledge. It can therefore decide neither for nor against it. It is purely a doctrine of revelation ; and to Scripture only can we look for evidences of it. If the doctrine be palpably absurd and contradictory to reason, and yet is found in the Bible, then we must reject the claims of the Bible to inspiration and truth. But if the laws of interpretation do not permit us to avoid the conclusion that it is found there, we cannot, with any consistency, admit that the Scripture? are of divine authority, and yet reject the doctrine. How r shall any man decide, a prion, that the doctrine can- not be true ? Can we limit the omniscient and omnipotent 5 50 rwOTOLD v\'i DOT [LETT. II. laying that the Sod cannot be 90 united with hu- man nature, so "become flesh and dwell am " that we may recognize ami distinguish, in tin- complex being, bat one />>,/. ami therefore speak of but one ! If you a-k i how such a union can be effected, between natures bo infi- nitely diverse as the divine and human. T answer, (as in the case above respecting the distinction in the Godhead), that I do not know haw tin- i> done : I do not undertake to define wherein that union Consists, nor how it i< accomplished. God cannot divest himself of his essential perfections, i.e. lie i- immutably perfect; not- could the human nature of Christ have continued to he a real human nature, if it had ceased to be Bubjed to the infirmities, and Borrows, ami (in a word) all the affections of such a nature, while he dwelt among men. In whatever way. then, the union of the two nature- Wfcti ef- fected, it was 90 brought about that it neither destroyed, nor itially changed, either the divine or human nature. Bence, at onetime, Christ is represented as the Creator of the universe ; and at another, as a man of sorrows, and of imperfect knowledge. (John 1: 1 — IS. 1 Ieh. 1: 10—12. Luke 22: 1 1. 2:52.) If both of these accounts are true, he must. Bfl it seems to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent; and >till a man of imperfect and gradually increasing knowledg If the latter were not true, then does it follow that his nature was not really and truly human. It is indeed impossible to reconcile these two apparently contradictory predicates, with- out the supposition of two natures. The simple question then is: Can they be joined or united, bo that in speaking of them, we may Bay of the person who possesses them, that he i- God or ///>///. or that we may call him by one single name, and by this designate that he is of either or both of these na- tures? <)n this subject, the religion of nature -ays nothing. Reason, therefore, has nothing to Bay, which is decisive ; for surely the reason of no finite being is competent to decide, that the junction of two natures in one person is either im- ible or absurd. One person^ in the sense in which each of us is one, Christ p. ii.] i \\ 51 ild not lir. If w e, wit! the ll Bind J< ' thru Wt 1 away bis human nature, and deny the imperfection of bia kn.>- But mnv not God have been, in a manner al- ether peculiar and mysterious, united to Jesus, without displ his whole power in him, or necessarily ng him, ;i- a man, ? In the act of • t put forth nil hi- power ; nor in the mi of created things; nor in sanctification ; nor 9 he bring ail his knowledge into action, when he inspii nd apostles. Was it necessary thai lie Bhould exert all his attributes to the full, when he was in conjunction with the human nature of Christ ? h\ governing the world, from to day, God 'Iocs not surely exhaust his omnipotence, or his wisdom. He employs only so much as is necessary to ac- complish the design, which he has in view. In his union with Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Logos could not, of course, be necessitated at once to put forth all his energy, or exhibit all his knowledge and wisdom. Just so much of it, and no more, was manifested] as was requisite to constitute the char- acter of an all-sufficient and incarnate Mediator and Re- deemer. A\ hen necessary, power and authority infinitely above human were displayed; when otherwise, the human nature sympathized and suffered like that of other men. Is this impossible for God ? Is there anything in such a doctrine, which, if found in the Bible, would afford an ade- quate reason for rejecting its claims to inspiration ? For my own part, I cannot see either the impossibility or the absurdi- ty of such a thing, How shall we limit the Deity, as to the way- in which he is to reveal himself to his creatures ? Why can we not find mystery within ourselves, which is as inexplicable as anything in the doctrine before us? We do not appropriate the affections of our minds, to our bodies; nor those of our bodies, to our mind-. Each class of affec- tion- is - parate and distinct Yet we refer either to the whole man. Abraham was mortal; Abraham was immortal; these propositions are both equally true. He had a mortal 52 TWOFOLD NATURE Of OBRI0T. [LETT. II. and an immortal pari ; yet both made l>ut one person. How is H a pn ater mystery, if I say : Christ was God* and Christ was Dan? II- had a nature human and divine One per- son indeed, in the sense in which Abraham was, he i> not. Nof is th« iv any created object, to which the union of God- head with humanity can be compared* Bui Bhall we deny the possibility of it, on this account ? Or shall we tax with absurdity, that which it is utterly beyond our reach to scan? I shrink from such an undertaking, and place myself in the attitude of listening to what the voice of revelation may dic- tate in regard to this. I: > us to do so, in a ease like the present ; it is meet to prostrate ourselves before the Father of lights, and say: 'Speak. Lord, tor thy servants up. Lord, what wilt thou have us to believe? Yuii may indeed find fault with us, that we speak of three pmtom in the Godhead, where there is but one nature; and yet of hut one person in Christ, where there are two natures. J admit that it is an apparent inconsistency in the use of Ian. . and cannot hut wish, on the whole, that it had not been adopted. Still, so great are the imperfections of lafr» guage in relation to such a subject, that I cannot feel dispos to find much fault with it. What other word in our language would designate an intelligent agent, who p< - powers of distind development? And does not the Bible, in applying /. tJoii, f,r, to the distinctions in the Godhead, afford some warrant fo* BUCh a QSfcge? But, leaving this and returning to the one person ct Christ, I would Bay that it designates Chris! a- he appears to us in the New Testament, clothed with a human body, and yet acting (as we suppose) not only as being p 1 of the attributes of a mam hut also as p< aing divine power. A\ the attributes of human na- ture in SUCh intimate conjunction with those of the divine, that we cannot separate the agents ; at least, we know not v here to draw the line of separation, heeause we do not know the manner in which tic.' union is effected or continued. We therefore of one person, i. e. one agent. And when that the two natures of Christ are united in one per- Li. TT. II.] l w OFOLD N I HRIS1 - that divinity and humanity ;uv brought Ch a COnn< Ction in tl. . that W€ cannot scpar them, so as to make two entirely distinct and sepan I ir, the wh< permitted to say that the pre* of Trinitarians do not feel responsible for the in- troduction of such technical u rms, In & e from. the common ideas attached to them. They merely take them as they find them. For my own part, I have shown sufficiently that I have 1 no attachment to them ; I think them, on the whole, not to be very happily and warily chosen, and could rather wish they were dropped by general consent. But it is perhaps too late to expect this. Still I am persuad- ed, that, in most cases, such language rather serves to keep up the form of words without definite ideas ; and I fear, that it has been the occasion of many useless disputes in the church. The things which are aimed at by using these terms, I would strenuously retain and defend ; because I believe in the divine origin and authority of the Bible, and that its lan- guage, when fairly interpreted, does inculcate these things. Candour on your part, now, will certainly admit, that tilings only are worth any dispute. To be anxious for, and contend about, a mere matter of logomachy, is too trifling for a lover of truth. 5 [ PFLEMENTABT N<>n:. FT. II. ''//•y 3/ofe fo/>. To do anything tike ample justice to the subject of the ,\7- ( ...■/. would require a little volume, instead of a brief note. A fefi Leading hints maj serve, in some measure, to explain the circumstances and the object of the Council of .Nice. We can- not well understand the latter without some good knowledge of the former. The New Testament presents, according to its iinjly obvious import, the person of the Redeemer as both ilivinr and human, 4 * lie was in the beginning with God and was Cod ; he made all things ; he upholds all things by the word of his power; be is God over all and blessed forever; be God manifest io the flesh ; he is the true God and eternal life." 15ut he is also man ; " there is one mediator between God and man, the man ( nrist Jesus ; he took part in flesh and Mood; ho took on him the nature of the *vr(\ of Abraham ; he was in all things made like to his brethren ; he was tempted in all points as we aic, and so can truly sympathize with us; hfl Was made perfect through sufferings; he learned obedience by the thin which he suffered; the exact day and hour of tin 4 destruction of Jerusalem, he could say that he knew not; he ate, drank, >i. laboured, journeyed, suffered from enemies and from ex- posure to wants and inconveniences ; he prayed, wept, and ago- nized in the garden of Gethsemane; be was crucified, died, and Avas buried; he rose from the dead with a transformed and glo- rious body; be was the Son of man, descended from David in respect to the flesh ; and in every point of view, (to sum up all in oil" word;, he was a complete and perfect specimen of hu- m>iniiij. One must take into view these plain things which seem to lie upon the very face of the New Testament, before he can gel ;ui\ proper clue to the history of the development of ecclesias- tical doctrine respecting the ptrson of Christ, either in ancient or in Liter times. Among the ancient fathers of the church, all the dibits to develop the mystery before \\< y may be classified b\ a distribution under three different heads. First, those who admitted B real human nature, but explained away the divine. Secondly, those who admitted a divine, at least a superior, na- ture, but explained away the human. 'Thirdly, those w ho BOUght to unite both. The conceptions and explanations, however, of I r. II.] 9UPPL LBT (f€ tin' latter, are very \aii the two iii>t classes, it is easy to sec the inllu- wbich the Dualistic ami Gnostic philosophy had upon thrm at an earl) period, which led them to regard mater and ly opposed to each other, and incapable of any real union in a being purely holy, Buch as Jesus was. of coin those who wric heartily convinced of this, < I < - 1 1 n - * I tin* ]><»ii- ity of a real union of the divine and human, in the person of To this class belonged, with different Bhades ofopin- h men as Basilides, Marcion, and Valentinian. The spirit of God, or tin 1 Aeon Christ, merely waved or hovered p the person of Jesus; or the body of Jesus was only the phantasm of a body. Hence Docdism. The next step was ea- sy. viz. that of EbumUimn ; which denied that Christ had any thing more than a nature merely human. This was the oppo- site of Decetism in some respects, and yet both sprung from the same source, viz., from the belief that a nature both diviue and human could not possibly be united in the same person. The one made a phantasm of the human nature, in order to avoid this union ; the other excluded the divine. Subsequently to these early heretical views, arose a scheme of modification, if I may so name it, by which the entire incom- patibility of matter and spirit, or of divinity and humanity, was not maintained; but still, the divine in Jesus was explained as being only an influence of the Holy spirit, or his energy exerted in a manner like that which was developed in the prophets of old, but more enlarged as to measure. To this rubric belong the views expressed in the Recognitions of Clement, by Paul of Samosata, (who called the influence of the Holy Spirit upon Je- sus, euTirtvaic, i. e. inspiration), while he looked on that influ- ence as differing merely in degree, not in kind, from that which rested on ether holy men; and finally by Sabellius, who main- tained that the emanation of the Godhead, which dwelt in Christ, was temporary. lie sometimes named this emanation an uru-rlucruo; lavnoaTotTog, i. e. an unsubstantial or impersonal new-modeling; ora7iA«rin(/uoc, i.e. extension or widening ; in- tending by this to designate his views of what was effected by the Spirit in respect to Jesus, and of the manner in which he supposed the Spirit to act. But the union of the divine and hu- man in one person, although maintained by him, was yet, in his opinion, only temporary. His views, therefore, could not answer the seeming demands of the New Testament ; and consequent- 1 G SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE. [LETT. 1L ly die} did not satisfy the churches In general Sabellius < I i t- fered widely firom Paul of Samosata, his contemporary, in one respect ; and in this he approached much nearer to what is rai- led the Orthodox view of the Trinity than the same Paul. The latter allowed of only a temporary and partial influence of the Spirit upon Jesus; the former maintained that the yUfnew oftbe Godhead dwelt in him, tor the time being; but not that this constituted a union which was persona] and perpetual. It is easy to see from the history of the past, that, in this state of things, the churches in general were dissatisfied with the de- rogatorv or degrading views that had been advanced, by various renowned men whom they had come to look Upon as heretical, respecting the person of Christ, Some remedy was needed for this tendency of things in the churches. The leading fathers even Of the third century BOUght, ami as they believed found, one in quite a different hypothesis, viz. that of subordination. As the soul is emphatically the man, and as Christ possessed a nature ahove the human, so in order to hold fiisr to his supe- rior nature, they assigned to him a soul of divine origin. One Christ in two persons they could not admit. The proper hu- man soul, therefore, must give place to the rovg or Xoyoq (the Word). On the other hand, the sole supremacy of the Father (//orK^//^)niust not be given tip, which had so long and so zeal- ously been contended for. The result was. to assign to the Son a hypostatic or personal existence, higher than that of all other created beings — a hypostasis different from that of the Father, and also subordinate to him. To make out the grand point of the personality of the Logos, was the principal aim at that peri- od, even among some of the fathers who are not regarded as he- retical ; because this was effectually to oppose the degrading opin- ion, that there rested upon Jesus merely a divine influence; an opinion like to that of Paul of Samosata, and of Sabellius. But in doing this, they were also to heware against dashinir upon the rocks with BUCh as denied the divine Unity, and made in ef- fect three Gods, To avoid these rocks, they first asserted the personality of the Logos, and then subordinated him to the Fa- ther, as being derived from him and dependent on him. With some Bhades of difference in minor things, and some diversities of representation, Teitullian, Clement of Alexandria, < Mgen, and DionySJUS of Alexandria, adopted and maintained ih views of the person of Christ It was Origen who first foil) and earnestly broached and taught the doctrine of eternal gi n- iration. With him, however, it had no very prominent meaning, ii.] SI PPL] HBMTJlRI \<»i i • 57 inasmuch as he maintained the i ternal existence of the world, and .11 human souls. The eternal existence of the latter, " although eternal, might be subordinate* But the churches in geu- I, while tin \ beld fusi to the eternal generation of the Son, refused to admit tin* other kindred and similar views of Origen. Even the eternal generation of the Son they elevated to a bigb- thun Origen gave to it. According to him, the Sim was "ni\ ouotovaioc* \. e. of the Wu nature with the Father; Ian the churches came gradually to the view, that the Son was of tin' sanu nature with the Father. This was plainly • d In Dionysius of Rome, in his dispute with Dionysius of Alexandria, who had, in order to maintain in full the subordination-theory, gone so tar as to call the Son a nohj^ot or xtIctuu, i. e. something made or created. In those times of siihonlinarian views came forward Arius, with his dogmas. lie not only went full length with the Subor- dinarians, as to the inferiority of the Son, but onward Tar be- yond most of them ; lor he maintained that the Son was a be- ing created in time, while they asserted that lie was begotten from (t'friiti/. His famous i,v noiz otb ova ?}i>, i. e. there was a time when the Son was not, of course was an essential denial of his Godhead. Names of honour he gave to the Son in great abun- dance ; lie even called him Oeog, God; but after all a Otbg <5fu- iSQog, i. e. a secondary God was meant, (which was all that he allowed), and this is neither more nor less than a mere creature. The ferment occasioned by these views of Arius, when they were once spread abroad, became very great. The Nicene Council (A. D. 325) was the consequence. Here 318 bishops were present ; and among these the then young and talented Athanasius stood highly prominent. In fact, that Council was swayed and guided by his eloquence and his logic. It is evident enough from several expressions in the Nicene Creed (see p. 2\) above), that the fathers of that Council meant to assert and maintain the true and real Godhead of Christ. " Begotten of the substance of the Father . . . very God of very God ... of the same substance (ojxoowiog) with the Father," designate, if any language can designate, their decided views of the truly divine nature of the Son. And these views, alter much and protracted opposition from tla.' Arian party, at last so com- pletely triumphed, that this party became in a maimer extinct; at least, after a time, only solitary individuals, or a small party, opposed the declarations of the Nicene creed. 58 NTAKV NOTE. [LETT. II. One point seemed then to be gained in the struggle. The higher nalun of the Bon was. as the Nicene fathers and their followers believed, fully asserted How tared it, in the mean time, with the doctrine of his real and complete humanity .' Prom [renaeua downwards there had, for the most part, been more of lew of the daro-obscun in relation to this. The Docetae, and who in anj waj sympathized with them, employed expressions in relation to the Subject before US, ^ % 1 1 i < ■ 1 1 indicated a distrust in the reality of Jesus 1 physical body, or else a belief that his soul was only an emanation from the Logos, or only the indwelling of the Logos himself, or of bis Spirit. Some maintained, in- deed, that .'ill human souls weir merely emanations from the Logos; and so, that Christ was like to the rest ot" men. except that he possessed a higher measure of emanated influence or substance. The Subordinariarjs generally asserted the real fiu- nKiiilfi/ of Christ : hut with diversities of opinions ahout the man- ner in which the LogOS stood related to the souls ot' men, and to the soul of Jesus in particular. In different individuals, the expression of opinions in relation to this subject, sometimes ap- proached the emanation theory, sometimes the pantheistic, and sometimes they appear to savour even of Docetism. In gener- al, minute explanation relative to the 1 lii bifl humanity, be- ing in all things like to us, although without sin." They then on b by the Father before the world fi and bis incarnation in later time; and then the}- add, that M the Son is Led, only begotten, of too nature* tpwretop without mix- ture . . . indivisible . . . bj qo I of the difference of In- natures bj unity, btil ratlin- preserving the peculiarity of ture, nnd combining them into one person and one hy- postasis; not divided or distinguished into two persons, but re- maining one ami the same only begotten <«istentiae incommunicabiles, indi- vidual' naturae, bac ipsa manente indivisibili, indigfrantur. Baumgarten : Person means a 8uppo$itum which is the ground of certain aotioos peculiar to itself Morns: Persona sigotfical eos per so, (juod intelligit, at cum intellect!] agit Reinhard: Persona est individuum subsistence incompl( per Be Kbere agens, et divumrurn perfectaomun particeps. Gerhard: Persona est substantia individua, intelligent in- comraiinicabilis, quae nan austentatur in alio, vel ab alio. . . Non eel modus Bubsistendi, Bed est substantia oerto ebaracterc sive Bubsistendi modo insignita* Bobnius and Keckernaann: Hypostasis eat tqottoc vttuu&ok. Zanchins: IVr>ona est ij>sa essentia divina, propria subsisten- di modo distincta. Turretin. Vox pen o nm t propria concrete est non abstracta ; quae, praeter formaaa quae est personalitas, subjectum etiam notat emu forma a qua d<'iiominatur. Calvin: Subsietentia in essentia Dei, qua ad alios relata, pro- prietate incommunicahili distimruitur, [following Justin and l)a- mescenus of ancient times.] 1 do not translate these definitions, k* I suppose tliose who will interest themselves in this inquiry, to be able to read the Latin, and thus to judge for themselves. 1 have a further reason. To translate, implies an understanding of whal one professes to re p t caonl in another language. I certainly cannot . thai I feel able clearly to comprehend most of these defini- tions. Some of the leading ones represent person as the mode of subsist/ n<< in die Godhead ; Bome join substance itself also with the mode. The majority Oif those who undertake to define personality, represent person as a being or subsistence who is not juaiawito 1 by iinollitr. or das notsvJbaitl in or by another. Now it" the Father, H)OSl of these theologians hold, does alter all comimm'< personality to the Son and Spirit, how can tin 4 Son and Spirit be thai do not Bubaiat in or % another? If the Father tt the ('mis or prindpium, the JHiyn* or aiiia, of the personality i>[* the Son and Spirit, [afl be is ><> often called by the lathers*, then LETT. II.] I'PLKMEXTARY NOT!:. 61 is it that the persona <>f tin- Son and Spirit do not subsist by him: And if they depend on Kuan let personality, (which ia virtually iiiaiiitaiin «i h\ the patristic, and expressly by the modern, theory of the Trinity/, then how can their personality be ooaeeifed of as not existing in and by him? To avoid this difficulty we must say, that personality heiOg once communica- te the Son and Spirit, it then becomes an independent at- tribute. Hut in this way the difficulty cannot he removed • for, DfBt, the SaUM Writers do most of them declare, that personality is incommunicable ; and secondly, it is not within the power of of the human mind even to conceive of a being that is indepen- dent as to any attribute, so long as that attribute has been be- stowed by another, and is not self-existent. Thus we see the difficulties which attend the school-logic era of definition and explanation, in respect to such a mat- ter. And as for those who undertake to make out personality in the common way of separate consciousness, will, affections, etc., i. e. in the way in which we apply the word to men, I must believe that their views, considered in their logical conse- quences, necessarily lead on to Trithcism. For what shall we say of the idea of three separate consciousnesses, wills, affec- tions, etc. ? Can a spiritual being, i. e. can the Mordg, be even supposed to exist without a consciousness, will, affections, etc.? Does not his moral character, do not his moral attributes, consist utially in these? And if these are not, as theologians aver, in reality to be distinguished from the substance or essence of the Godhead ; and if this substance (as all agree) is numerically one ; then how are we to make out three separate wills, affections, etc. ? Or is it that the Moras is God, without any will or affec- tions ? Or if they belong to him, then does the Father as one person have a separate will, and the Son and Spirit as second and third persons have each a separate will ? And are we, in this way of reasoning, to make out four separate consciousnesses, affections, etc., in the Godhead ? What is all this in reality, but going back to an absolute plurality in the Godhead, and main- taining nothing in effect but mere specific unity r To say that declarations like those in John and Paul, viz. that the Logos created all things, and that God made the world by his Son, must prove a distinct will of Son and Father, amounts to the same thing as to say, that they must prove the existence of distinct essential attributes. In the like way the Arians say, that the declaration of John, " and the Logos was with God" proves that he could not be the same as God, but must be a dis- 6 '/ 02 SVPPLKMENTAB1 [LETT. II. tinrt and difTerent being; else bow could he be with bim? Hut Ikmv mm h tempted to exclaim: When shall we come fully t<> Irani, that in speaking of tin' Godhead ft! it jfl in itself, Imman bsnguage as bow formed, and indeed in any way in which it oould be formed), must be altogether inadequate to a lull and exact description ? When distinctions in the Godhead itself I oner admitted, and distinctions that pertain to an intdtigcpl ra~ titninl nature, in w hat other way can we speak and write re- specting them, than the biblical writers have done ? 1 know of none. The imperfection of human language forbids it. And it WOtlld seem to he quite as rational and scriptural to maintain that God is limited in his frt9i nn and is lontl, because the Scrip- ture represents him as Mtetmdmg and descending, as it would to maintain three Up & Hlk Wills, affections, etc., of the Trinity, he- cause God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is a reason or ground in his very being, for bis developments as Trinity ; else they would DO! be made. These developments necessarily pie-suppose some distinctions belonging to his nature; hut that these amount to sfptmttc consciousnesses, wills, atlections, ete., would be a perilous position to assume. Perilous; because when once assumed, theoretical tritheism at least hecomes logi- cally inevitable. A man may contradict and disclaim this, J well know, in words: and he may sincerely and truly reject it in in- tuition ; hut the inevitable lo'sicdl result of his position must he theoretical Tritheism. What more distinctive mark is there of three different persons among men, and in a human sense, than that they have separate consciousnesses, wills, and nfleclions ? Perilous, I say again, because it assumes the position, that we know enough Concerning the nature of the distinctions in the Godhead, thus to predict of it what amounts to an essential part of distinctive individuality among menu Can we deliberately Bike, and endeavour to maintain, >\\v\i a position as this : What God has done in developing himself we know from Scripture. That a distinction is necessarily implied by these developments, from the verj structure of our minds we cannot avoid admitting. But to extend this in such a way as to snake out a metaphysical definition of' persona in the Godhead, (which of course must implj a definite knowledge of' the particular and distinctive nature of person in it), seems to me to he treading on forbidden ground Is it not advancing beyond the boundaries of human know ledgi I can see no contradiction, no absurdity, nothing even incon- gruous, in the supposition, that the divine nature has manifested LETT. II.] LB1 ITO Father, Son, nnd Holy Ghost, while ii and es- snnial attributes are and nave al way* been numerically one aod same; for that the) are end have been so, nil the len d in g Trinitarians N n i> it within the con any efied that my mind ran make, to conceive how namerical mxmtnem <>f m\ attribute, is compatible with distinct eo n a c i o na- wills, and affections? What are tbene la>t but eesnsMal attributes of the Mora* himself? And If no, bon can 1 1 1* *^« * very . attributes be numerically three? If the Bible asserta this, then 1 will yield ai one* ; i»- eause I -hall then take it for graaft- tbat my darkened and feeble understanding i< the source af my difficulty. Hut if the Bible (as 1 verily believe does neither it nor imply it ; then it mU8t be shown to be possible and consistent, before it can he entitled to our faith. It would seem, that after all wliich has been done to show the high and spiritual and incomprehensible nature of the divine Being, and the inadequacy of human language fully to describe him as he i>. \\<- are \et called to argue, in order to satisfy the minds of some, that such expressions as the Logos being with , and GotTs creating ike worlds bij his Son, are not to he taken and reasoned from, just as if they had been employed in respect to known individual and entirely separate beings. If God com- municates his whole substarwe to the Son, as the Xicenians, and most of the Trinitarians in modern times (who treat of and be- lieve in eternal generation) actually maintain, bow then can there he stpamtt consciousnesses, wills, and affections r Or are we to suppose these to exist independently of the substance or nee of the Godhead ? In a word, it is only when we come adequately to learn the imperfection of human language, and the difficulties which at- tend communications by it respecting distinctions in the God- head, that we shall be satisfied how inconclusive all reasoning must he, which is founded on deductions drawn from the lan- guage of Scripture, when we interpret that laiiL f uaL r e just as if it had relation to finite intelligences who are altogether distinct and separate beings. What cannot be proved, if we are to take such liberties as these ? Surely the Anthropomorphites are not to he confuted, when such a position is taken. Jt seems to be quite as cogent an argument to say, that when hands, eyes, feet, heart, etc., are ascribed to the Godhead by the sacred writers, they can mean nothing, unless \\<* 'jive to their language a liter- al, or at least a 91ms*'- literal, meaning, as it is to say that the being with God, and GoiTs creating the worlds by his Son can 64 M rri.I.MI.NTAKY NOTK. [LETT. II. mean nothing unless it ha\ <' 8 literal, or 7 *///.<> /-literal, meaning. In the first case, we reject the exegessi of the Anihropomor- phites, because WC Consider it absolutely certain that God i> a simple spiritual being. In the second, then, the admitted ?m- vuriral unit*/ and Sdmoass of substance and essential attributes in the Godhead, would seem to stand arrayed, with et a supposition which would make three numerically dis- tinct essential attributes ; for such must be three distinct and Separate consciousnesses, wills, and aifections. At least, it is not in the power of my mind to conceive that these two thin when put together, do not prove an absolute contradiction. Some of my readers may perhaps he now inclined to ur liin\ at modus a n ; Quaeet 27, & That is, stu afr i maj be i to differ from , nol really, i. e, essentially, as thing and thing, bul madally, as mode from thing. It is possible then, that there may be in the Godhead some distinctions which do not consist in a difference of substani and which moreover do not consist in the high and peculiar and iiiM\e attributes of that substance which constitute Godhead, hut which are, as Turretin avers, modal; or they may he of such a nature that we have no language to describe them, and no present ability even to comprehend them it* they could be described. Can it he strange that the uncreated and sell-exis- tent Godhead should have some such properties as these? The impossibility or even the improbability of this, no man is able to prove. There may then he distinctions in the Godhead, that lie be- yond all our present logical and metaphysical conception or power of definition ; distinctions which are co-eternal with the Godhead itself; and which, though neither essence or essential attribute in the highest sense, may still have an existence that is real and true. \uy theory which derives the essence of Godhead in the Son and Spirit from the fust person, seems to strike at the root of equal power and glory among the three persons of the Godhead, and moreover virtually to deny the self-existence and independence of the second and third persons. Any theory which makes the modus eristendi, i. e. the subsistence or personality, of the Son and Spirit to depend on the first person and to be bestowed by him, in like manner virtually denies the self-existence and inde- pendence of the second and third persons ; for how can they be of that self-existent substance which is numerically one and the same with that of the Father, and yet this substance have no modus subsistendi of its own ? How can substance exist without a mode of existing ? Or if you say, that 'there are dif- ferent and many modes of subsisting belonging to the same essence, and that personality is only one of them; or that other modes of existence May be necessarily attached to the divine substance which is one, but that this may be something which is bestowed on the second and third persons, or imparted to them ;' 66 -I PPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II. then I have several difficulties to suggest which seem to lie in the \\;t\ of Mich B supposition. (I) It* tin* Father, Son, and Spirit, arc in all respects cipial in power and glory, how can the Father have ■ p o wer to hestow personality on the Son and Spirit, when they have no such power in reference to him ': i It* the Father has a personality bes towe d by none, this must he the roult of the suhstalice which he 008088888, and a modi- ficatioo of it which is inseparably connected with its very na- ture ; hut inasmuch as the Son and Spirit possess numerically the POM BUbstaoes, how is it that this same modification of per- sonality, does not attach also to the divine substance which is in them ? Person, moreover, cannot he such a division in the Godhead, a- makes separate and merely CO-ordinate consciousnesses, wills, affections, etc ; for this brings US to admit a principle that would consist with all the polytheism which we can imagine to exist, or to he possible, among divine natures; or else it reduces us to make the impossible supposition, that one and the same identical spiritual substance has three distinct sets of attributes, which in all respects are again one and the same with each other, or at least exactly alike. Jn fact, any definition of personality in the Godhead which re pr es en ts person to he ens per se or substantia indwidua non sustentata in alia natura, as most of the definitions ahove gVPBfl do either assert or imply, seems plainly and substantially to in- fringe <>n the idea that there is hut one and numerically the same snaetance in the Godhead. I am not ahle to see why it does not clearly involve a logical contradiction. One and all of these modes of Trinitarianism then, it would in, must be abandoned by the considerate believer of the present day. Protestants have always professed themselves at liberty to pass in review Creeds and Confessions and Byeostna, venerable lor antiquity, and long defended by eloquence and learning and even force. Hut let them not ahuse this sacred privilege. I.rt them not reject anything merely hec.-.use it is old, or because it has been defended \)\ arguments that will not ahide the day of scrutiny : nor receive anything merely hecaiise it is new and striking, and looks fair, and promises to relieve some of the difficulties t hat accompanied the older doctrine. Will it be said now by those who are opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, that nothing certain can he made out in respect to it. either from the ancient ( nristian lathers, or the modern oolfi of theology; and that, from my own showing, it apr> LETT. II.] srrri \ i;v N( i n . G7 to tare been an ever varying and obscure and indefinable doc- trine, and therefore cannot be important to the Christian, mnefa •ntial to his salvation ? The answer to this SU ggOBt lO tl is n«»t difficult. 1 ask. first, mi it not true, that the great body of the Christian churches, in every aire, have regarded Christ as /n to contradict both Origen and Alius, although Afi 'iic person mainly and immediate!) aimed at in their IT. II.] Sl'ITLl Ml N 1 \K\ NO I I .. (J. The Homoiousy of Origen and Ariua in exchanged for HtmMUfpi i. e, tih si.; with the father jb — changed for thslmm : the created or neaV of Ariua ifl exchanged for n illy begotten. This puts aside al once * »< >t 1 1 Origanum and Aiiani-ni, .-iiid makes in facl a \»-r\ importanl advance toward- the aoripture doctrine of the Trinity — as greal an one aa could with an\ good reason be expected, at the commencement of the fourth century. But Blil I, with all the veneration which I feel for the Christian fathers, and all which in addition to this is naturally attached to a Treed >o long and so widely diffused and honoured, I must confess myself to he entirely at a loss, how an intelligent Trinita- rian, of the present time, can consent to admit this Creed as the handing 83 mbol of a Christian confession of faith. First, as a sum- mary of Christian doctrine it is essentially defective: for it con- tains little else hut a contradiction of the peculiarities of Arius. All the leading and fundamental doctrines of grace are omitted, ondly, it ass. rts a doctrine, viz, that of eternal generation, which we of the present day, taught as we have been in respect to the eascnftal attributes of Godhead, cannot possibly admit, without at the same time admitting, that the Son is neither self- existent nor independent. But a being destitute of these two at- tributes we cannot regard as " God over all and blessed forever." I have no apprehension that the Xicene fathers meant to assert or concede the inferiority of the Son, or to imply a doubt of his true divinity. But, as I have already said, their metaphysics (such as they were) permitted them to believe in derived Godhead, and yet to make it homoousian with its source! But in this cal- culation the attributes of self-existence and independence were overlooked. A being derived, begotten, emanated, or created, cannot, even in imagination, be supposed to be self-existent or independent All that is said of mysteriousness, and of the in- conceivably super-natural, in respect to the mode of generation, does not touch the point in question. The favourite simile of Tertullian, and after him of all the orthodox fathers and even of the writers ef modern times, is that of radiance proceeding from the sun. 'It is,' say they, 'coeval with the sun, and existed the first moment that the sun had an existence : and moreover, it is part of the sun, or of the same nature with him, and yet the emission of it does not diminish or alter the sun.' But on closer examination, we find that this comparison will not abide the test; not even as to time. It comes near to illustrating the eternity of the Son's generation, but does not reach the mark. If the 70 srPPLKMEXTARY Noll. [LETT. II. sun i< the cause of radiance, then did the cause prtctd* the u fleet Am t<> the reel ; does not radiance depend upon the sun, which m its proper cause? And m the Logos asNsed and dependent, and \fl (iod supreme? And when it is said that radiance is homo- onsiiiii with the miii itself; how can it he true, that the cause of radiance and radiance itself are the tomi .' Moreover, if radial ii material, then does the sun sutler a change by emitting it If it is not material, then it depends on sitcassive influence- <»f the sun. Of course, there is no one point of the comparison which will abide the test. It must be true, that the necessary concomitant of generation, emanation, or creation, is (!0; at Rome, it was admitted in 1014. Many churches, viz. the Lutheran, the Episcopal (of Europe), and others, receive and retain it. It is more minute and circumstantial than the Nicene ; but it leaves the main difficulty, viz. iknvation and dependence, unremoved. Any ('reed, which predicates these of the Logos or divine na- ture of Christ, cannot be mine. It is far below what I rail orthodoxy, at the present time. We cannot take such a position, while enlightened views of the true nature of Godhead are widely diffused, without incurring the certain risk of teaching what is indeed somewhat in ad\ ance of Arianism, but still, as to the two most distinctive attributes of the Godhead, viz. .stlf-trish and independence, it occupies common ground with the same heresy, \ y "v surely it differs from it, in respect to the matter now before u>, only in the terminology which it employs. 1 must now beg leave farther to remark, that I know of no one topic in theology, which has been more abused, whether in the way of reasoning, or of appealing to the ancient fathers, than that of the Trinity. Some reason from all declarations respect- ing this doctrine, jusi as if language concerning it were eta- ployed in its ordinary sense as applied to finite and created be- LETT. II.] M I'Ml \ I LB1 Noll i 71 inirs. This baa been usual among Antitr'mitarians, in nil ages. The appeals to the ancient Christian lathers bare heap endfc and unfortunately, all pan find something in them, which the) ma\ manage to con vert to their* own use. Strictness of de- finition in rejranl to such a Bubject, among writen so little guided by the logic of Aristotle, or any other logic, as th«- fat! wove, ia <>ut of all reasonable question* Then ■ not one oftbem, in which wecannot find al leasl seeming discrepancies and con- tradictions. This lays them open to abuse and perversion. Thru oftentimes their notions of the Godhead seem to !><• so discrepant from OUTS, particularly in regard to the pure spirituality/ of his nature, that what they sometimes say Is capable of a meaning apparently very Strange, and at variance with the general tenor of their langua. These are sources enough for originating mistakes, and to render the ground of the lathers rather a hazardous one to he trodden by a partisan Of sectarian. Dr. Priestley has shown, on one side, and Waterland, as I think, on the other, not only what Opposite conclusions may be drawn from the same general I, but how almost anything and everything can he made out of hasty or not well digested expressions, when one sets out to carry a point at all adventures, and moreover does not enter, with any good degree of success, into the spirit of the age when the works of the fathers were written. A more incondite and unfair hook than Priestley's History of Early Opinions, is rarely to he met with. Dr. Priestley was much more appropriately employed in the chemical than in the putristical laboratory. Among the many hundreds of hooks, which have professed to give the views of the Christian fathers respecting the doctrine of the Trinity and the dignity and person of the Son of God, I know of hut one, which is not a mere compilation of fragments and insulated and scattered parts. The idea of a regular order in the topics, and the unfolding of a principle, which may he called the trunk from which limbs have been continually shoot- ing otf: the conception of a general unity, with demarcations of specific variety ; seem to have entered thoroughly into the mind of no writer, previous to the recent admirable Essay of Prof. J. A. Dorner, of the university of Tubingen, in his History of the Unfolding of the Doctrine respe r tims the Person of Christ, To him 1 am much indebted for some of the views corresppnr dent with such a plan, in the present Note.* * I take great pleasure in adding, that it appears by the catalogue of books in Germany, that he is enlarging, filling out, and completing the 72 Bl •rri.l.Ml.NTAKV Noil.. [lett. II. One thing I cannot forbear noting in respect to the work of Doraer. This is. thai a harge portion of his book is occupied with a Crit'ujUt on all the various schemes of philosophy in Gem> mans, w liirli lia\ e attracted any special notice, BO tin as the) are concerned with the subject of Christology. Being an adopt in tins branch of science, and ane-oftne verj highest order, it ia no wonder thai bis book, containing such a masterly CrUiqm as it dors, lias attracted the notice and commanded the applause of all. The justice oi his criticisms is tilt ; lor otherwise they could i M »t command such general homage. 1 le who wishes to learn bow philosophy, for the last half century, has modified Christolo^y, may gratify hi> curiosity by reading his hook. The various syay terns of \\ ohms, Kant, Jacobi, Fichte, Scbelliug, Scbleiermaeber, Alarheineke, Kosenkrantz, (iiischel, (.'cumuli, and Hegel, specially ot* the latter, }>ass in review, and the ruling principles of each an* exhibited and criticised. Will not the reader, who is unac- quainted with these, he somewhat surprised to learn, that, fiom Schelling downward, all assume the doctrine ot" a Trinity as tine, and as the hasis of their system ? Specially does the union of the nivi.NK (iml iiiMAN constitute a leading element in the Hegelian philosophy. Indeed its advocates, such as are religiously inclined, beaut of Us having brought about a complete union between the Scriptures and reason, in respect to this leading point of Cbriat- stogy. Accordingly we thai J)r. Nitzach of Bonn and Wcisse ot* Leipsic (a leading Hegelian there), in the same No. of the Quar- terly Studiin und kritikm, both defending the doctrine of the Trinity, against the semi-Arian views ot* T. Liicke ; the first, in the Old School and even Thomas Aijninas style ; the second, after the manner of the new philosophy. What a chanm ! How does time trample upon violent party etlusions, and refi to listen to the \oice ot' ridicule and contempt! The Jltttionnl- i.sis routed and dispersed by the Htgttfani! It would he aside from my present purpose, to aim at making an e///ov of tin- Hegelian Chrislology* Doraer is the onl\ Get- man whom J ha\e heen ahle to fellow and understand, in his view of this matter. His thoughts. are so straightforward and logical and discrimtnatmg, without being overloaded with tech- nical phraseology, that a patient reader, somewhat versed in such matters, may comprehend and fellow him. ftdfnhable plan Which he sketehnl in the filSl edition of his work h -in;i!l s\<». roLj : inasmuch w a//Vs' volnme ha- already been published, wlriab, as it indicate! a second, promises of course a great enlargement of the original work. i itt. ii.] sum im! n i iRi no 73 But after all, what a Trinity does Hegelism make! It funis no difficulty indeed, in bringing together Ood and mora, the di- vine nature and tin 1 human, because, aa it assume*, God is de- veloped - being, i. e. as having personality, only in a human nature. He could nol be Qod In full without ns, any more than we can be perfect men without him. It would seem sording to this philosophy, therefore, to be proper to say, that the divine nature is human, and the human nature i- drthtf; we air God, ami God i- we. Indeed tin* Hegelians make ibis fundamental in their system. Hut why the only perfect man was nd why other men are n<>t perfect Brace God de- vejopes himself in them, is what the philosophy in question (1 not satisfactorily solve. Other great delimits in the Hegelian doc- trines are pointed out by Dorner; and in BUCfa a way as to show, that these doctrines fell immeasurably below the standard of the iptures, in respect to the Gwl-Man who is the Redeemer of our fallen race. In effect the sinner is taught, (if indeed as a sinner he is taught at all), that God has as much need of him as he of God. lit what way a broken and rontrite spirit is to be pro- duced, by means such as these, remains practically and theo- retically a problem, which it would be difficult to solve. I am not among the number of those who suppose that He- gtePs direct design was to overthrow Revelation and Christianity. But I am, at the same time, most fully satisfied, that he regarded Revelation with so little respect, With reference to any principles of philosophy, that he would never have modified a single thought or expression out of deference to it. His Pantheism makes it easy to believe in a sort of incarnation. His God, so far as he concedes that there is any, is an impersonal being, except as he is dependent on us for temporary personal development. And again, when he has fully united with us, we lose our personality as human beings, as a matter of course. There is no doubt of the great talent — of the highly discriminating powers of Hegel, or of his extensive learning in the department of philosophy. But to make such abstractions a part of the religion of the great mass of men — it would be more difficult than it would to con- vert them into Xewtons and Laplaces. Dorner himself, who cherishes the highest admiration for the talents of Hegel, confesses, or rather shows, that 'the God-Man of his system is essential!}/ different from that of the Gospel ; that the reconciliation (or atonement) is a bare mediation of God with himself, in order that he may become conscious of himself in another mode of existence, i. e. in the world, (so that in effect 7 74 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II. a duality is virtually assumed in God); that the forgiveness of sin • iily a religious mode of expression intended to designate the moral freedom of man j that men have a continued power of redeeming themselves without the mediation of Christ ; that all men arc essentially of the same nature and rank as Christ; that men are only temporary phenomena, into which the divine en- v enters, and through which it penetrates, in order that it may attain to a consciousness of itself ; and finally, that the per- fect unity of the divine and human, in Christ, in a peculiar man- ner, is neither supposed nor supposahle, nor can his develop- ment he regarded as sinless.' In a word, the incarnation amounts only to a satisfactory proof, that the union of God and man is possible, which man in his natural state is inclined to disbelieve. Such are some of the results of Hegelian Christology. Truly "the world hy Wisdom know not God." And I may add, from the deepest convictions of my soul, that "the foolishness of God ifl W186T than men." In the spirit and with the language of a penitent of ancient days, who hastened to the sepulchre of Je- 3US, where she feared that all her hopes had heen buried, I would approach this charnel-house of vital Christianity and ex- claim : M They have taken away my Lord, . . . and I know not where they have laid him !" So far as this philosophy is con- cerned, that is all I could have to say. Hut no grave can hold the mighty Conqueror of death. lie is not there, he has risen ; lie has ascended on high, led captivity captive, is distributing gifts to men, and is and will he crowned and adored as Lord of all, by those " who have been redeemed to God by his blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." It i< time to close this protracted Note, I cannot do this, bow- ever, without adding a word on the position which, as it seems to me, all evangelical churches ought to take, in reference to tin.' doctrine of the Trinity. (1) They should insist on it, that, according to the Scriptures, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one God, and hut one, the same in suhstanee, equal in power and glory. (2) They should maintain, that in the Lord Jesus Christ, the diviiK and human, in the peifection and fulness of both, are united. (3) They ought not to exact from any one, professing the Christian faith, that he should adopt any definition or description of the word person, as applied to the Godhead or to the Lord JeSUi Christ, Which mere philosophy or theology has made out, hut which is not taught in the Scriptures. (4) Ifl might he permit- ted freely to speak my own opinion, I would further say, that I LETT. IT.; BUPPLEMT \ 1 'ART NOTE. Bbould regard the omission of the word peraon in all churrh-mrds as quite desirable, in order to avoid fruitless and endless eontro- -\ and misunderstanding. If any one is startled at this. I take shelter under a name, which, although once cast out, and abhorred by many, and often co?ered with reproach, now com- mands, among nearly all parties of the intelligent, unaffected reve- rence and admiration ; I mean the name of < A 1 A IV In his In- stitutes, I. 13. 5, he say 8: M Utinara Bepulta essent Ao/iuWf, con- i haec inter omnes fides: Patrtm el FUium Holy Spirit aki: one God." I need not say how many anxious minds would be calmed by the adoption of such a noble and scriptural sentiment, and by agreeing upon it as one of the conditions of Christian confidence and communion. Nor need I say, how much unskilful handling of this great and difficult topic would he prevented, nor how targe a proportion of objections against Trinitarianism would be removed. All this lies upon the face of the matter. How was it with the churches, before the Council of Nice? They had no Creed drawn up in any formal manner. And nearly all of the martyr-spirit, most of the enlarged success in converting heathen, and high attainments in the spirit of brotherly concord, as well as all the conspicuous Christian graces, belong to the earliest period of the church. Have we nothing to learn from facts like these') My belief is, that the churches must go back, and make more of the Bible, and less of Creeds, in order to revive the spirit of the primitive ages of Christianity. When they shall be as anxious to promote brotherly harmony, and kindness, and true liberality, as they have for a long time been to inflame secta- rian zeal, and increase the causes of dissension by sectarian creeds, and to treat with severity and contempt or reproach those who differ from them in matters unessential, then will the world once more be constrained to say : See how these Christians love one another ! Then, to use the last words of the adorable Saviour, " will they all be one;" and then, (lint not till then), " will the world believe that Christ is sent by the Father." 7G MODE OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. III. LETTER III. Reyerend am> Pear Sir, My great object, hitherto, has been to show, that the real question at issue between us, in regard to a distinction in the Godhead and the divinity of the Saviour, cannot be decided independently of the Scriptures. There is no such absurdity or inconsistency in either of these doctrines, as will justify us in rejecting them without investigation. The question whether they are true or not, belongs entirely and purely to Revelation. If you admit this, then the simple question be- D us is : What does Revelation teach? We are agreed that the Bible is the word of God ; that whatever " Christ taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, is of divine authority." We are agreed as to prin- ciples of interpretation! in most things that are of any impor- tance. We both concede, that the principles by which all books are to be interpreted, are those which apply to the in- terpretation of the Bible ; for the very plain reason which you have given, that when God condescends to speak and write for men, it is according to the established rules of hu- man language. What better than an enigma would the Scriptures be, if such were not the fact? An inspired in- ttrpreter would be as necessary to explain, as an inspired prophet or apostle was to compose, the books of Scripture. From this great and fundamental principle of all interpre- tation, it results that the grammatical analysis of the words of any passage, i. e. an investigation of their meaning in gen- eral, of their syntactical connection, of their idiom, of their relation to the context, and of course of their local meaning; must be (be essential process, in determining the sense of any text or part of Scripture. On this fundamental process de- pends the interpretation of all the classics, and of all other books; from this result laws which are uniform, and which cannot be violated, without at once plunging into the dark it. in.] mom mi in 11 nvuvv] \ hon. 77 and boundless Held of conjectural rxr^'-is. Whatever aid I mav L r < t from other Bourcet t<> throw light upon my text, I cannot dispense with the aid which these rules will afford. These roles are founded in the simple fact, that every writer wishes and expects to be understood by his contemporaries; and therefore nses language a< they da We presume this of th«' -acred writers; and apply to them, as to the ela— ccepting that we allow for the Hebrew-Greek idioms in the New Testament), the common and universal rules of grammatical interpretation. Admitting then the fundamental principles of grammatical interpretation to be the best and surest guide to the sense of any writer, I must never supersede these, by supposing or conjecturing that some peculiar principles or motives influ- enced that writer. If it can be proved that he was under the influence of these ; or if this can be even rendered probable ; of course such a fact must have its proper influence upon the interpretation of him. But until this can be shown, the general laws of grammatical interpretation are our only guide. Nor can we violate the obvious principles of grammatical in- terpretation, for the sake of vindicating from inconsistency, absurdity, or contradiction, any author, even a scriptural one. I must here explain myself, however, in order to prevent mistake in regard to my meaning. The Scriptures certainly stand on different ground, from that on which any other book rests, on account of their claim to be received as a Revelation from God. What other book can plead well authenticated miracles, for its support ; or can produce declarations of a prophetic nature that have been fulfilled ; or can glory in such an exhibition of the principles of piety and virtue — of love to God, and of benevolence and beneficence to men? Just in proportion, then, as these evidences influence my mind to believe that the Bible is of divine origin, in the same proportion it becomes improbable to me that this Bible con- tains absurdities, errors, or contradictions. When any ap- parent error or contradiction attracts my attention, I hesitate to pronounce it such as it appears to be. My reason for so 7* 78 MOJ ! \ 1 1 IM'Iil TATIOX. [LETT. III. doing i-. the strength of the evuknce in favour of its divine origin ; which is such that I must do violence to inv convic- tions, if I admit that the hook contains either what if erro- neous or contradictory. I am then slow to attribute, in any MMj Moh B sense to words in the Scriptures, as would make a passage speak either absurdity or contradiction. But if, after all the light which I could gain, it should appear still to be a plain ruse, that there is either ahsurdity or contradiction in the sacred text; then I must find a different reading; or give up the passage ; or renounce the whole book. I may, moreover, merely suspend an opinion, as to doubtful cases. My convictions respecting the nature and design of the holy Scriptures; the imperfection of my knowledge; diffidence in myself — all demand that I should act in this manner. But in any char case ; where the meaning of a sacred writer, or what he originally designed to say, can be definitely ascer- tained by the common laws of interpretation, and it appears that this meaning is erroneous, or contradicts some other pas- je; I have no right to put a constructive sense upon the words, and do violence to the passage, in order to avoid any consequences that may follow. I cannot honestly do it. The same common sense and reason, which prescribe the laws of exegesis, decide thai the meaning of a writer must be that which those laws determine it to be. Of course, if I put a gloss upon any pas-age, which represents it as convey- ing a meaning different from that which the laws of interpre- tation would assign to it, I may deceive others, or I may \- the interests of party, hut I violate the reason which God bas given me by such conduct, and act a part dishorn and unworthy of an inquirer after truth. If the fundamental maxims of exegesis lead to the belief, that a writer of the New Testament has contradicted himself, or another Baored writer; then I must revert at once to the question : Is the book divine ? Can it be so, if there is con- tradiction ? This question I may settle, (on my responsibili- ty to ( tod), a- I pleas* But I have no right to violate the fundamental rules of language, by forcing a meaning upon i r. ill.J MODE 01 in ii i;ri;i i \ i [ON. 70 the writer to make him consistent, which, a- is obvious on the universal principle- of explaining language, be never 0 *' Tor O^or. liana ft a.viov iyereto* xcu £;.•/. •' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was witli ( Sod, and the Word was God. The same was in the be- ginning with God. All things were made by him ; and with- out him was not anything made that was made." Verse 10, .... kou o xoofiog (V avtoi iyevezot u and the world was made by him.'' All known manuscripts agree in the text here. Griesbach baa indeed recorded, that for o Qeog there is a conjectural reading, Qeoi ; and that for y.ut Ota* i t r 6 Xoyofj there is a i.i tt. III.] i i - riMONI 01 B< MP! nil. "1 conjectural readii The first of these ijectures was made by Crellii Hie reason of making h a conjecture, Crellius has L r i\ en. •' The greater ( lui-t is," compare d with other tbe Father excepted), the n he be expressly called God, hit he tk o t d d he taken >'/j n of itself simply, signifies from eternity. Al- though I believe that the Logos did exist from eternity, I do not think it is proved directly by this expression. (Compare, however, Gen. 1:1.) That existence from eternity is neces- sarily implied, may no doubt be properly admitted. Er doxy is equivalent to if «(JJJJ y.oouov, in the beginning of the world, * Initium Evang. Johan. rcstauratum per L. Bl Artemonium, P. i. c. 1. 82 8TMONT OF SCRIFI'UBE. [LETT. III. i. e. before the world was made; and so agreeing in this par- ticular with the phrase, John 17: 5, "the glory that I had With thee before the world was ;" and Fph. 1: 4, " before the foundation of the world." To say with (Yelliiis. that by Iv un/l is meant the commencement of preaching th el, or the beginning of Christian instruction, would be making John gravely tell US, that before the Logos preached the gospel, he had an existence. This may do for Crellius, but not, as I think, for Joint. Before the world was created then, the Logos existed. Who or what was this Logos? A person, or an attribute, of God? A real agent, or only the personified wisdom, or rea- son, or power of God ? It is of no importance in settling this question, that we should know with certainty, whence John derived the appella- tion Logos. In my own mind, after all the attention to this subject that I have been able to pay, the most probable reason of the appellation is, that it is bestowed on Christ in reference to his becoming the instructor or teacher of mankind, the me- dium of communication between God and them. I cannot for a moment accede to the opinion that John derived it from Plato, or from the Gnostics. With Plato's works it is not probable that he busied himself. For the Gnostics, he surely had but little respect. Be this however as it may ; the Logos appears to be a person, i. e. an agent, and not merely an attri- bute. For first, the attributes of God are nowhere else per- sonified by the New Testament writers, i. e. the usage of the New Testament authors is against this mode of writing. Secondly, Logos, if considered as an abstract term, or as merely designating an attribute, can here mean only wisdom or word; and in what intelligible sense can the wisdom or WOrd of God, in the abstract sense, be said to have " be- / // a ml dwelt among us" v. 14 ? Or why should John -elect either the wisdom or word of God, as any more con- cerned with the incarnation, than the benevolence of God, or the mereg of God, which one might suppose would be the at- tributes more especially displayed iii such uu occurrence. LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 83 Thirdly, if I gog mean here the power of God, BS many as- sert, the exposition is attended with the same difficultly Fourthly, if it mean, as others aver, the p&ww of ( rod putting vrth, i. e. iii creation, it is liable to the same objections. In short, make it any aftrifmte you please of God, and then suppose it to l»e thus personified, and you introduce a mode of writing that the New Testament nowhere else displays ; and which even the Old Testament exhibits hut once (Prov. viii.), in a poetic composition of the most animated and exalted nature. Yrt this is not the chief difficulty. To what class of men could John address the asseveration, that the Logos (wisdom, word, or power of God) was " with God ?" Where did these singular heretics suppose the power of God was, except it was with him ? or where his wisdom, or his word ? A peculiar pertinacity too in their strange opinion they must have had, to induce the apostle to repeat with emphasis, in the second verse, that this Logos teas with God. What would be said of a man, who should gravely assert that the power of Peter is with Peter ; or that his wisdom or his word is so ? And sup- pose he should add : The power or wisdom of Peter is Peter — with what class of mystics should we rank him? Yet John adds : The Logos was God. Until some heretics of the apos- tolic age can be discovered, who maintained that the attributes of God were not with him, I cannot explain why the apostle should assert twice, successively and emphatically, that his attributes were with him, in case his meaning was such as is here supposed. Equally difficult is it for me to divine, how he could say that any attribute (either power or wisdom) was God ; un- derstanding the word God in any sense you please. If it mean supreme God, then it reduces itself to this, either that one attribute is the supreme God, or that there are as many Gods as attributes. If it mean an inferior God, then the wisdom of God being an inferior God, would seem to imply that his other attributes are superior Gods ; or else that his wisdom holds the place of quasi-god, while his other attri- 81 TESTIMONY OF SCRII'l TIM . [LETT. III. botes occupy a lower place. Suppose then it Bhoald be said, that Logos or wisdom denotes the essence of God; yet as such it could not be called @eo$ f which always implies an ,,, rrcte and not an (Attract. The divine nature or essence is called f-)Hnn r \ or ro 0efdi>, not d H; o,-. What could be meant, moreover, by Ihe essence of God becoming incarnate? If howowr it should be said, that the existence of a sect of heretics, who held thai the attributes of God were not with him, was unnecessary to justify the apostle for having written the iir.-t verse Of his gospel, and that we may regard this verse as written simply for general instruction ; then I would ask, whether a revelation from heaven is necessary to in- struct us, that the attributes of g<>s was veiy fat from being jnstiuVd, either by the usage of tli i writers, Of the principles of Greek syntax. Among instancei where the supreme GUd is ainly designated, and yet the article IS omitted, the tar quirer may consult the very chapter in question, \ I. 6* 13, 18 ; alM> lfatt. TJ: 2& Luke 10: 13. John & 33. Ifc SO. Rom. 3. 1 Cor. 1: 3. GaL 1: 1. Ephes. 2: 8. Ileb. 9: 14. Ue- S every well informed reader of Greek knows, that where the subject of a proposition (which in this case is 6 koyog) has the article, the predicate (Qtog) usually omits it. Such is general Greek Osage ; and from it commonly dissent only propositions of a reciprocating or convertible nature, as in v. 4 of the chapter in question. It may be added too, that if the writer in question had said y.iu o leyog l\v 6 Geo*,*, it would have conveyed a very different idea from that of the propo- sition as it now stands. John would then have said : The Logos is the God with whom he is ; or the only God ; whereas I understand &eog here to mean a divine nature, simply but not abstractly considered, for which it so often stands in other places. Vide Mark 8: S3. 10: 27. 12: 24. Luke 3: 8. 11: 20. 18: 4, 19. John 1: 13. 3: 2. 4: 24. 10: 33. Acts 5: 20. 7: 55. 10: 33. 11: 18 et al. saepe. I readily acknowledge, that affirmative evidence of the somewhat diverse meaning of Qeog here, cannot be drawn merely from the word itself; it must be deduced from the circumstances of the affirmation, united with the supposition that John did assert, and did mean to assert, something that is intelligible. There is indeed no very serious difficulty in taking &*6g (God) in the same sense in both clauses, pro- vided we understand it to denote the divinity. To interpret the verse thus, would represent John as saying, that while Christ was God or truly divine, there w T as at the same time, 8 t% ii.~n.MoNV Ol TUBS. [lktt. ill. a sense in which h God, In order thai this -hould have any possible meaning, a distinction in the Godhead of some kind must be admitted, viz. that the Father ifl nofl in all i eta the Bame as the Son. For myself, I do not hesitate to understand the word t in a sense somewhat diverse 1 , in the two clauses of the n iimhr consideration. Kvery word takes a sense adapted to it- connection. Such is the rule which mast be adopted* after we have once conceded that a writer uses words with propriety, and designs to be understood. So, when our Saviour says : "Let the dead bury their dead," the connec- tion requires OS to explain it thus: * Let those who are mor- ally or spiritually dead, bury those who are corporeally so.' It were easy to accumulate examples, where the very same word, in the same raree, has two different shades of sense. The exigency of the passage (exigentia luci) is the rule of interpretation which guides us here. And guided by this exigency, what difficulty is there in supposing that God as Father, is meant, in the first instance; and the divine nature, without any special reference to the peculiar distinction of Father, in the Beeond ? I understand John then as affirming, that the Logo* was God, and yet was with God ; viz. that lie was truly divine, but still divine in such a manner, that there did exist a dis- tinction between him and the Father. I take the word 6W, in one case, to mean, as in a great number of cases it does mean, God a- Father) in the other case, I regard it as a distinction of divine being, of the divinity, without reference to the distinction of Father; a use of the word which is very common. Least of all have these a right to object to this, who lure make the meaning of Gc 7 . in the BeCOnd instance, to be inli- nitely different from its meaning in the first instance ; under- standing by the first) a created, or derived and finite being; by the second, the self-existent, independent, and intinin [fyoa ash now \ What could be the object of John in rting that tie I with Oodt 1 answer, that the r. III.] RIPTURE. W phrase to be with ), indicates conjunct r Mark 9: L9. Compare too John 1: LA, where the only begotten Son •• in the bosom f the Father," which i- a phrase of simi- lar import. (but not fully explain) the meaning of the phrs i ', it is useful also to compare those oai wh« istians are promised as the Bummit of their felicity, that they shall he with God and Christ, be where they are. 2J other pa John 1 1: 2, ;>. 12: 26. 17: 2 1. I Tbess. 1: 17. Compare Kom. 8: 17. 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12.— *. 3: 1—1. John 17: 5, Christ speaks of that " glory, which he had ather, before the world was/' From all these pas- taken together, it would seem that the assertion: The ■'Ui God t amounts to an assertion that he was con- juru -s Deo, i. e. most intimately connected with God. If you ask me Ituic t I answer freely, that I cannot tell. The evangelist has merely asserted the fact, but has not added one word to explain the modus. If I could explain it, then I suppose I could define the distinction which I believe to exist in the Godhead. But why should John assert such a connection ? In oppo- sition, I answer, to those in early times, who asserted that Christ was a being not only distinct from God, hui an emana- tion from him ? The asseveration, that the Logos was with God — was from the beginning most intimately connected with him, and was divine — would of course contradict such an opinion. But does the evangelist here mean to assert of the Logos, that he is God in the supreme sense, or not ? This is the fundamental question between us. Analogy, drawn from the New Testament usage of the word 060£, (which nowhere else employs &eog dimply and singly, except to designate the supreme God), must be admitted strongly to favour the idea, that Christ is here asserted to be truly divine. I readily allow that in the Old Testament, the word God has various r«, thea, IL, :i-: the Lo2o§ created, tmb, (as 1 i— ajuiil r. ML Here, 1: 1 seq- it a pirwgr, in which beyond all rea- ChristkcaUed Orf; aad where the col GW in an inferior sense, (m k that ttis G*c jo was the Zaye*, la he, who created the nahtrae, tnriy and Oo this questionl I hare ««aier-d of creation t* Heh. 1: — . AW' 2> juLT ivjzut ante the Son be Math," etc. According to the law- of grammar, and moat clearly according to the nature and design of the apostle's argument, the ellipsis to be supplied, in the beginning of the tenth verse, after and (y.ai) is: M And [to the Son he saith]: Thou, Lord," etc. Hs other exposition can he pointed out, which does not mak< violent divulsion of the passage from the connection of the writer's srgament The question still remains: ' What is meant by founding tjic earth, and by the heavens being the work of Christ's hands ? To answer the Bret question, and place the answer above the possibility of a reasonable doubt, it is necessary only to compare the passages, in which Jehovah is said to have founded the earth. By this phrase, the creation of it is indubitably meant. The passages may be found in Pa. 1M: ft 8fc 11. 10-1: 5. 119: 90. Job 38: 1. Prov. 3: 19. Is. 48: 13. 51: 13. Zee. 12: 1; where, if you inspect the Sep- toagtnt, von will see the very verb (ihuthoco) employed, which the apostle uses in our text. In regard to the k * heavens being the work of Christ's hands,'' it is an expression plainly equivalent to the one just Considered, and signifies the creation of the heavens. Thus in Fs. 8: h 6: "When I consider the heavens, the work of thjf hands ;" which is parallel with u The moon and Staffs which thou hast ordained ;" (Sept. e&spsJUaHfo?). So in v. 6: u And bast placed him over the work of thy hands j all things hast thou put under his feet;" i. e. placed him owr the creation. To prove that the phrase to create the heavens and the earth, means to create all things it is necessary only to con- sult ( Ian. 1: 1. Ex. 20: 11. ;il: 17. Neh. 9: 6. Ps. 1*1:3. IlM: 8. 134: S, and other like passages, which any Concord- ance w ill .-apply. It will be remembered, that the passage in question (Heb. r. in.] | N i;irrri:i:. 01 1: l is a quotation from the Old Testament; and that t<» quote the 1 ' ihc 0. Test., therefore, in order to tin it, i-> peculiarly appropriate and necessary. Would any one, now, unembarrassed by peculiarity uspect that Christ's founding the earth) and the heat f kU i -. oould mean anything lets than the creation of the universe? Y» t we have been distinguished Unitarians, that the heavens mean the ( m state or dispensation, and the earth the one, lint first, this is against usage, either in the Old or New lent : there being nothing to support such a sense of it. Isaiah speaks indeed of creating a new heaven and a m.w earthy (65: 17) ; and o( planting the heavens and the ih (51: 16), in a moral sense, i. e. making a moral change or creation. But then the language itself, in the first case, indicates that the old or material creation is not meant; and in the second case, the context makes it as clear, what kind of heaven and earth is to be planted or established, and what the planting and establishing of them means, for it shows plainly that the Jewish church and state are to be renewed and established. The meaning then assigned by some Uni- tarians to the passage in Ileb. i, is against the plain and con- stant usage of the Scriptures, in regard to such expressions, when they occur in an unlimited form, as they do in the pas- sage under examination. Secondly, if the Jewish and the Christian states are here meant, in what sense are they to wax old as a garment, and to be changed? Of the Jewish state this might, without much difficulty, be affirmed. But how the Christian dispen- sation is to be changed, how that " kingdom which shall have no end" (Luke 1: 33), is to "perish," I am unable to ex- plain. " It is a moral creation of which Christ is the author," says Artemonius (i. e. Crellitis), Init Evang. Johan. This, how- ever, does not explain the matter ; for how is it that the moral creation of Christ is to be changed and perish, i. e. to 92 UE. [LETT. III. be annihilated. Id t obviously, his moral creation is to be oal. Another method of explaining this subject baa been, to a\* (/ '";) in the room ofit This custom is at least as old as the Septua- gint version, which translates '"•""" by i and thus it exhibits if, that the modern custom of reading " T -""^ for ~"iT was then re- ligiously .' - phua Bp< ///, as the name which i lawful to "" LETT. III.] TESTIMONY 01 PTURE. H tnnol think thai the paraphrase of GrothiSj on the pas- ■ • in question, deservi ious refutation* ^Thouwast the cause," Bays be, " that the earth was founded, and on thy >unt the heavens were made* 91 It' this be not a different thing from what the language of the apostle naturally means, Can in- 'an. I Confess that I know not any hounds which may he Bet to paraphrastic and mystical exegesis. Suppose now that the GnOBtics, who maintained that evil demons (and ah) created the material world, should still have paraphrased the first verse in ( Genesis in this manner : " Thou Jehovah wast the cause why the heavens and the earth were aed: and when asked, how this could consist with their ttiments, and what they could mean by it, they should have replied: " Out of enmity to thee, the evil demons brought this world of matter into existence ;" would not this be ex- plaining away the creative act of Jehovah, exactly as Gro- tius explains away the evidence, in the passage last adduced, that Christ was the Creator? Col. 1: 15 — 17. 0§ tanv ttxwv rov &eov rov doodrov, rroeo 70 roxrv ftaarjQ y.n'ottog ■ on iv avrco vatig^i] rd ndvza, rd i v zolg OVQavoig hcu rd en) tfjg fijg, rd onard Mat id do- oaza, tize &QOTOI, t'ize y.vniozijreg, size doyui, are i^ovaua ' id nana 8$ uvzov -/.at eig uvzov txriorut * yul uvzog Ian nob ndi'Twr, y.ut rd ndvzu Iv uvzco avrtartjxe 9 " Who is the image of the invisible God, the head of all creation ; for by him were all things created, both celestial and terrestrial, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by him and for him ; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." In the first clause (nncorozoxog 7zdar t g xrioecog) I have de- parted a little from our common version, merely in order to make what I consider to be the plain meaning of the pas- sage, as clear as the nature of the case will permit. Because Christ is said (in v. 20) "to reconcile (y.uzu).Xd^ at) all things unto himself," and these are said to be " things in heaven and things on earth ;" and afterwards he is also 94 BTIMONT 01 MKl . [LETT. III. repn I aa breaking down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles; some ingenious commentators have Bug- id, thai u things in heaven and things on earth" mean V and G How very unnatural this explanation is, no one can help feeling who reads the passage in an unbi- d manner. In what tolerable sense can the Jews and called " things visible and invisible?' Or how shall we explain the phrase, " things in heaven and things on earth," as applied to them ? By " reconciling things in heav- en and things on earth/' seem- evidently to be meant the bringing into union, under one great head, i. e. Christ, by a new and special bond of intercommunication, both angels and men. In like manner, the two great parties on earth, Jew- and (ientilrs. are united together. But why Christ llld be called "the image of the invisible God," and the u head {nQWf&tOHog) of all creation," because lie is merely the instrument of bringing Jews and Gentiles together, is not apparent to me. Yet to be such an instrument, is all that the passage in question ascribes to him, if we are to construe it in the manner above related. Hut when we understand tin; words of the apostle as describing the creation of the worlds celestial and terrestrial, (01 ovnuro) Hcu t] yJ r , comp. Ilcb. 1: 10 — 12), and ascribing it to Christ, then we lind suf- ficient reason for designating him by the exalted appellations in question. It has also been affirmed, that a moral creation only is here ascribed to Christ. But word- like these, in such a con- nexion and with BUCh adjunct.-, are no where else used in BUCb a sense. Moreover, in what sense has the moral crea- tion by Christ affected the angels? The good ones needed not repentance or pardon ; the bad ones have never sought or obtained either. " Verilj he did not assist the angels (fid ( V 7 '"' wyy&OM trrt/.i'.iifjiutria), but the seed of Abraham," Heb. 2: 16. Until I see different light shed over the pas in ques- tion, I mU8l regard it, therefore, as very clearly ascribing the ■ ation of the universe to Christ* T.I.I I. III.] PTURE. 05 Bul yon will say, perhaps, thai in John 1:8, all things are said to be made by Christ (fl**i V- rr©i Pm- mental and not the principal cause 5 the preposition 8id usu- ally denoting such instrumental cause. In CoL I: 16 it id, that all thin created by Christ (< v w) ; and in II<1>. l: 2, God is said to have created the worlds by // <>t (sc viov) xcu rovg aicSvag (no(t k The allegation, however, thai did does not designate the ■"/ as well as the instrumented cause, can by no means be supported. Jn Romans 11: 86, all things are said to be of God (e| avrov), and 2y God (di avrov) ; which is the very form of expression applied to Christ, in Col. I: 1G — 20. So Heb, 2: 10 : " For it became him [God the Father], for whom (oV or) are all things, and by whom (81 ov) are all things, etc. 1 Cor. 1:0: " God is faithful, by whom (di ov) ye were called into the fellowship of his Son," etc. But to prove that tW may be and is employed before a noun designat- ing a principal cause, is utterly superfluous to any one who has a good Greek lexicon at his command. To deny this, in the present state of philology, is fairly out of question. The principal difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase, "by whom (oV ov) he [the Father] made the worlds;" Heb. 1: 2. The apostle has added sufficient, in vs. 10 — 12, as it might seem, to prevent mistake here. If, however, the diffi- culty seems still to press, it may be compared with Hos. 1: 7, "I [Jehovah] will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehovah, n-n-2." Is the second Jeho- vah merely the instrumental cause, in this case ? Of the same nature is the phraseology in Gen. 10: 24, " And Jeho- vah rained down, upon Sodom and Gomorrha, fire and brim- stone from jeiiovaii out of heaven." Must the last Jeho- vah, in this case, be inferior to the first? If not, then the phrase that God made the worlds by his Son, does not imply, as a matter of course, that the Son is of an inferior nature. It does imply, indeed, that there is a distinction between Father and Son ; and this is what we aver to be a scripture- doctrine. It seems plainly to declare, also, that God as Son 96 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III. was in an especial manner concerned ivith the creation of the worlds. If the Logos, as John asserts, made all things, what is there impossible or improbable in this ? From the passages of Scripture thus far considered, it ap- pears plain, that the apostles have ascribed the creation of the universe to Christ. And now we come, next in order, to the consideration of the simple question : Whether he who created the world, is really and truly divine ? First, then, permit me to ask, if the act of creation does not prove the being who performs it to be omniscient, om- nipotent, and independent, then how is it possible to conceive of anything, which does or can prove the existence of such a Being ? To bring this world into existence from nothing ; to establish such perfect harmony and design through all the operations of nature ; to set in motion unnumbered worlds and systems of worlds, and all in the most perfect harmony and order ; requires more intelligence, more power, and more wisdom, than ever belonged to any finite being. And if these things do not characterize the infinite Being, it seems to me that no proof of the existence of such a Being can be adduced. It is in vain to tell me here, that the creation of the uni- verse can be accomplished by delegated power, i. e. by an inferior and subordinate being. What can be meant by om- nipotence, omniscience, and infinite wisdom, (all of which must belong to a Creator), being delegated 1 } Can God dele- gate his perfections ? If so, then the Gnostics, when pressed with the argument that Jehovah, the God of the Jews, was the supreme God, because he created the heavens and the earth, might have replied, that he did this only by delegated power ; and that the act of creation, therefore, proves nothing as to Godhead. Would you not reply to such an allegation, that the act of creating the universe is one which no finite or secondary being can perform ? If this act do not designate the absolute, supreme, omnipotent, and omniscient Being, then no proof that such a Being exists can possibly be ad- duced. LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 97 Why may we not use, now, the very same arguments, to confute those who maintain that Christ created the world by delegated power? The apostle having decided the question that Christ did create the world, has decided, consequently, that he must be truly divine. Agreeably to this reasoning, the Bible everywhere appeals to creative power, as the peculiar and distinguishing preroga- tive of the supreme God, and attributes it solely to Jehovah. Let any one read, for example, Gen. 2: 2, 3. Ex. 20: 11. Is. 44: 24. Jer. 10: 12. Ps. 8: 3, 4. 102: 25, and other pas- sages of the same tenor. Let him read Isaiah xl. and on- ward, where God by his prophet makes a most solemn chal- lenge to all polytheists, to bring the objects of their worship into competition with him ; and he declares himself to be dis- tinguished from them all, by his being " the Creator of the ends of the earth" (v. 28), and by his having formed and ar- ranged the heavens, (v. 26.) Can it be made plainer than these passages make it, that creative power was regarded by the Hebrew prophets, as the appropriate and peculiar attribute of the supreme God ? Need I say, that the O. Test, is filled with passages which ascribe the work of creation to Jehovah alone ? Who does not find them everywhere intermixed, in the most delightful and af- fecting manner, with all the instructions of the sacred He- brew writers ? Now if a subordinate agent, a finite spirit, did create the universe, why should all the instructions of the O. Test, be so framed, as inevitably to lead the Jewish nation to dis- believe and reject this fact ? Specially so, as the Jews were very strongly inclined to polytheism ; and a plurality of gods would have been very agreeable to their wishes. And why, after a lapse of so many centuries, should the writers of the New Testament controvert all that the Hebrew Scriptures had taught on this subject, and lead men to admit that a fi- nite being could and did create the world ? Most of all, how could Paul say (Rom. 1: 20), that the heathen were without excuse for not acknowledging the eternal power and godhead 9 98 BTTMONT OF SCRTFTITRE. [LETT. HI. of the Divinity, because of the evidence which his creating power afforded — beca isethey could look upon the things that were made, an n from them. Ami is this truth, (thai the Deitj p< eternal power and godhead), bo plain then, and so easily deduced from cre- ating i KEB6Y, that the very heathen are destitute of all ex- CQse, for ik ig and admitting it, and yet, can it be the object of Christianity to bring US hack to the very polytheism for which the apostle condemned them? To bring us to a Worship the creature as the CREATOR?" Does Christiani- ty contradict a truth of natural religion so plain and incontro- vertible, that the very heathen were without excuse for not acknowledging it ? And after reading such a passage in the writings of Paul, can it he possible to suppose, that he as- cribed the creation of the world to any being but the true God only? Compare now Acts 17: 23 — 2G, with John 1: 1 — 3, and 10; Heb, 1: 10—12; Colos. 1: 14—17; and then say whether it is possible to admit the rules of interpretation which you have laid down, and not admit that the apostles designed to assert, thai Christ i- the creator of the universe? And if he is BO, i- it possible to deny that he i< truly divine? It were easy to produce passages of the New Testament in abundance, which ascribe the same works to Christ as to God; e. g. John 5. 17—23. 1 I: f>, 11. and the like. But the vindication of these would swell these letters beyond their proper length, I -hall not enter into the discussion of them at present I am not anxious to increase the number of wit- nesses; for acknowledging the New Testament to be of di- vine authority, 1 consider whatever it plainly declares once to be the truth. The relevancy and plainness of the testimo- ny, therefore, i- more the object of my solicitude, than the nmnhcr of witnesses ; a point, T may add, in which many who have defended our sentiments have greatly erred. 1 -hall proceed, therefore, to other texts of Scriptur which Christ is declared to be God. Rom. 9: 5. --> "/' sTor/pes, na\ :-'S on o KguTrog, to x< Giiny.u, o eSf tm ffdm iXoytjrbg efc rtwg almag " I. III.] T&> 09 j. •• v. . in ret] in oat a j dj, wb . over all, blew u" Ii . Brat, that al- though ( «i ■.• filled kit otniml and other readii any of thrni : Jtle to tl. which hav- : as Jn rendering by correspond' in Bool 1: 3.* And that d cur im nwntai Beogj whop/rig Mg roiy Si "H translated, info is n tprtmt G blessed \ wn in variou- ifl here put. as b common, (e. g. John 1: 18. •*>: 13. 2 Cor. 11: olj. li The gTound of this lies limply in nature ot . usage. Whenever o is used for of, it takes the participle cur instead of the verb wm'j and so we have i cur, or o 5 ' Mm, invariably. literally over-all God. i. e. supreme God. One should compare with the phraseology here the word mmrza (all ) 1 with respect to the dominion of Christ, in Col. 1: 17. Eph. I: 23. John 3: 31, and 1 Cor. lft It is used in such passages in order to describe him as the head or ruler of the univ i . What then can im nav tcoj Qd6g mean, but supreme ' • Bat on no text have greater pains been bestowed, in order to d Q unusual construction and meaning. Schlichting proposed to transpose o cor, and read cor o ; i. e. of whom [viz. tl. sh fathers] is God. blessed forever. But as in this le, the apostle has laboured to prove that God bet 11 to the Gentil the Jews (ch. 3: _ . this e.\| seem to impeach the apo icy, as well as violate the text. Nor would the text itself, as amended by Sehliehting's conjecture, be in any measure ac- cordant with the idiom of the Greek language. If Qeog has * ^ :.'ls in the Textna Reoq I 100 TESTIMONY Of SCRffTUKE. [LETT, ill. Mm irtiofei (and his transposition makes it o 9eog), then wiXopfto^ must of necessity have it too; inasmuch as an ad- ctivc Following a nonn with an article, and agreeing with it, of necessity takes the article. WetStein'fl conjecture, that it should he read (<>i\ 6 Wfl mirtmf 0SO£, i- not any more fortunate. Such a mode of expression as s sh» o,all relating to the same subject, is repug- nant to Greek osage* Besides, this conjecture, like that of Schlichting, not only violates the integrity of the text, but assigns the article to Qtng 9 and omits it before BvXop/tfei which is surely inadmissible* Enough of amending the apostle's words by conjecture, without the authority of a single manuscript or ancient ver- sion. Critical acumen has aho employed itself, in dividing and translating the verse in question, in a manner different from that in our common Testament The late Professor Justi, at Harporg, a man of some acuteness and much taste, undertook to defend the ingenious supposition, that the latter part of the verse is a doxology. He renders it thus : " Whose ancestors were those [renowned] fathers from whom the Messiah, as to his mortal body, was derived, who is exalted over all [the fathers], God be blessed forever !" Thus, by the aid of supplying an idea not contained in the text, and by doimr violence to the usages of lan^ua^e in the doxological part, he has devised a method in which w r e may avoid the lertion that Christ is God over all or supreme God. But who docs not perceive the violence and inaptitude of the divulsion which he makes, by separating the former from the latter part of the ver>e. Besides, how would a doxology lit the passage in question? Crellius, (Init Kvang. Johau. p. 230, 287), long ago was candid enough to own, that when the apostle was affected with the greatest sadness, on account of the unbelief of his Jewish brethren and the loss of their 'privileges, a doxohxpj or exclamation of praise was not very ceagrQOQS. A prayer (as in eh. 10: 1) would seem, as he think-, to he much more appropriate. Omitting however all this, it may be added, that Greek LETT. II CfiflTIMQtKl 01 SCRIPTURE. 101 by no [>u— Utility admits of the doxological version of yijToj means God who ie bkeeed, i. <*. the proj in bucL a ease is assumed, not asserted. But means < s , or lei God be Hem d or j In accordance with this Greek usage, we find five instances of d in the New Testament, and ahout v in the Old, in whim wXop/tog is uniformly placed first The same o served in respect to /AiTunaio^ (cursed), when an imprecation is uttered. B tsides, the text mus be changed to make out a doxology ; tor we IRU«t read QtOQ instead of Qi 6g t since universal zvkoytjTog a Qeog, (The instance in l\s. 46: 19. Sept., brought by Stoltz in his ErletUerungen, to sup- port Justi's rendering, depends merely on wrong punctuation, and the repetition of a word which does not correspond to the Hebrew text.) Finally, if a doxology to the Father were intended here, it is scarcely possible to suppose, that some particle of transi- tion should not have been inserted, in order to give notice of so great a change. But no text, no manuscript, no ancient version, gives us a trace of such a particle. To invent a new ling and force it upon the text, or to substitute a conjec- tural reading which originated merely from theological specu- lation, and all this when the evidence of the integrity of the text is incontrovertible — what is it but to introduce a princi- ple fundamentally subversive of all interpretation and criti- cism, and to give up the Scriptures to be moulded according to every man's own wishes ? All conjectures, and theories, then, appear to be quite in- competent to explain away the common rendering of the verse, and the meaning connected with it. On the other hand, we may ask : I low comes it that Christ, accordiny to hie human nature (to y.aru oiar/.a), is said to have descended from the fathers ? What if I should affirm that David, as to his human nature, was descended from Jesse? Would you not of course ask, what other nature had he except a human one ? And such an inquiry, forced upon us by the method 9* 102 HOHT OF S< UIPTt'RE. [LETT. III. of txpression in question, the apostle has immediatel j an* ■ as to his nature n<>t human, he ai OerU that he me God, blessed forever; Amen." To have aitors of the lnunau nature of such an exalted beiBg a- Christ) the SpOStle reckon- a- one of the special privileges which the .Jews had enjoyed. Comp. Rom. 1—1. 1 do nol argue that Christ is divine, merely because the appellation Qeig is bestowed upon him. Bat if e w* wn udmiw &tia be not supreme God; and if the antithesis in this reuse do not require m to understand a divine nature here ; t!;< D I must despair of ever discovering the sentiment of any tea of Scripture, by appealing to any or all the rules of e I Ibh. I: s, ( .). 'o Oqopos c>ov, o £so?, sig wop ni&m ft* oOpos oq ev&vttpog >] $d@do€ rijg fimaiXtUw gov. IFyu- mfffag I KcuoGvnpt, hcu ifuatpaG uroittur, diu iovio tffufi ae o too?, o faos; gov, thuov dya/./.tuGaou' nana rov^ utTn- yoi\ % gov. * 4 Hut unto the Sun he smith : Thy throne, O God, is folteVer and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom* Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This passage is quoted from Pa. 45: G, 7. It has been objected, that o &i6g here should not be translated as a Voca- tive but as a Nominative; e. g. " God is thy throne forever hid ever, or thine everlasting throne or eternal support." So far as the form of the word is concerned, o (-)tn*; is the common Vocative of the New Testament and the Septuagint. No objection, therefore, to the usual rendering of this verse in the Vocative ease, ean be made from the form of the word ; for the practice of assigning a Yoeativo sense to a Nomina- tive form, is altogether common in Hellenistic Greek. The Attics often adopt the .-ante usage* One needs only to open the Septuagint in the book of Psalms, or in almost any other part, to tee incontrovertible evidence that o ©*0£ is the com- mon Vo ative of the Hellenistic writers. LETT. III.] V OF ICBflPTURV. 103 transl ' m, i. e. thy sup] ctions may !»«' 111:1 ill ^7edoes not permit such a D. The subject :\n<\ cannot both have the article, in a case like this, God is k: ^poi .' For such a cl in the text there rity wh I render insipid th neat of t stle, in thia cha] the preeminently • of this illustrious | iod is thy tl i. •-. thy support, might weD the whom the epistle was addressed to ask: And who is not supported by God? I! m it help to show that Christ is entitled to high pr e emimm i e, by alleging that an- other being is his support (3) Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the word throne, understood either literally or figuratively. Literally it is the seat on which kings sit. This sense is here out of the question. Figuratively, it stands for dominion, empire, regal authority, because it is one of the symbols of such au- thority. But I know of no such figurative sense to this word liat of support. And wh would it make to | J thy d y regal authority t If you aver that this may mean as much as to say : God is the cause of thy rity .• then I ask again, of what k Lominion and authority is not God the cause ? not the universal doctrine of the Bible, that * by him ki reign, and princes decree justice ? v And how then is Christ entitled to any pr anse God is the cause of his dominion ? Or what advances does the apostle make in his iment, by such an assertion ? To the translation in question, there is still anotherobjection, which is drawn from the nature of Hebrew parallelism in poet- ry. The verse ai -cussion plainly is one. in which the * with the article) . . it it) th according to the uiual laws of the lang _ 10 1 J BSTDfOlTT 01 i u:r.. [LETT. III. une in both parte) i. e. U u i synonymous parallelism. Now the second member of this is : M The ptre of thj kingdom m b aceptre of right - :" in other words, thy dominion is ri(//t(rnt/s. The firs! member of thr parallelism, consequently, is to be explained in the same way. and evidently means : Thy dominion (throw histiicj. What could be mon* tasteless or unmeaning here, than to say: God is thy throne, meaning to say: God II thy Bttpport or cause of dominion, when the evident object of* the writer is to show the preeminent dignity and dominion of the Son of God ? The proposed mode of rendering, then, violates Greek usage : it frustrates the argument of the apostle ; it forces an unexampled meaning upon {tnoroj; and finally it transgres- the laws of poetic parallelism in the Hebrew original, from which the passage iras taken. Jiut several objections have been made against understand- ing the word Oodi in the passage now under consideration, in its highest sense when applied to Christ. It is said, thai the person called God ( Elokim) here, is addressed as having a God above him, fhjf God; and also, as having fellows who BTQ merely king- ; and therefore that he cannot be supreme God. As to the mere application of the name God, in this ease, I should not be disposed to make more out of it, than that it designates the King Messiah as L>>rd of all. So much rtain, viz. his supremacy over all others. His throne, i. S. dominion, is everlasting. As the Messiah, the anointed king, it might with the greatest propriety be said that Jehovah is his God; for as Messiah, he is to be consid- ered as incarnate, and ol* course subordinate in respect to his human nature, fa it a matter of wonder, that the same per- son can, at one moment, be said to have everlasting domin- ion, of whom it is -aid, at the next, that .Jehovah is hit Gd I: is a wander of the same nature as that which perplexed the Jews, When Christ asked them how David could call the Messiah Lord, while at the game time he was his son. I; a wonder which no ground but that of Trinitarians can ever in.] 103 well explain ; I mean the ground, thai the divine and hwmtm ires co-existe 1 in Chr eqnently that in the tnce, he could with propriety speak of himself Of lnnnan oi- divine. The Bacred writers appear not to take the iins defi the two natures, in anything which they say of either. They everywhere -peak of Christ, it appears to me), m either human or divine or as both, tiding to the exigency of the pa- They do not seem apprehend any danger of mistake, in regard to the subject ; no more than we do when we say thai Abraham ia ieady or that Abraham is oHve* We never think it necessary to add the words tu to Itis body in the one ease, or as to his soul in the other. This very negligence, (if I may be allowed the expression, saving everything that would imply improper want of care), presents a powerful argument to me, I must confess, to prove that the -acred writers regarded the human and divine na- tures as so intimately connected in Christ, that it was un- necessary and inexpedient to attempt a distinctive separation of them, on every occasion which brought to view the person or actions of Christ.* As to the objection that the king is spoken of as one who lias " fellows," and therefore as one who is not divine, I would merely remark, that Christ is introduced here as the incarnate Messiah. To the office of king, God " consecrated him with the oil of gladness," i. e. placed him in a royal sta- tion more exalted than that of other kings ; and that there is given to him the "oil of gladness above his fellows," imports that his rank is above that of others who also hold a regal otlice. * I am aware of the translation, byGesenius and others, of die clause in question: " Thy Gods-throne i-- forever and ever." But, (1) This cowedes the principal thing which it is designed to deny, namely, that the throne of the king here is like to. or the same as, the throne of God ; lor the meaning must be this. (2j This rendering admits the sullix pronoun ^— to belong to the first oi" two nouns in the construct slate; which is against the ordinary laws of the Hebrew Language, llosen- mueller therefore rightly translates : Thy throne, God, etc. IOC iiMiMnxv of SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III. As i" the allegation, thai the 45th Psalm does not belong to the Mestioh) but to David, or Solomon; how can this be proved? I know it i- easy to assert) thai this Psalm ie a mere epithalamium or nuptial ode, on the marriage of one of the Jewish kings (probably Solomon) with a foreign prino either of Persia or of Egypt Bui I know not bow to reconcile such declarations as this I '.-aim contains, with the views of the Hebrews in regard to intrenching upon the prorogate of the Godhead. At all events, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has expressly affirmed, that the passage in ques- tion was uttered .too.' ro* vtoPj L e. in respect to the Son. Here then, if our view be correct, is one instance more in which Christ is called (>" aXtf&ipqi, 99 to) vU[) uvtov Ji t nov \nir>T(o. Ovrog tcm o akq&woe O'eog y.iu /, £bwj cuomo?. kk And we know that the Son of ( lod is come, and hath given D8 an understanding, that pre may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is true, in his Sou Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." There are two reasons here, why 6 aXq&wog too?, the true (>'<> this language with John, as ap- plied to Christ! "In him (i.e. Christ) was life, this life Jit of men — giving i hi. to the world — the bread of i.ir k — my wo! spirit and life — I am the way, the troth, and the life — the Logos of life. This life (Christ) v manifested and we have Been if, and do testily to yon, and dfedare, the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and Was manifested to us." 1 John 1: 1, 2. Now as I cannot find any instance in John's writings, in which the appellation of lift; and ttemal life is bestowed upon the Father, to de- late him as the author of spiritual and eternal life ; and as this occurs so frequently in John's writings as applied to Christ ; the laws of exegesis compel me here to accord, in my exposition, with the common laws of grammar, and to construe both e dXtj'd'irog Qeog and /; £omj aic&viog, (or as some manuscripts more consonant with Greek idiom read: // Zjxwj i t aio&nog), both of Christ. If then he is the (rue God, must he not be really divine f If the (rue God be not divine, who is ? John 20: 28. IrfnexQi&t} Ompag y.ut elnev avrcp' tfvQtog fiov xcu o 0e6g uov. u And Thomas answered and said unto him : My Lord, and my God !" I have, three reasons for adducing this text. (1) There is no satisfactory proof, that it is an exclamation of surprise or astonishment. No phrase of this kind, by which the Jews were accustomed to express surprise or astonishment, lias yet been produced; and there is no evidence that such a phrase, with the sense alleged, belongs to their language. (2) The evangelist tells as, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus, i. e. spoke to him, tlitzv avnp ; he did not merely exclaim. (3) The commendation, which the Saviour immediately be- stows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the meaning n OfONI "i SCRIPTURE, [lkti. hi. that T attach toll* Chris! eommeads bin far having n and believed. The evidence that he believed, oil- tained in the expression under examination : for before utter- ing this expression, he is represented as doubting. On the ^Opposition then, that the expression \v:i> a mere exclamation, jrhal evidence was it to the mind of JeSOS, or could it he to the mindfi of others, that he admitted the claims of the Sa- viour of men, to the character which was connected with this office? Whal more proof of real belief can he found in such an exclamation^ (if it he truly one), than we can find that men are Christians, when they repeat, as is very common on occa- sions of 8Urprise or delight, the name of Christ by way of ex- clamation ? But if we admit, that the words of Thomas were the proper evidence and expression of that belief for which the Saviour commended him, (and I do not see how we can fairly avoid this) ; then we must admit that lie will commend us, for believing that he is both Lord mid God, Kvqiqs mu 6*0f. Schlichting, indeed, gets l'id of this by a notahle I pedient. lie avers that Lord is to he referred to Christ, and God to the Father ; which latter, as he thinks, Thomas spoke after some interval of time had elapsed ! I pass over several passages, where our common text ap- plies the name of God to Christ; e.g. Acts 20: 28, and 1 Tim. 3: 1G. In regard to this latter text however, it appears to me a plain case, that the authorities, which Griesbacb himself has adduced, would fairly had to a decision different from his own, respecting the genuineness of the reading €kog. I will not attempt to weigh them here, B8 I feel no desire to press into my sendee witnesses of a character at all dubious. I admit the merit of Qfiesbach, in his critical edition of the New Tes- tament. J believe he was a man, who would not willingly or consciously misrepresent either facts or arguments, either for or agaiflSl any reading, lint the work which he undertook WBS too great to he accompli.-hed hy one person, or even by one whole generation of critics. \)v. Lawrence, in his Ks>ay upon the Classification of Manuscripts hy Griesbacb, has ren- dered it more than prol able, that Griesbach's account of facts i. in.] a i DtONl 01 SCRIPTURE. 109 (>{ infrequently very emmet o< through design bat a human infirmity), and thai the principles by which he the value of Manuscripts, and of course the ,L r <'mi- iaenesa of particular readings, are some of them fundamentally l.ut Grieshacfa is not the only recent editor of a critical New Testatni at, to which critics attach itribortanoe* tthai, whom Middleton calls the heel Greek Bcholar that tiled a Greek Testament, published at Riga (between A. 1). 17^-' — L788) a critical Testament of 1 8 volumes, which approached much nearer our common Text us Ebeceptttfl than the edition of Griesbach ; with whom, indeed, he is often at variance* Eichhorn, (after giving a high character of this edition of Matthai, and remarking that in his maxims, re- specting the formation of the N. Test, text, this editor differs very much from Griesbach and some others), says, that "for a long time he had followed the middle path between the two parties." (Bibliothek, Band ii. St. 2. s. 311). On this sub- ject his judgment in general was both enlightened and sound. The whole system of classifying manuscripts, whieh lies at the very foundation of all Griesbach's decisions in regard to the text, is rejected by Matthai as worthless ; and Dr. Law- rence has, in the Essay above mentioned, made an attack upon the same classification, which renders very questionable the principles of it, or at least the application of those principles as made by Griesbach. Professor Knapp of Halle also published a Greek Testa- ment, the text of which is independent of Griesbach's, although it approximates to it. This edition has been much esteemed for its punctuation, order of words, accentuation, and spiritua- tion ; and it still has a large circulation ; although at present it is giving place to that of Hahn. The critical editions of Lachmann and of Tischendorf have also a large run, both of which are in a good measure inde- pendent of Griesbach. I acknowledge this is digression. But it may be useful to those, who are in the habit of attributing so much weight to 10 110 BTIMOH1 OF SCUPTUBE. [LKTT. III. Griesbach'fl decisions, to know that they arc far from being incontroverted, by many of the beet critic- Among hit own ooantrymen. I know of no commentator of note, who I made Griesbach'a text his basis, except Panlus; and be baa camined all his decisions* To return, however, to our subject : we do not want, and feel no disposition to use, cither of the text- referred to above as proof texts in the question before us.* There IS another class of texts, which I have not hitherto mentioned, because the certainty of their meaning is com- monly thought to be less capable of demonstration, than that of others which I have produced. I refer to such texts as Eph. 5: 5. /■> rj QoGiXsiq roe K^totoi xcu @£o£, -in the kingdom of Christ and God." Titus 2: 18. Ilnnaftt/nitu'oi fff naxiajiay iXfttikt y.iu tTTiq untur tffi dofyg tov inyuh)V &eoi y.iu aaniJQog t][ju5f ItjGoi XntaTov. " Looking for the Messed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ*' 1 2 Tim. 4: 1. /Iiauarnvnomu m£- JilOf roe foot?, xiu 'iljOOV Xniamv roe ub'/./.orrn^ xnivbir fftJr- 7(U y.iu PSXQOVg, y.uru tip trru) uvuur uvrnv y.iu ttp fJunt/.tiay avrov' "I adjure you before God, even Jesus Christ, who will judge the quick and the dead at his appearance and king- dom." 2 Pet 1:1 roe (hnv ///for y.a) GeOTtJQOQ ///Tor Aoorroe • " of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ/' The mode here proposed of translating these texts, is cer- tainly in conformity with the Greek idiom. Middleton (on the Article) thinks it absolutely essential to it. For although proper names and abstract nouns, in such a connection as 0$6$ and X(H6f6g here, may take the article before the first noun and omit it before the second, and yet designate differ* rut things and persons | yet it' words, which are attrilmti< omit the article in Mich a ca-e, they exhibit evidence that they are to be connected with a preceding noun, and are the predicates of it, and not significant of something separate. * As to i Tim. 3: 16, I fr. EL o lereoo seems to hare settled tin • diplomatically in favourofitfl genuineness, in an Essay of his, which lished in the Biblical Repository, VoL II- p. l P. III.] i i> i [MOOT Of B< UF1 i &B< 1 11 .:. in the first case; Kph. (i The kingdom of Christ • this rule would mean " w Ohrisl who In the second instance, Tit 2: 18, the ibeaning WOOld 1m-, "nl'ilir L r ri ;it God who is our Saviour," etc. .Mr. Wordsworth, a few yean since, instituted a most la- igationoftbe Greek fathei le whether the idiom which n the article here was admitted into their wril and whether they ever understood more than o I by such expressions. The result I will give in his own words, (p. 132). kk I have observed more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form i \nhirn*: -/.la Qeog (Eph. 5: 5) ; some hundreds of instances ot o fttyag (ttu*: xou gopitjq (Tit 2: 13) ; and not fewer than several thousands of the form o Oto^/.ia aoni t o (2 Pet 1: 1) ; while in no single case have I seen, where the sense could be . any one of them used but only of one person." After all, if there were no other evidence of the divinity of Christ in the New Testament, than what depended solely on these texts, one might perhaps hesitate concerning the sub- ject. But when I consider that the method of translating, here proposed, is conformable to the Greek idiom, and must adopted in various other passages, (e. g. Rom. 15: G. Eph. _<>. James 1: 27). and if adopted in these, will give them conformable to that of other parts of the sacred vol- ume, I must confess the evidence which these passages afford, if not decisive, at least serves to confirm the testimony of those other texts. Specially is this the case, in regard to the text in Titus ; for where is the appearing of God the Father ever spoken of by the New Testament writers? It is Christ wh< appeared to execute vengeance upon the Jewish nation, and who will again appear at the general judgment. The appearance of the great God and Saviour seems to be fairly applied to Christ. Tims much for the texts, which bestow upon Christ the appellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what sense the word God must be understood, according to the common rules of interpreting language- I come now, 1 12 i !> I [MONT OJ SCRIP! QBE. [LETT. III. II. To examine another class of texts, which attribute to Christ equality with God, or that power, and dignify and honoTy which belong appropriately to God* Phil. 2: S — 8« Tovio yaQ ipQOvetad'Oi h iuIv o um iv \nllT), which are applied to the Son in Heb. 1: 3. These * Even then ovk ffytfoaro could not be rendered thought not of. The word does not permit tins sense. 10* Ill rUTIKOVT of s< men i;r. [lktt. in. words designate the glory of the incarnate Messiah, who had appeared u ki these la&( days, and spoken to men. They ex- press the same view of Christ which John gives (1: li), wh<-n l\<- lays: M We beheld his [Christ's] dory, verily the glory of the Only begotten of the Father;" and this glory was >een after the ' Word became flesh and dwelt among us.' Com- parison then of iionij/j (-)mw with these passages, will not as- certain its meaning ; for to Christ belonged the uoocfi) Otov, yrt he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a Servant Indeed, in occupying the condition of a servant, (if I may so express the Greek SXfVoXTI otuvroy), consisted his humiliation. A fair examination of uoncf /,', either generally or in special relation to the passage before us, will end, as I must believe, in the conviction, that the word is not unfrequently synony- mous with p&rig (nature) and ovaia (being). The proofs which Schleusner has offered of this are sufficient. (Lex. in IOC imnifi' t ). But the proof of what it means in the pas- sage before us, is too plain to be easily mistaken. If you say , [inncf l t (:)tnv means only a similitude or resemblance of God in moral qualities, as we speak of Christians resembling God, then I ask, whether his humiliation consisted in de- pressing, or subjecting to a lower station, the moral qualities which Christ possessed. Does ftOQyq Qqov mean then a resemblance to God in re- Speefl to office, even as magistrates are sometimes called gods? Kot SO j for on the supposition that Christ was only a finite being, what office did he lay aside in order to become incar- nate ? If Christ be Only a created being, who were his sub- ject-, and what was his dominion, before his mediatorial king- dom commenced by the event of his incarnation? But this IS not all. It' [tnntj i] mean only similitude, then what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ is said to ha\e taken upon him the fionql^r dovkov? That he 1- meivlv a reiemUance to a Bervant, i. e. to one who obeys, or is in a humble station; or that he did actually take the condition of one who was in a humble and depressed state, l.i it. in.] - nvoin of l Li an\' God ; while the I in which the fact- revealed for our credence ft with him M whose ways are unsearchable and omenta are pas! finding out." I have need the freedom of letter-writing, in this die i ; I can hardly call it digression, as it i> so nearly con- led with the explanation of the text which I am examin- ing. Will you now permit me to repeat, that the version which would correspond best with the real meaning of the passage in question, must express the following ideas : " Who being of divine nature or condition, did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on himself a humble condition, etc." In this way, and in this only, does the pas- sage appear to be consistent with the apostle's argument and design, at least appropriate to them ; and in this way only, can the Greek be fairly and grammatically rendered. With the passage that has now been considered, several otli> mi to me to agree, in respect to general import. K. g. John 5: 19, " Whatsoever things he [the Father] doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise;" i. e. he has the same power as the Father. And when it is said in the context : " The Son doeth nothing by (or of dno, ay) himself, ex- cept he see the Father do it ;" 1 understand the meaning to be, that the Jews had no reason to believe that Christ had any disposition to break the divine commandments, (of which they had so frequently accused him), because he acted in en- tire concert with the divine purposes and commands, and had no separate interests of his own. Any other interpre- tation than this, makes the passage inept, and wholly irrele- vant to the case in hand. Several passages there are, of the like nature with the one just considered, which assert a dependence of the Son upon the Father, but all of w r hich relate to his mediatorial state, 118 ntsTDfom of scriftuh [lett. hi. when he had assumed a human nature. Such are the paa- - w hich declare that Chris! was taught, shown, instructed? and >ent or commissioned, by the Father; e. L r . John 5: 20, 86, 27, SO, 3& John 0: 88. In John 6: ^ ifl a simng I D of this nature : u As the living Father hath sent D and / //Vr by the Father; bo he that eateth me, even lie >hali live by me." Now here Christ represents himself as licin, 2 1. 15: LO, 15. lint, intermingled withthese, (and, on the ground of Christ's two-fold nature, easily inter- preted), are others of a very different tenor. For example; he says (John 10: 7 sq.)j lnat he will send the Paraclete, i. e. the Spirit of truth, to teach and comfort his disciples ; and then he adds : " lie [the Spirit] shall glorify me ; for he shall receive oimine, and shall show it unto you." Nor is this all. He goes on to say : '' All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, he shall take of mine, and show it unto you." Very different is the tenor of the mean- ing here, from that of the words of Paul, when he tells the Corinthians, that "all things are theirs. " The apostle means, that all the privileges and blessings of the gospel with all its teachers, and all its hopes and promises, are theirs, and that they and all these belong to one common Lord, i. e. Christ ; also that Christ himself, as the mediator of the new dispensation, and according to the economy of grace, belongs to God, or is subordinate to him, 1 Cor. o: 21 — 23. The apostle Bays all this, to quell party spirit and the assumption of superiority among the Corinthians. lint when Chi [HPmioci to his disciples, first, that he will send the Paraek and then ggyg that the Holy Spirit will ylorifu him : and finally a Id.-, thai "all which the Father hath i> hfe-i" can :n.l rWRKONI <»i %( ktitti 1 19 asonably suppose thai :my pious man, nay thai any 'tt'il being who is filled with the fear of (i<>d, would make Buch language as this? To speak of himself as gUm- •' by the Spirit, and as '/// thing* in such a sense that the Spirit is said to take and to receive of the things which are bis, and to show them to the disciples — is this lan- >ming in a mere human being, yea, decorous in any ■Harare for any created being whatever? Th<' Holy Spirit then is to take of what belongs to him who is a created and .•ndrnt being, in order to furnish himself for the work of guiding and comforting the disciples ! It is improbable — nay, it is morally impossible, for any created being filled with reverential awe of God, and with deep humility, to express himself in such manner while in ihe use of his sober senses. •h language, in his mouth, would amount to little or nothing short of blasphemy ; if blasphemy may mean the saying of that which detracts from God, and elevates the creature to the rank of a divine being. I venture to say, that no theory of doctrine which denies the Godhead of Christ, can fairly make out an exegesis of this language, which is consistent with fact, with piety, and with reason. Again, in that last memorable prayer of Jesus, recorded in John xvii., when speaking of his disciples, he says to the Father: "All mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and I am glorified in them," v. 10. Here is even additional reason for applying the remarks just made. Such claims forsooth as these, on the part of a mere man, or a mere creature ! How can I admit this, and admit that the being who uttered it was full of reverence and humility, or even that he was in a state of sanity ? I confess myself utterly at a loss to reconcile this With any Unitarian theory, of which I have any knowledge. Of the same nature is a text already cited above: " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work/' John 5: 17. In other words, (as Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath) : ■ My Father suspends not his operations on this holy day ; and I have a right to continue mine on the same ground.' If this be admitted, then is the justification of Jesus complete. But what human or merely created being could place his justifi- ISO rssTiMOinr of scripture. it. hi. cation on Boch ground m this ? The Jews immediately acca» i him of blasphemy. They were in the right, ifhe was nothing more than a mere man. lim bow does be vindicate himself? By telling them that they had wholly mistaken the meaning hi- expressions? Not at all. 1 1 « - merely tells them that he follows the example of the Father, and that he is commission- ed by him to do the greatest of miracles, to raise the dead, and to judge the world; and all this, in order that "all Often should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." He not only asserts, thru, his right to supersede the law of the Sabbath, but his right to .-hare in the same honours which are to he paid to the Father. J must [confess, that passages like these make a deeper impression on my mind, than many a passage which seems directly to assert that Christ is God. For such passages as those before us show that the truth in question was in- wrought into the mind of Jesus, and that he was in readiness to develop it, directly or indirectly, on every proper occasion. John 5: 21 — 23. 4 - For as the Father raiseth the dead and restoreth them to life, so also the Son restoreth to life whom he pleases. For the Father jndgeth no man, but hath com- mitted all judgment to the Son, that all men might honour . 000H Of they honour the Father?' Is there not here an equality of power and honour, ascrib- ed to the Father and Son? The Son is introduced as " head over all things ;" but could he be such a head, could u all judgment be Committed to him,'' it* at the same time he was nut divine, and consequently omniscient ? It is perfectly plain, that in so far as the u committing of judgment to the Son" is concerned, it must be to the mediatorial person ; to one who in reaped to office 18 subordinate to God. I>ut in so far as qualiii<-its requisite to perform the duties which that commitment requires, are concerned, the Saviour is di- vine ; and the honour to be claimed by him, is the >ame with that which the Divinity himself claims. It matters not whether you interpret this afo& endered to the ; Aw//'/;/' to be paid to him. Multitudes of prophets, it. in.] Kir n 1-1 as commissioned ; , have borne his n 3 of mercy and it to his all, did he granl th prn i 1< _T' - of bring honoured a< himself? Or to wha: g shall the glory of the hies* d ( be rendered, without infringing upon the fundamental princi- pies of both irish and the Christian religion? V i will expert me, I . to adduce John 1": SOj "I and mv Father ai It is a clear thai th< here seem to have understood Christ as claiming equality wit! or rather claiming to be God : m e v. 83* But I am not satisfied, that the manner in which they often expound- ed his word-, is a sure guide for our interpretation of them at the present time. The malignant disposition which they frequently displayed, may well lead us to suspect, that they would, if possible, put such a construction on his words as would subject him to the imputation of blasphemy, or of re- bellion against the Roman government. I would expound the words of Christ, therefore, independently of any construc- tion which his embittered enemies put upon them. And 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 or one in counsel, design, and operation.' So in John 17: 20, 21, Christ prays that "all who shall believe on him may be one. As thou Father," continues he, "art in me, and I in thee, so they also tna-y be one in us;" i. e. that the disciples may have the " same mind which was in Christ Jesus," may copy after his example, and may be united in the temper of their souls to him, as he is to God, and thus may be one with the Father and with him. So also, in Gal. 3: 28, Christians of different ranks and nations are said to be one in Christ ; and 1 Cor. 3: 8, he that planteth and he that watereth are one, i. e. they have the same affections and designs, they are united to accomplish the same object. In the same manner Cicero says : Unus fiat e pluribus, i. e. many constitute one, when persons are united in temper and pursuits ; De Offic. I. 17. 11 122 iTOfomr 03 ptubs. [lett. in. Prom the consideration of those texts, which ascribe to Ohrist, in a general sense, equality with God or divine power and honours, lei us now turn, III. To the examination of those, which assert or imply, that particular divine attributes, or works, tdong to him. 1. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ Matt 11:27. " All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knowcth the Son but the Father; neither kaoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." If, in this passage, the same omniscience be not ascribed to the Son as to the Father, I am unable to make out satisfac- torily what the meaning of it is. In the latter elause of the verse men are declared to be entirely dependent on the Son for that knowledge of the Father which is revealed, i. e. he only is capable of making this revelation. " No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten whodwelleth in the bosom of the Father he hath revealed him? John 1: 18. At the same time I concede it to be jiossible, that the knowledge here spoken of may be merely that which is intended to be revealed in the gospel. John G: 46. Ovy on rov rruTboa ti^ tcoow/.tv, gj ///} 6 cov mxga rov Otoi - mrrog Se&qaxe rov nation. " Because that no man hath seen the Father, save he who is of God ; he hath seen the Father." The word tuinc/.t here does not mean to He with bodily eyes, but icith the mental eye, i. e. to know. What but omniscience could be adequate to the knowledge, which is here predicated of Christ ? And is it a satisfactory explanation of the text, to say, that the know- ledge here meant, is simply that which is conveyed in the instructions of the gospel? In the same manner, the knowledge of the most intimate rets of the human heart is ascribed to Christ. John 2: 2 1, 25, M But Jesus did not commit himself unto them I Qanse he knew all men, and needed not that any should testi- fy of man ; for he knew what was in man." John 6: G4, - riMONY ( i in i:r. "Bui there are aomc of job thai beli- i- For Je knew from the beginning who they were thai believed nut, ami who should betray him." :. '-And liny prayed, and said: Thou, Lord, which knowest the b< all men, show whether of tin i thou hast chosen." Thai h¥f& (xi'mm*) here means .iv plain tVom vs. 21, 22 (oomp. v. I les, this is the common appellation of the Saviour in the Acta ofth I appeal made in tlii- 1 la the choia of an apostle. "Show, Lord," the apostles, "which of these two Aou hast chosen, that he may take part of tin- ministry and apottlesMp." Is there any room to doubt here, that the apostle did appeal to the te Lord who had chosen them, beseeching him to desig- nate who should till the vacancy occasioned by the death of Juda> ! There can be none. 1 Cor. 1: JL 5, •• For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified : but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts ; and then shall every man have praise of God." That Lord (xvniog) here means ('/wist, is plain, both from the office of judging ■Scribed to him, and from his coming to judgment. With- out citing numerous other passages, which confessedly rep- resent Christ as the final judge of all the human race, permit me here to ask : Is it possible for any being who is not om- >t, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can he for thousands of years, (possibly of ages), be present every- where, and know all that is transacted ? Can he penetrate the recesses of the human heart? Can he remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads so diverse in taleii iper, circumstances, and situation, and yet be finite, be neither omnipresent nor omniscient? God claims it as his distinguishing and peculiar prerogative, that he knows the secrets of the human heart, (Jer. 17: 10) ; what then must he be, who knows the secrets of all hearts, at all 124 i i - i [MONT OF SCRIM I I [LETT. III. time-, and in nil worlds? If he be not God, the proof that the Father ie God, must also be defective; ami we have the question again to dispute with the fifanicheang, whether Jehovah he nut a limited ami imperfect being. Bat, yon will Bay: ' Christ acts a> judge by dihgaiti an* thority; why not then by knowledge imparted to him?' lie dm - indeed act as judge by delegated authority, because il in hi- mediatorial capacity that he acta as judge; but to act as judge is one thi be qualified tor such an office is an- other. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge in that capacity : <>nutij>i wiscienee only can qualify him for the duties of that station. And can omniscience be im- parted? We may as well say omnipotence or self-exie t en ce ean he imparted. There is, ami there can be, but em Qodr; and a -econd omniscient being (omniscient simply by know- ledge imparted), would force us into all the absurdities of po- lytheism. Rev. 2: 23. u And all the churches shall know that I am he which seareheth the ivins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." The same per- son speaks here, who "was dead and is alive," i. e. Christ, (ch. 1: 18). The sense of the passage is too plain to need any comment. To conclude this head; when I compare such passages as those above cited with the description of omniscience, how can I doubt that the New Testament writers mean to ascribe the knowledge of all thing* to Christ? To say- that whatsoever pertain- to God or man is known by any being, is to predicate omniscience of that being. Com- pare now with this the knowledge which God ascribes to himself only, in Jer. 17: lb 1<> : •• The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I the LoaO March the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing-." 2. Divine power is ascribed to Christ. Tbil. :J: 21, " Who BhaU change our vile body, that it may LETT. III.] 1 Of * Ml 123 dated like unto his gkrions body, aoeording to thi j whereby he is able even to sobdue all things onto lmi Compare now with this passage, 1 Cor. 15:26 — 26, whore tho mm language is applied to God the Father* And if inbdne all things to himself*" (vmtd£eu r« nivta im* not characteristic of onmipotenoe in PhiL8:2J when applied to Christ, why should it be so when applied in 1 Cor. xv. to the Father i Heb- 1: -'). *Og (av anavyaafia tijg 96%tjg -/au yuuic/.T^n rij$ i 7' )g avrov, (//oojr 7t ru navxa ?

r), di iaartoi xaduniouor noHjoapepog rdJ* (c: Mo8f gladly then would I rejoice in my in- firmities that the strength of Christ (ij 8vvoju$ Xntcroi), may rest upon inc." A clearer case that Christ was the ob- r of the Apostle's repeated prayer, cannot well be presented. T. III. | tONY PTURE. 181 1 'I : 11, 12. "Now Cod himself even our Father, !• [.on! .!. mi- Christ, direct oar waj into you. And the Lord make y«»u to inerra-r and abound in lovr our to- ward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you i any distinction be here made, between the rank of tlioM* wli.» are addressed in supplication by the apostle? the twelfth verse plainly show, that the suppli- cation of the apostle is specially directed to the Lord, i. a to Gkrk 1 Them. ± 16, 17. " Now oar Lord Jem Christ himself, and n our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work." Here the order of the persons, to whom supplication is made, is the reverse of that in the last instance quoted ; which shows that nothing depends on the order, but that it was a matter of indifference with the apostle, which was placed first; the supplication being equally addressed to the Father and to Christ. Rom. 1:7. " To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints : Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Here the same blessings are solicited and expected, from Christ and from the Father. See the same formula repeated in 1 Cor. 1: 3. 2 Cor. 1: 2. Acts 1:24. "And they prayed and said: Thou, Lord, which k no west the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen." That Lord here means the Lord Jesus, seems evident from vs. 21, 22. It is the usual appellation, moreover, which the book of Acts gives to the Saviour. (See above, p. 104.) 2 Tim. 1: 1 1. u The Lord reward him according to his work- I" Again vs. 17, 18: "Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me ; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear : 132 TESTIMONY OF BC&EPTtJBE. [LETT. III. ami I was deKvtered out of the mouth of the lion. Auaid : Silver and gold have I none, hut such as I have give I ti in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk," Acts 3: G. Nor can I see how the solemn adjuration by Christ (n- yoa~>T(^). which the apostle Uses in Kom. 9: 1. 1 Tim. 2: 7 (text, recept.), can be separated from religious invocation or appeal. We mnsl add to all these instances of worship, the fact that Christian- were so habituated to address their supplica- tions to Christ, that the expression, " they who invoke Christ," became, as it would seem, a kind of proper name, by which they were in primitive times designated as Christians. Thus Paul (1 Cor. 1: 2) addresses himself to all £ntxu).ov- ft&POlS ro inniui tov y.vofov Tjpmv jfytfOt! Xnt<7TOU, IP ttuiti Torres, who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in EVERY place. That the verb fauxaXem is an appropriate one to designate the act of prayer, will not be questioned. The literal translation of it is to invoke. The simple mean- ing of the passage is: 'I address myself to all Christian-.' But instead of using the name Christians directly, the apostle a periphrasis and says : To all the invokers of Christ, i. e. to those who pray to him, meaning the same as uyioi^, xA//- rnu\ etc., in the context. He has signified also, that the practice of invoking Christ was not confined to Corinth. He addresses "those who pray to Christ in every place" (fV 7rur~ 7/ roj^). Exactly in the same manner does Ananias describe Chris- tians, when the Lord JesUS bade him go to instruct and com- fort Saul. * Lord," said he, u I have heard of many con- cerning this man, what things he has done (*0I£ hind all (rms* /.7/;: rn &*ot< who invoke thy name," L <•. all Christians. thing repeated in v. 21. The very heathen, in tin* primitive age of Christianity, little a< they knew about Christiai red thai tbsy made Christ an object of worship. l'liny, in writing to Trajan: M Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, Boiiti essent [i Christiani] die aim invieem. They (Christians) sing in social worship a hymn to Christ as a God." (Lib. X. Epic Bnsebius too, (Ecc Hist v. 28), in writing against the tendonites, appeals tu the ancient songs, of Christians, thus : u What. -v. a- psalms and hymns were composed by faithful brethren, from t lie beginning, praise Christ the word of God" Can any example of a church in the apostolic age, which did not practice thus, be produced? Did not the Saviour give his disciples a general precept and encouragement, to make him the object of player? "If ye shall ask anything in my name," i. e. as my disciples, on my account, said he to the apostles, " I will accomplish it," ( ty gj 7ioi>]c)U>) ; John 14: 13, 14. The disciples appear to me to have understood this, as directing that he should be regarded by them as the special object of prayer. Hence, instead of finding few or no examples of prayer to Christ, in the history of the primitive Christians as exhibited in the New Testament, I find more of this nature than of any other. "When I have contemplated the precepts which encourage prayer to Christ and the worship of him, both by the inhabi- tants of the heavenly world and by the churches on earth, I then compare these things with the exclusive worship and trust which Jehovah claims to himself. Is. 4o: 22, 28, " Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by my- self, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every 12 131 PB8TIMONY 01 9< RE. [LETT. III. tongue shall swear." Is. 1-: 8* u I am the Lord ; that is my mime, and my glory will I n<»t give to another, neither my praise to graven images. 91 Jer. 17: 6 — 7. "'Jim- s*itfc the Lord : Cursed be the man that trnsteth in man. and maketh Beih his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord ; for lie Bhall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not when good oometb, hut shall inhabit parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trnsteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. M Matt. 1. 1<>, u Then saith Jesos unto him: Gel thee hence, Satan ; lor it is written : Thou -halt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serv< I am ready now to a *k, whether I can avoid coming to the conclusion, either that Christ is truly divine, inasmuch as he is BO often represented as the object of Worship ; or that the sacred writers have mistaken this great point, and led us to that which must be considered as idolatry. And yet the worship of Christ is placed, as it would seem, \\\ opposition to that of idols, 1 Cor. 8: 1 — 6. That Christianity utterly and forever renounces all idolatry — all polytheism, in a word, everything inconsistent with the worship of one only living and true Cod. is a point so plain and so universally conceded, that I shall not dwell lor a moment upon it. Were it not that J fear becoming tedious, by detailing my reasons for believing in the divine nature of Christ, I should add a great number of text-, which require us with all the heart to love him; to obey him; to Confide in him; and to commit ourselves to him; in such a manner as lean never per- BOade my8elf to do. with respect to any being who is not God. The New Testament tells me that my consolation, my privi- lege, my happiness must i»e derived from trusting in Christ Bat can I trust myself to bjinite being, when I have an infi- mte 9 almighty^ all-sufficient COD to whom ] may go? Shall J be satisfied with a mere mite, when more than all the mil of Peru are set before m< I might also add those texts, some of which are very . 111.1 TESTIMONY Ol SCRIP! 135 atrikiii'_ r ones, where, in the New Testa the very same 1 lii 1 i applied to Christ, which in the Old Testament arc 1 of Jehovah. cimeiis of these follow : 10 T r I am undone. .mi a in in of Mich* in lips j I >i 1 I n flew 01 plum unto in-'. Ii live coal in his hand, with t!i»' t-.n.. altar. lid it upon my mouth, and : this hath touched thy I and thine iniquity h tak m away, and thy sin purged. Also 1 heard the !. ying: Whom shall I send, and who will go for 11 said I : Here am 1. send And he said : Go and tell this '••. Hear yc indeed, but under- il not : an e indeed, but not Make the heart of this le tar. and make their y, and shut their eyes ; lest they with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Mai. 3: 1. Behold, I will send my 1 r. and he shall pre- pare the way before me ; and the ,. whom k, shall sud- ly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in ; behold, he shall •. saith the Lord of hosts. Pa. 7^: 56. Yet they tempted and oked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies. 7—41. But though he had done -o mam miracles before them, yet they believed not on him ; that • 1 in- the pro- phet might !><• fulfilled, which he spake : Lord, w bo hath beii< <>ur report ' and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ! Therefore thej could not bcl luse that Esaias said again : I [e hath blinded their eyes, and har- dened their heart, that they should uot see with their eyes, nor under- stand with their heart and be con- verted, and I should heal them. >e things said Esaias, when he saw his [Cnrist's] glory and spake of him- Mark 1:2. As it is written in the prophets: Behold, I -end my mes- senger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 1 Cor. 10: 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempt- ed, and were destroyed of serpents. It were easy greatly to increase the number of such passages BS these : bat I shall desist Instead of that want of evidence, in the New Testament, with respect to the divinity of Christ, of which you repeatedly speak, and in strong terms, I find evidence almost everywhere to illustrate or to confirm the doc- trine in question. In fact it is often developed, to the practised eye, where a superficial reader would not even suspect it. For ex- 186 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. ITT. ample ; in Rev. 2: 17, a promise is made to him that over- aagteth, that he shaH cat of the hidden manna, and wear a diadem like that of the high-priest, on the front of which is a precious -tour, and in this "a lit w name is written, which no man knowctli, >a\<- liim tliat teceil eth it." This is intelligi- ble only by a reference to the Jewish customs and the bigh- ts mitre The proper name of God, viz. Jehovah, was never pronounced bj the Jews, at least in later tii and in the Hebrew Bible it has no vowel points appropriate 16 guide the pronunciation, but is always read as "^ix or :"n:K. and bo translated Lord or God, Josephus says, that it was not allowed to the Jews to pronounce the name Jeho- vah. Still, this name was inscribed on a metallic plate, fixed upon the front of the high-priest's mitre. That priest was the only one entrusted with the secret of pronouncing it; which he is understood to have done (by himself), when blessing the people. This explains the phrase, " which no man knoweth. save he that receiveth it." A mic name is to be added to this, on the mitre of H him that overcometh." What new name is there, then, that can be associated with the dread name of Jehovah ? I know of but one ; and this Pafll has developed] when he says that to Christ is given "a name that is above every name ... a name at which every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," Thil. 2: 9, 10. The name of Jesus, then, is to be associated with the awful, the peculiar, the incommunicable name of .Jehovah, on the crown of glory which the faithful follower of JesOS will wear, in the world of light and lo\e. That I have rightly referred this new name to Jesus, sec in- to be clear from his own word- in Rev. 3: 12, " I will write npon him mg new name." And again in Kev. ID: 12, lu, Christ is represented as having on his many crowns, "a name written, which no man knew but himself, 1 ' i- e. a -a- Cred, unpronounceable name ; which in the sequel is -aid to be Tm: Word oi («<>i>. But where shall I end, if I go on pointing out similar casts :il.] 9TIM0N1 PTUBE. 187 lental evidence in favour of the great doctrine in qQ tion ? An attentive Bad intelligent reader cannot tail to de- cern them in very many portions of the New Testament i and to find them, moreover, bo conditioned, thai the writer ap- mly to build on the doctrine in question, aa om that is acknowledged and fell to be tree. This 1 regard as kind. In giving the preceding brief summary of scriptural evi- iki divinity of Christ, you will perceive that I have omitted a considerable number of texts, which are of- tentimes adduced to establish the point in question. I have done this tor several reason* First, those texts, the genuine lea di ng of which is fairly questionable, I could not with pro- priety adduce ; e. g. 1 John T>: 7 and some others. Secondly, a p loubtful as to its genuineness, can add nothing to the weight of authority, when the strength of evidence is sifted and pondered. Thirdly, I regard an eagerness to seize on everything of this nature, and to press it into our service, indicative of a feeling on our part, that our cause is some- what wanting in adequate support, and therefore must be propped up by all sorts of shores, sound and unsound. Some Trinitarians, I concede, (and it is to my great regret), have not unfrequently shown such an eagerne-s. But they are not alone in it. Unitarians, for the most part, put attacks upon the genuineness of certain texts, in the very van of their in- vading army. It is a mistaken policy. The text in 1 John o: 7 is beyond all question indefensible. But all the other cases of this nature which are of any importance, e. g. 1 Tim. o: 10, and several others, are so plainly and decidedly against them on diplomatic grounds, that I am astonished to see such attacks continually repeated. They can surely make no real advances in this way. The unskilled public may indeed, for a while, be mi-led. But sooner or later the truth will come out. B it' we should concede to them every text against the genuineness of which they contend on the ground of defective diplomatic certainty, it would do their cause no service. These are so few, and the texts which are full and 12* 138 V OF SCRITTl 1 [LETT. in. direct and above nil exception nre so many and nr, that the main question mast lie just where it did before these in the controversy began. For my part, although it were eafey to double the passages that might be employed in defending the Godhead of* Christ, when compared with those quoted above) J have no ambition or desire to do tin'-. Afl 1 have already -aid. it is not on the nwnfer, but on the quality and character of the witnesses that I would lay stresa. My feeling is, that the testimony proffered in behalf of the cause which \ advocate, is veracious and unimpeachable. Notwithstanding these considerations, however, I feel bound, before I quit the production of testimony, to appeal to one or two texts more, which have an indirect bearing on the Godhead of Christ, and a direct one, as it BeefiM to me, on the doctrine <>f tlte Trinity. I do this principally, because we are constantly challenged to ' produce from the New Tes- tament, anything which looks like the doctrine of a Trinity.' At the moment when Jesus was about to leave the world and ascend to the Father, he addressed his disciples and said : M All power is given to me in heaven and on earth ; Go ye. therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," Matt. 28: 18, 10. On this p&sSage T remark, first, that there is every appe a r * ance of tqttotUy here, so far as it respects the relation of the baptized person to each of these. Secondly, the iirst two of these will surely be admitted to be person* : the third must therefore be something different from a mere influence or energy, or else the language is very strange, and greatly ex- peeed to misapprehension. Thirdly, the ancient Israeli were M all baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10: 2), i. e. they ac- knowledged Moses as their lawfully constituted head and lawgiver, and that they were his followers and disciples. So in the new and better dispensation, where a mere human head or lawgiver gives place to one of higher rank, the di pies of Christ were to be u baptized into Father, Son, and Holy GhoSl ;" by which they came of COUrSC t<> acknowledge LETT, in.] KITTl 139 Father, Son, and rhoet, as tl eirhead, la* redeemer, and sanctiti . as if ti B meant to place this truth at the ?eij bead of all ( "hri-tian profession an 1 ack I j BOt the name, indeed! bo! the thi the Holy Spirit a sere ttt^M H can ti. ttdi ak i with tl al Kat: 1 in the samerelati liani as be hinu ■ met" 'an ground. The natural force ami meanii _ inch language is lost, or ob- ftcoi any e: 3 of it which they can give. Ami wli. _ a forced moaning t hemindnei rest~ with it, unless it is filled with party spirit, or obseur gnoranee. A a ad passage, kindred to tibia, is in 2 Cor. 13s 14. It runs thus : u The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of < iod, and the communion of the Holy Ghc ith Hl-w is a: least a prayer or supplication, on the part of Paul. To whom is it directed? To the Father, (for so God is here to be d Sod, and Holy Ghost is is the most natural construction. Still, I acknowledge the possibility of a different interpretation, viz. one which regards Paul as ex- ish, that ail the bh which God and Christ and the II it bestow, be th al they may. may rest upon the Corinthians. Viewed light, the | *e might not be decisive as to the divine nature of each. Thus John wit 5 g ace and peace to tl - n churches of Asia from •• Him who was and is and is to come, and from before his throne,' 1: 4. Paul aa; M I eha _ and the Lord • and the elect ai _ .1 Tim. o: 21. Ti: Saviour himi .iks ofcont dthful folio s" before th _ Sod," Luke 1 In all tl ngeh of God, i. e. angels of the highest order, in immediate waiting before his throne, are doubtless meant. Yet in neither case is a ation addressed to them. They are recog- 140 i"\Y OP SCRIPTUBE. [LETT. III. wsed in the Apocalypse as tin- instruments of dispensing 1>1< iags, and in the other oases as in immediate attendance be- fore the throne of heavenly majesty. Jt is possible, therefore, to view the text, in 2 (or. 13: 11, in BOme such light] and in BUOh a case, it WOaM not follow with certainty that the be- nedict ion there uttered necessarily implies a Trinity in the Godhead. lint when we take into full view the formula of Christian baptism, it seem- to my mind more probable, that Pan! has spoken in conformity with this. At all events, it' the form of doxology employed in church ■vices, is not to be found in the New Testament, the sub- stance of the thing is there. The doxologies to Christ, scat- tered through the epistles and the Apocalypse, are inexplica- ble on the ground of Unitarianism. " To him be glory and dominion forever and ever," '2 Pet. 3: 18. " Christ, over all, God blessed forever. Amen." Rom. 9: 5. These are speci- mens. And if Christ is merely a created being, and still more if he is a mere man, these doxologies are some of the strangest of all things which Christianity has disclosed, or which it requires us to believe and practise. How can we believe that so enlightened a dew as Paul could employ them, unless he believed that Christ is divine! Thus have I endeavoured to show, that the New Testa- ment bestows upon Christ the appellation of God, accom- panied by such adjuncts as naturally, (not to say necessarily), lead us to understand this word in its highest sense; that it attributes to him equality with God; that it represents him the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the universe; declares his omniscience, his omnipotence, and his eternity; and both by precepts and examples, exhibits Christ as the object of prayer and divine worship, by the church in heaven I on earth. To these conclusions, do the plain rules of exegesis necessarily conduct me. 1 am sensible that allega- tions are frequently made, that we receive our systems belief from the Creeds and Confessions of faith, which In '•hra$eulu- I r. in.] -i [MOB Kii'ii | 111 :i derived from nun, who too boldly, and substituted nam i leas* I am heady t<> con- I feel the embarrassments, which, on account of this, mally thrown in the way of inculcating troth at the present time. .\| apt to suppo-e. that it' you throw away the old term* Of ni>, ascribes to him such attributes and works, a$ leave* me no room to doubt that the New Tesiameni writers meant to assert his prop divinity. After stating your apprehensions in regard to the doctrine thai Christ lias two natures, the belief of which you affirm to be "an enormous tax on human credulity," you say : "I atu aware that these remarks will he met by two or three texts, in which Christ IS called God ^ and by a class of pa- not very numerous, in which divine properties are .-aid to be ascribed to him,'' p. 11. Whether the number of texts in which Christ is called God, amounts to no more than two or three, it would be superfluous now to inquire, when they lie before us, and can easily be counted. We can also judge, whether the class of passages is "not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him," with equal facility. It is too late, however, for you and me to rest our faith upon the number of passages that inculcate a doc- trine. We have conceded the liible to be of divine authority. The simple question is : What does any passage mean, ac- cording to the rules of interpretation admitted in all other Oases ? This being ascertained, only two courses are before 06 : the one to receive its meaning as the guide of our faith; the other to reject its authority, and deny our obligation to believe the decisions of the Scripture. If the New Testament does teach that Christ is not really divine, but a mere finite creature, and this can be made out by an unbiassed interpre- tation of it, I must either receive this doctrine, receive it im- plicitly, (for if I am not deceived in respect to myself, I only desire to know what God has taught in order to believe it), or else I must reject all claims to inspiration in the sacred writer-, and follow their instructions only so far as they coin- cide with my own speculations. 1 am fully satislied there is no ii i r. in. f OF SCRIPTURE, 1 18 middle path here ; and thai a man who investigates for him- Ktensively and independently, must eventually follow one or the other of these com \ ince me then thai jrou apply the principles of interpre- tation which you have laid down, in an unbiassed manner, and thai the New Testament does according to them clearly h that Jesus ifl not, and cannot be, divine, and yon will make me a convert to the doctrines, (at least to Borne of them), which yon embrace. Where the apostle- lead me, I will <_ r o ; or if not, then I will renounce all deference to them. While 1 have a being also, I will cherish a grateful remem- brance of any man, who shall convince me by sound reason- ing, that I am in an error on this great subject, and am wan- dering from the path of life. But you will allow me to say, what you will doubtless af- firm of yourself: k I cannot be convinced, until I am satisfied that my principles of interpretation are wrong, and my ap- plication of them erroneous.' You have described (p. 14) in what manner you avoid the conclusion drawn from those texts which call Christ God, and which apparently ascribe divine attributes to him. On the principles of exegesis which you have there disclosed, I shall remark in another letter. I will at present say only, that they appear to me far from be- ing well established. I hope your candour will concede, that the positions which I have just laid down are correct, and are such as become every sincere lover of truth. I am quite ready to grant, that we ought not to expect to convince you and your friends, by using reproachful epithets or severe appellations. We can- not convince you by appealing to our New England fathers, or to their creeds ; to the ancient fathers of the church, or to any body of men whatever. You may always say in reply to us : * Are not men fallible? And have not the best of uninspired men cherished some errors? Give us the reasons why our fathers received the doctrines in question, and then we will hear you ; the fact that they did receive them is merely a part of church history, but certainly no theological Ill 51 MOW! OF B< KM'l DBS. [LETT. in. jument The papal hierarchy is supported by many of the ancient lathers ; and perhaps there never has been a sect in Christendom, who did not feel that they might make an appeal to fathers, whom they at least respected.' To this reply J have nothing to object • can we convince you, by a tenacious and unrea able opposition to all critical examination of the New Testa- ment ; or by throwing out hints in our sermons or writings, that critical studies belong only to those who have a wish to be heretical or skeptical ; or by a forced and mystical expla- nation of various passages of Scripture, and converting them to the Support of sentiments Which they never were designed to support. The sound rules of interpretation will soon sweep away every vestige of such defective and extravagant opinions about the word of God; and orthodoxy must Stand or fall, at last, by the simple decision of the Scriptures inter- preted according to the general laws of language. On the other hand; you will, I hope, as cheerfully concede that we cannot be convinced by calling us hard names ; by misrepresenting our sentiments; by proving that Calvin helped to burn Servetus ; by affirming that our sentiments come from creeds and confessions of human authority, fabri- cated by superstition and philosophy ; by representing us as gloomy, superstitious, malignant, and unsocial ; by appropri- ating to Unitarians all that is kind and noble and generous and exalted, adn leaving to us only all that is opposite to these virtues; by affirming that we tire desirous of infringing upon Christian liberty, and of establishing an Inquisition to de- fend Our sentiments, and by exhorting others to resist such ty- ranny; or by representing US as admitting in words that God is kind and paternal, while we think meanly of him. and treat him the heathen did their Jupiter. Such things may add fuel to the fire of controversy ; but can the lover of truth and of the word of God be Convinced by them I They are the ; indeed of controversialists — and arts like them, I am -orry to say, aiv not confined to any one party. Passion has m< control over disputants than they arc' aware of. Zeal for : r. ill.] I i (MOOT "i B< Kii'H U • 1 T> what Ihey believe to be truth, w whal they think inspii them: while perhape their words, or the spirit of their rep- leotations, " breathe <>ut threatening*," it' no! " daughter/ 1 |q their opponents. I hardly dare trust myself to write this paragraph, least I should catch the spirit while I am describ- it. I know in some measure how frail I am; bid I think 1 A of such a spirit, in whatever party it may be found In consulting writers of different views and sentiments, one grieved to find how much of this spirit has been indulged. I have seen it even in many great and good men. Possessed of feelings naturally ardent, I am aware that there is reason to tremble tor myself, lest I may, in some respect or other, transgress the laws of Christian propriety in these letters, and hinder in a measure the conviction, in the minds of some, which they might possibly produce. In one thing we shall certainly be agreed. The sober in- quirer after truth must be convinced by reason and argument. All else is nothing to him. And where these lead him, he will go. The path of truth is the path of duty. The appro- bation of God is worth infinitely more to a sincere and candid and honest and believing heart, than all the honour which party zeal can bestow, or the world is able to give. POSTSCRIPT. After finishing the above letter, your "Note for the second Edition" came to hand. But as it seemed to me, that most which it contained had already been anticipated, I did not think it of importance to change the shape of the preceding letter, and adapt it to your Note as w r ell as to your Sermon. I was still less inclined to this, because I had endeavored, as far as possible, to avoid giving any personal shape to the controversy; knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject all con- troversies soon become, when personalities are admitted. I have not the most distant design of saying anything, with a view to wound your personal sensibility ; but I do feel, and I ought to 13^ 14G POSTSCRIPT. [lett. in. feel, a deep interest in addressing the understanding and reason of a man, who by bis weight of character, sobriety of mind, and eminent talents, has acquired bo much influence in society as you have. And in order to do thia with propriety, I have en- deavored as far as possible, to throw the whole Bubject into the shape of a discussion respecting principles; and to avoid that form of writing, which too commonly involves >nal reflec- tion. Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few things, which the perusal of your Note has suggested to m I am unable to reconcile the fust passage of your Note, with another, in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say : "We are told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, the same Being as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity is to reveal him in this character. 9 ' In the latl you sa\ : M According to this doctrine, [i. e. the doctrine of the Trinity], there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Each of these persons, as descrihed by theologians, has his own par- ticular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's so- ciety. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate 4 office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father ds the Son, and is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like Che Son, of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelli- gent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings arc. 1 to he 1 formed. '' Bui how can Trinitarian's maintain that Jesus Christ is the "saw Being as the Father," when a prominent trait of their d< trine is, that there i< a distinction between him and the Father? You yourself represent them as even holding this distinction to be equal to that which exists between two different men. This indeed is incorreet j hut it is equally so, to represent them holding that Jesus Christ is the u $>tm< Being as the Father™ if you mean by this the BCtnU in all rcspn-fs. Nor can 1 see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if Chri som i , have passed the whole of John h l, with mevelg oeae* sseating on the namt d*of« Mj deer Sir, can \<>u expeel to sat* i-t\ eandid inquirers with this! Are you " () t bound to tell us how tin- Ijogos (Won 1) could artak the worlds (va TruVru, the uni\n>. ethia text is disposed of? You must toll us how '/'/v power, the highest, the distinguishing act of Deity, which the characteristic and prominent feature of the true ! in distinction from all false gods, (Is. 10: 10 and onward), ean be fdtgakdl When you can explain this, then yon will bring us upon ground, where we shall be unable to controvert the Gnostics, who denied that the Jehovah of the Old Testa- ment is the supreme God. Inferior power, they maintained, competent to create the world. What loss do they, who ibe creation to Christ and yet reject his divinity? Why should you pass over all that on which we rely for proof, and touch only that on which we do not profess to place confident reliance? I mean, why should you descant on the name God, and say nothing of the attributes ascribed to him who bears this name? If we should argue in the same manner with you, ought we to expect to convince you ? Much less could we fairly acquit our consciences of an obligation to represent fairly the gospel of Christ to the world, should we publish to them a solemn appeal, in which we should endeavor to make them be- lieve, that all the arguments in favor of a particular doctrine held by many Christians, consisted in that very thing on which they did not rely ; or at most, in that which constituted merely but a part of their grounds of belief. The simile from Plato and Socrates, 1 must think, is less hap- pily chosen, than your fine taste and cultivated mind commonly lead you to choose. In the same breath that you say " Plato was in the beginning with Socrates, and was Socrates," you add, "that whoever saw and heard Plato, saw and heard, not Plato, but Socrates, and that as long as Plato lived, Socrates lived and taught." That is, your first sentence would either be not at all understood, or understood of course in a sense totally different from that which you meant to convey, unless you added a commentary along with the sentence. John has in- deed added a commentary; but this is, that he means to call Christ the God who created the Universe. Of this commentary you have taken no notice. But of this you are bound to take 13* 150 rOSTSCKIi'T. [LETT. III. notice, ifyoq mean to convince those who differ from you, or to deal uprightly with those whom you design to instruct. On the texts John 20: 2a Acta 20: 28. Rom. 9: 5. J Tim. dt 16 Ilcb. 1: (». and John .*>: '.20, I have already said what 1 wish to >a\. at present The remarks in your Notes do not sinn to call for any new investigation. you say, (near the elose of your Note), that you have " col- lected all the passages in the New Testament in which Jet supposed to he called (iod." The foregoing letter, however, does represent us as supposing that there are still more, in which lie is called Cod; although I have omitted not a lew, in which many Trinitarians have tttppostd that Christ is called God. Why you should affirm this, when nearly every hook on the doctrine of the Trinity that ever has been published by Trinitarians, will contradict it, I am unahle to explain. Von repeal also the assertion here, " that in two or three pas- thc title [of God] may he given him, [Christ] ; hut in every case, it is given in connections and under circumstances, which imply that it is not to he received in its highest and most literal sense." But in no single instance have you noticed the "connections and circumstances," in which the appellation God is bestowed on Christ. Can you reasonably expect your thinking readers will take this assertion upon credit? Are you not sacredly ob- ligated to prove to these same readers, by the Scriptures interpre- tdl according to Hie universal laws of exjdaining human language that the New Testament writers have not ascribed to Christ creative power, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, divine worship, ditoine honours, and denial existence? What are names in this dispute? Show that these attributes are not ascribed to Christ, and you make us Unitarians at once. Do not take the advantage of representing our arguments as consisting in thai on which we do not place reliance, and then say to your read- ers: 'Tbifl is all which Trinitarians have to allege in their own favour.' Dispute can never he terminated in this way. Meet fairly and openly the points in debate. Many of your readers are too intelligent to he satisfied with any other course. Any other does not become your high character and distinguished talents. LETT. IV.] M L» NATURE OF CHRIST. 151 L E T T B R I V. i bend and \)\ ub Sir, I\ my Lbi Letter,] ende aroo red to- offer reasons why I believe that Christ i< truly divine. You will very naturally m< to take some notice of those texts, on which you tally rely, to prove bis inferiority to the Father. This I must do ; but in as summary a manner as possible. Not because it would not be easy to say much, even more y than to write brieily, and yet with perspicuity; but be- cause there would be danger of protracting the subject, and tiring the patience of readers. Let me begin, then, by stating certain things which are intimately connected with the subject in question. While I believe that Christ is truly divine, I believe that he is as tridy human, i. e. that he was a real man, and lived, acted, suffered, and died as a man. He resembled, however, man in his primitive state, i. e. Adam as he came out of the hands of his Maker, lie was pure and sinless. But he possessed all the feelings and all the innocent infirmities of human nature. I know no proposition that can possibly be proved from the New Testament, if this cannot ; nor do I know of a more ab- surd heresy than that of the Doceta3, who averred that Christ was a man in appearance merely, and not in reality. I had actually added to this last sentence, the following one : " In this, I know, you perfectly accord with me ;" but hesitating for a moment whether it was correct, I instituted a a reexamination of your Sermon, in order to see if this were the case. I can scarcely express my surprise, when, after a diligent search, I was not able to find an intimation that Christ was truly and properly a man. All that you maintain is, that he was a being distinct from the Father, and inferior to him. I must retract therefore my sentence against the lo2 iivmax NAina. (>f cum [lett. rv. Dooetoj lest I should Beem to have treated your opinion with v.rity. I > 1 1 1 the state of my mind in regard to the weight of evidence, I cannot retract If the evidence be not over- whelming, tliat Christ was perfectly man, I eannot conceive it possible, that any point in theology or morals is capable of being established. The Gnostics maintained, that from the supreme Divinity pro ceed ed certain Eons, who were a kind of lesser gods ; and one of whom (Christ) created the world. This Eon descend- ed upon Jesus at his baptism, and forsook him at his cruci- fixion. In what important respect he differs from this, who holds t<> a supcrangelic soul in Christ, and a human body, it most be presumed you do), I confess I cannot see. The Sor'mian theory seems to me incomparably more ration- al, and more tenable, in respect to this matter, than any shade of the Arian hypothesis. If the evidence be not com- plete, that Christ was really a man from his birth, actions, sufferings, death, and affirmations respecting himself, then how is it to be proved that Christ ever existed at all ? And will you refuse to assent to the proposition, that Christ partici- pated in the divine nature, because you cannot see how such a union of different natures could take place, and yet believe that a human body was united to a soul not human? To what order or class of beings, then, does this new compound and strangely mixed person belong? He is not divine; he is not human, for a human soul is surely essential to human nature ; nor is he angelic, for angels have no corporeal forms. Are we to be freed from muster}/, then, by such a view of Christ 's person? It does seem to me, if there be mystery in any theory which has ever been proposed respect- ing the person of Christ, it is surely to be found here. I will not say, (as you do about the twofold nature of Christ in which we believe), that "it is an enormous tax upon human credulity;" but I must say, that it appears to me more like SUCh a tax, than any other theory with which the church has hitherto been agitated. I can never bring myself to view it as probable, in the remotest degree, unless I iind it in the it. iv.] ii ; I Hut there I find that the Logos, who existed be- 1 1 1" world wa> made, u.i- 6 n that God wlm < \ tool then admit him to be it super- angelic being simply, until 1 am convinced, either thai John was mistaken, or Lhat his Lai has a different meaning Q that which it plainly appears to have. Afl to the which maintains that Christ w;is God's Son, before the creation of the world, (and of course before his incarnation), and Cod'- own Son in the in which Solomon was the son of David, it is natural to ask, first: Who then was his mother! And ondly: How much do the Divinities of the Christian tern, viewed in such a light as this, differ from Jupiter and his progeny among the Greeks and Romans ? After all, I cannot but hope that I have not understood you correctly, and that 1 have not sullicient grounds to believe that you embrace any species of Arianisrn, or deny the proper humanity of Christ. For if this humanity be not a matter of fact, I cannot help believing, that we must forever aban- don the hope of acquiring any definite ideas of what the wri- - of the New Testament meant to teach, in any case what- ever. To return to my purpose. The proper humanity of Christ being considered as an established fact, I have one general observation to make on the principles of exegesis which are connected with it. It is this, viz., that inasmuch as Christ has truly a human nature, everything said of him in respect to this nature, must necessarily be spoken of him in a capacity in which he is inferior to the Father. In a word, as his human nature is inferior to the divine, so whatever has relation to it, or is predicted of it, must of course be that which implies inferior- ity to the divine. We do then, (if you will allow me to use your own ex- pressive words, though applied by you in a manner some- what different), M we do maintain, that the human properties and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings and death 154 HI/MAX NATllir. 01 CHBI8T. [LKTT. IV. — his praying to God, his ascribing to God all hh power and offices; the acknowledged properties of Christ, we Bay, oblige us to interpret" them o( human nature; and to draw the conclusion that whatever could be predicated of a real man, pk>US and sinless might be predicated of him. How would he — how could he — have assumed our nature, (except as the DocetSB affirmed that he did, viz. in appearance only), Unless everything could he predicated of him which properly belongs to man? Accordingly, we know that " he increased in wisdom, stature, and favour with God and man;" that he ate, drank, slept, laboured; Was fatigued, hungry, thirsty ; rejoiced and .sympathized with his brethren, wept, Was in an agony — prayed, bled, died, was buried, and rose again. If these things do not forever exclude all hope of making any shade of the Arian theory probable, I must confess that I am an entire stranger to the nature of evidence, and to what the New Testament contains. Do you ask me, how you shall distinguish, when a text speaks of Christ in respect to his human nature, or in respect to his divine nature? I answer : Just as when you speak of a man, you distinguish whether what is said relates to liis body or his soul. When I say : 'Abraham is dead,' I mean obviously his mortal part When I say: 'Abraham is alive/ I mean obviously his immortal part. When the evangelist says that Jesus increased in stature, and wisdom, and in favour with God and man ; and when he allirms of him other things predicable of our human nature, he obviously means to apply all this to his human nature. When he allirms that the Logos is God, and that he made the universe ; when the apostle Bays, that he is God over all and blessed forever; I cannot help thinking it to be equally obvious, that tiiey pre- dicate this of his (Heine nature. The simple answer to your question then is, that we must determine which nature is meant, by what IS affirmed Concerning it. The subject is known Sjy its predicaU$ i i. e. ex praedieatis cernitur subjec- turn. To the remarks just made on the proper humanity of r. iv.] in-M vv N LWB iikist. 155 Chr 1 to the principles of ; ^ which result fa it, let m add, andly, that the appellation Father, is not always It designate that distinction in the Godhead which wt com- nonlv describe by calling it thr first permm* It is sometimes a general title of the divine nature, (fik* Unit. •»-: 6. Naiah 63: Matt. :>: 16, ft. ft t. 7: 11. John 8: 11). In manner Kvqios (Lord) is often applied to Christ particular; and sometimes to God 88 a general appella- tion. The divinity is called Father, on account of that pe- culiar and provident care which he extends to all the crea- tures of his power. He is called Lord (Kvnio^), because of Us uniwrsal dominion. Proper attention to this obvious principle will explain several pttf which have been thought to relate merely to what is denominated the first person in the Trinity, and to ascribe properties to him in an exclusive manner. Thirdly, there is another observation, which I cannot re- frain from making here, and which seems to me of great im- portance, in regard to our mode of thinking and reasoning on the subject of the distinction in the Godhead. This is, that no terms which are applied by the Scriptures to designate this distinction, or to predicate anything of it, can be sup- posed fully and definitely to express what exists in the God- head, or what is done by it. The obvious reason of this is, that the language of men, (being all formed from perceptions of finite objects, by beings who are of yesterday, and whose circle of vision is extremely limited), cannot possibly be ade- quate to express fdly and definitely what pertains to the self- existent and infinite God. How often do men forget this, in their reasonings about the Deity ! In some things, nearly all men agree in observing caution, with regard to language which is applied to God. When the Scripture speaks of his having eyes, ear-, hand-, feet, etc., all men, who do not rave with Immanuel Swedenborg, understand these terms as being figurative. They do so for the obvious reason, that God is a spirit, and that things of this nature can be literally. pre- 156 norAX natcke of ctiri [lett. rr. fficat c(l only of human beings that have flfesh and blood. AVe mean to say : I Sod sees ; God hears; God orti ; God /^ when we attribute to him those members, which we employ in performing Bach acts. And still, tins language i-. from the nature of the case, nn l v an approximation to a full and complete description. What corresponds in tin* infinite, omniscient, omnipresent Spirit, to our seeing, and fcoi and dctiiKj, and moving^ must necessarily be different, in many important respects, from all the8C things in us. When we say: (iod is in heaven ; the Lord looked down, or came down, from heaven: Jehovah upon a throne high and lifted up ; or when we predicate anything of liim which corresponds to the exaltation and magnificence of earthly monarch* ; we understand, of course, that this lan- guage i- not to be taken literally, and as adequate to a com- plete description, but only as the language of approximation. When we say: God is angry; God hates: God scorns; the Lord will deride, will laugh, will frown, will abhor, and the like ; do we predicate all these things of God in a literal manner, or do we understand them all as conveying to us an idea of something in the divine affections, actions, or mode of treating us, which corresponds to something that men do or feel ? The answer is very obvious; and in all this mat- ter we apprehend or feel little or no difficulty. At least, none but enthusiastic visionaries, who would fain make heaven like earth, and God like themselves; or ignorant men, whose thoughts are so chained down to the objects of sense, as to be incapable of elevation above them ; are em- barrassed by such subjects, or substantially misapprehend them. Are we not now prepared to advance one step further: May we not say, when the Scripture speak- of the Log* becoming flesh and dwelling among us ; of his dwelling in the bosom of the Father; of his coming from God and b of him; of his humbling himself and taking upon hiin- self the condition of a servant, and other things of the like nature : that we are not to suppose this language is adequate LETT. IV.] n \ l i U Oi I DU 1 ; '7 'v and i 7 the incarnation of the Son if I. or his distinction from, or connection with the Fath< It is all merely the lamgw imoium toward a tow plete description. It is merely this of course, and n< ril\- nothing more, as it regards description of the mtmnmr of these things. Lai • from its very nature, mu: 2a Of the Bame tenor arc many passages. AVhen God is to be ih&head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3), I understand it of that nature in Christ of which this can be predicated. When Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightnem of the Father's glory and the express image (y aqaxT 1]q) of his person) i- <*. of him; or the only begotten of the Father, the Son of God; God's own Son; God's beloved Son; his dear Son, etc.; I understand all this phraseology as descrip- tive of his mediatorial nature and station. 1 know in«l< that many of these texts ha\ 6 been appropriated by some Trinitarians, to prove the divine nature of Christ ; in my an- !\\] I 11 D ON IV lSvIIAUlANS. 159 sion, however, this has been done injudiciously, and without any solid reason. Texts of this class may be found. ;. 17: 5. John 1: II. l<>! 86, II: 1". ft 86. Col 1: tft. II. !,. i: . . Rom. - Iii Heb. 5: 7 — 10, is a passage which has occasioned modi •illation. " Who in the day* of Ins lle>h, when lie had up prayers and supplications, with strong dying and ps, unto him that was able to Bare him from death, and heard in that he feared, though he were a Son, yet learned he ohedienee by the things which he Suffered ; and made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God, an high priest after the order of Melchisedee." If Christ were really / it known, lint where has he revealed it? After all, what more real dilliculty presents itself in this case, than in LETT. IV. j M IV I MTAK1.W 1C1 that when ud to have int in wi$dotH t Luke 52. [f he did possess a nature really human, that nature apable, of coarse, of pn improvement and knowledge. As it appears to me, there is bo proper method of solving the difficulty, as the te*t Btands, hut by appropri- ating the expression, a- in other like cases, to that nature of which the assertion made can he predicated John 17: :;, "And this is Bfe eternal, that they might know thee the only true Cod, and JeSUS Christ whom thou hast Bent." The trut God here seems to me plainly not to i or contrasted with, Christ, but, B8 everywhere in case this expression is used, opposed to idols. In the verse preceding, Christ says : " Thou hast given me the pow- er over allocs//, that thou mightest bestow eternal life upon all whom thou hast given me," i. e. both Gentiles and Jews, lie proceeds : This is eternal life, that they might know thee the only true God, i. e. the only God and true God, and Je- sus Christ whom thou hast sent." Now what is there here, different from that which we preach and inculcate every Sab- bath ? Do we not teach that there is one only living and true God? And that he sent his Son to die for sinners? And do we not insist, that eternal life is connected with the reception of these truths? I really see no more difficulty here, than in the text : " God so loved the world, that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Besides, it is Christ himself, who is addressing the Father, that utters the words in question. Could he otherwise express the senti- ment, that the same Father is the only true God, in distinc- tion from all false or pretended gods ? That he should join with this his own name, inasmuch as he was the only media- tor and Saviour, was necessary in order to the full expression of the great gospel truth which he uttered. 1 Cor. 8: 4 — G, " As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none 14* 1C2 TEXTS RELIED OX BY UNIT A KI AN [LETT. IV. other god btrf niic. For tliough there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), yet to us there is hut one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom arc all things, and we by him." I have i v- eral verses, tor the sake of introducing the context. From this it is plain, that the one God, the Father, is not Ik placed in opposition to Christ, but to the lords many in< Di lb Sim, In p, l i of your Sermon, you inform as of 1 1 1 « - method In which you explain those pas which seem to B| Ike divine nature of Christ The paragraph fa ale follows: u l am aware, thai these remarks will be met i»y two or tin texts, in which Chris! i< called God, and l>y a class of pat not very numerous, in which divine properti said to be ibed to him. To these we ofler one plain answer. We that it is one of tin? most established and ohvious principles of criticism, that language is to be explained according to the known properties of the subject to which it is applied. Every man knows, that the same words convey very different id< when used in relation to different beings. Thus, Solomon built the temple in a different manner from the architect whom he employed; and God repents differently from man. Now, we maintain, that the known properties and circumstances of Christ. bis birth, Bufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of God as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to God all his power and offices, these acknowledged properties of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret the compara- tively few passages, which are thought to make him the supreme God, in a manner consistent with bis distinct and inferior na- ture. It is our duty to explain such texts, by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to possess all things, and to be filled with all God's fulness. These latter pas- lo not hesitate.' to modify, and restrain, and turn from the most ohvious sense, because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which are thought to support the Godhead of Christ." I must hesitate however to adopt this principle, without examining its nature and tendency. On the supposition that 1G8 [let* v. you admit the Bible to be ■ revelation from G aver, permit me to ask, whether it U the ohj. i revela- tion to disclose truths which are wot known^ or are insuffi- ciently established ; or whether it is the object of a revela- tion, to disclose truths already known and established? If you answer: The latter; tl. ir answer denies of co that it i< a revelation. What the book of nature fully ex- hibits, the Scriptures do not recall. Is there then anything in the Scriptures which the book of nature does not ex- hibit? li you concede this, then I ask: How are we, on your ground, to obtain any notion of that thing which was unknown before it was revealed t E. g. the resurrectii the body is revealed. Now it is a known property of the human body to corrupt and perish. Shall I construe a pas- sage of Scripture then in such a maimer, as to contradict this known property? If not, then I can never suppose the resurrection of the body to be revealed. I however do in- terpret the Scriptures so as to contradict this apparently known property of the human body — following the obvious lion of the sacred writers, and not allowing myself to force a constructive meaning upon their language. Yet, if I understand you, I am at liberty, " to restrain, and modify, and turn the words from their most obvious sense," because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the matter of which our bodies are composed. The case is just the same, in regard to any other fact or doctrine. What I know already of a thing, is, if you are correct, kk to modify, re-train, and turn from their obvious sense," the words which are employed in revealing it because We may suppose what is revealed to be at variance with some known doctrines or properties. Is there not need here of great caution? If the principle, in some obvious ca is to be allowed, (which 1 grant), yet is there not need of much more definite limitations of it than you make? According to this principle, moreover, the Scriptures may onstrued \rvy differently, by persons of different degrees of knowledge. One man knows the properties of things, lor !T. V.] -IS. 100 i\ -t-ly than In- neighbour. 1 I that ir had i Jed may consist with known properties of things ; bul his neighbour, who lack- this knowledge, is un- able to perceive the consistency of revelation with what hd knows, and this, because his knowledge does no! qualify him to judge, or because what he thinks he knows he is really ignorant of. The same text in the Bible, therefore, may be is a consistent part of revelation, and i be other a< inconsistent The measure of a man's knowledge, therefore, cannot be a proper rule by which we may test the meaning of Scripture* But you will say : k I can never believe in the reality of a elation, which contradicts my reason.' I accede; on the supposition that reason is understood in a proper sense. And here i- the very place, where I find the greatest difficulty with your theory of interpretation. You do not carry your objections hack to the proper place. It* God manifest in the %h be an absurdity, a palpable contradiction — M an enor- mous tax upon human credulity," as you aver — then the claims of the book which asserts this, are no doubt to be dis- regarded. What is palpable contradiction, we certainly never can believe. But in determining what the Scriptures have taught, we have no right to say, that because any particular doctrine is repugnant to our views, therefore we will " modify, and re- strain, and turn from the obvious sense," the words in which it is conveyed. The rules of exegesis are not a mass of wax, which can be moulded at pleasure into any shape that we may fancy. We do as great violence to reason — to the first principles of all reasoning — when we reject these rules, as when we admit absurdities to be true. In case an obscure term is used, I acknowledge that clear pa- relating to the same subject are to be adduced to ascertain its meaning. If Christ had been -imply called God, I should allow that this term might be explained by its use as applied to inferior beings. But when the -acred writers themselves have explained the meaning which they 15 170 modi: Off BXB0BI [LETT. V. attach to it, by telling as that Christ is the God u 'fed ami govern* the world; who is omniscient and eternal ; who is the object of religious worship and prayer; who ii God over all or supreme God; (not to mention u the true God*" and the "great God") 5 there is no law of ex< no method of interpretation which can fritter away the meanii that is not absolute violence— a real infringement of the fun- damental principles of interpretation, an abandonment of the first principle- of our reason. It does appear to me, there- fore, that my only resort in such a case is, to reject the au- thority of Scripture, if I disbelieve the doctrine* To say that they do not mean to teach, what they most obviously have taught, I cannot, mttgt not. No book can be under- stood, no writer can be .interpreted at all, by such a rule of exegesis, without forcing upon him the opinions of his read- ers. My system of philosophy, we will say, differs from yours. What you view to be a palpable contradiction and absurdity, I view as rational and consistent This, we know, is not an uncommon fact. Jn reading a book, then, that re- spects the subject of our differing opinions, you hold yourself bound to construe it so as to save all that appears to you con- tradictory, or absurd : I interpret it just as its language ob- viously means, i. e. by the common laws of exegesis which do not depend on my philosophy. This book, then, may have two different meanings, according to us, in the same passage. Is this so? Can it be? Or rather, are not the laws of interpretation independent of you or me ? If not, how can the meaning of any writer be ever obtained? You and I differ, as to what John has taught in the first chapter of his gospel. I commence reading him, with the full conviction that I cannot determine a priori, in all respects, what the nature of God and Christ is ; and also with the belief, that John wrote what is a revelation from heaven. I read John and interpret him just as I do any other author, ancient or modern, i. e. l>y the general rules of exegesis mod- ified by the special circumstance- and dialect in which he wrote. I am as well satisfied that he meant to assert the V.] M«»Pi 01 I M 171 truly divine nature of the Lo [am thai he ha< mad»- ?ertion at all respecting liifii- I rceei\e this assertion* flier leclaring a fact which I ought to believe) and which, it' I admit his inspiration) I most believe* la the MUM manner I treat all other | . which reaped this subject. nic in this way to the conclusion, tliat Christ ifc truly di- vine : and that he haa a human and divine nature so united, (I undertake not to tell in what manner), that he -peaks of either nature as himself. The passages which seem to imply his inferiority to God, I find to be capable of explanation without doing violence to the language, by the obvious fact that he has two nature- united, which the sacred writers seem to me so plainly to inculcate. In this way I find one cou- nt whole. I save the laws of exegesis. I admit, indeed, on the authority of revelation, doctrines which natural re- ligion never taught ; but why should not a revelation teach ng which natural religion did not? Here then I take my stand. J abide by the si?nple decla- rations of the New Testament writers, interpreted by the com- mon laws of language. Such views as I take, seem to me to reconcile all the seeming discrepancies of description in regard to Christ, without doing violence to the language of any particular passage. I can believe, and do believe, that the sacred writers are consistent, without any explanation but such as the laws of interpretation admit and require. On the other hand ; when you read the first of John you say : ' The known properties of Christ must modify the de- scription/ How then are those properties known ? By the same writer, the same authority, the same revelation. But what can give to one part of John's book, any more credit than to the other part ? You will say, that you can understand better how Christ can be inferior to God, than how he can be divine. Granting that this might be the case — is a rev- elation merely to teach us things which are obvious ? May it not disclose those which are more difficult, and cannot be discovered by unassisted reason ? If the latter, how can you aver that Christ may not be revealed as a divine person ? 172 MODE OF EXEGESIS. LETT. V.] To Bhow a priori that this is impossible, or absurd, is really out of the question. The religion of nature teaches nothing for or against this fact. The simple question then is: AVhat has John -aid? and not, What has your philosophy led you to regard as probable or improbable ? And I must be allow- ed to say again : If John has not taught us that Christ is truly divine, J am utterly unable, by the laws of exegesis, to make out that he has asserted anything in his whole gospel. If I believed then, as you do, that a Saviour with a human and divine nature is "an enormous tax on human creduli- ty," I should certainly reject the authority of John. To vio- late the laws of exegesis in order to save his credit, I could regard &fl nothing more than striving to keep up a fictitious belief in divine revelation. It is what I cannot do; and what no man ought to do. It would be impossible for me, with your views, to hesitate at all, about giving up entirely the old idea of the divine inspiration and authority of the sacred books. How can they be divine, if they teach palpa- ble absurdities? And that they do teach what you call palpable absurdities, I feel quite satisfied can be amply proved, from the simple application of the laws of interpretation that are established on an immovable basis. You have, however, undertaken to vindicate your method of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the necessity of interpreting several seemingly unlimited assertions in respect to Christians, in the same way as you interpret many in re- spect to Christ. M I\ecollect," you say, " the unqualified manner in which it is said of Christians, that they possess all things, know all things, and do all things.'' And again, in order to show how we may " modify and restrain and turn from the obvious sense," the passages that respect the divinity of Christ, you say : " It is our duty to explain such texts by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human being> are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the di- vine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all Cod's fulness." I have already sufficiently examined the manner in which LETT. T.] OF BPBC1 VI. PASSAOl & 173 the Bible calls men gods. There is, and can be, do mistake ; for instead of attributing to them divine attributes, it alw;i tmpanies the appellations with such adjuncts as guard us against mistake. It does not call them Gad, and then add, that the same God ifl meant who is the creator of the univei - N ; the New Testament, (your sole statute book), anywhere call men CML A\' ill you produce the instance? That the appellation God, as applied to Christ, is bestowed under circumstances totally diverse from those in which it is applied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too obvious to I further explanation. The Hebrew word z'n'^x (Elohim) had plainly a latitude more extensive, i. e. it w T as capable or a greater variety of use, than the Greek word Qao^. Can you produce from the Greek Scriptures, i. e. the New Tes- tament, an instance where 0toV is applied to any man what- ever ? In regard to the assertion, " that Christians are made par- takers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1: 4), a mistake about the meaning is scarcely possible : " Whereby [i. e. by the gospel] are given unto us," says the apostle, " exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be par- takers of the divine nature' 1 But how ? He answers this question : u Having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." That is, by moral purification you will become assimilated to God, or partakers of that holy nature which he possesses. Does the context here afford any ground for mistake ? In 1 John 2: 20, Christians are said to have " an unction from the Holy One, and to know all things." In the preced- ing verse, the apostle had been describing apostates, who forsook the Christian cause because they were not sincerely attached to it. The case of real Christians, who have an unction from the Holy One, is different. They " know all things." And what means this ? The sequel explains it. " I have not written unto you," says he, " because ye know not the truth ; but because ye know it, and that no lie is of 15* 174 )\ 3 OF 8PB< LAX PAMAOl S. [LETT. V. the truth." To u know all thing-," then, plninlj m: eeond c merely antithesis. The apostle evi- lly ass- ompare the context), thai although be has litt! d of this world's good] yet be pc a far more :\i and satisfactory good, in comparison of which all nothing. In the Bam( we every day Bpeakofa man's all. im aning that which he most desires and loves best I can no more sec here, than in the Other instances already discussed, why you should affirm that Christians arc said "in an imquaKfied manner to possess all things." One expression still remains. In Eph. 3: 19, the apostle exhibits his fervent wishes, that the Christians at Ephesus might M be Idled with all the fulness of God." By comparing tin- -it »n. as applied to Christ in Col. 1: 19. 2: 9, with John 1: 11, 16, and Eph. 1: 23, it appears evident, that by the fulness of God is meant the abundant gifts and graces, which were bestowed on Christ, and through him upon his disciples ; John 1: 16. Eph. 1: 23. When Paul prays, therefore, that the church at Ephesus might be "filled with the fulness of 1," he prays simply, that they might be abundantly re- plenished with the gifts and graces peculiar to the Christian religion. But how does such an affirmation concern the prin- ciple of exegesis in question ? I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in which you have embarked, and the principles by which you explain away the divinity of the Saviour, must eventually lead most men who approve them to the conclusion, that the Bible is not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or obe- dience. J do not aver, that they will certainly lead you there. The remains of your former education and belief may still serve to guard you against the bolder conclusions of some of your brethren, who have not been placed under instruction such as you enjoyed in early life. You have more serious views 176 HODBfl OF EVADING TnE RESULTS [LETT. V. of the importance of religion, than man y, perhaps than mo of those who speculate "with you. Consistency^ too, will atlbnl strong inducement nol to give op the divine authority of the iptures. Tef many of your younger brethren liave no in- consistency to Pear, by adopting inch views. Deeming what you have publicly taught them to be true, viz. that it is "no crime to believe with Mr. Bebhain," who boldly and plainly declares that the Scriptures are not the ward of God : feeling the inconsistency, (as I am certain some of them will and do feel it), of violating the fundamental rules of interpretation, in order to make the apostles .-peak, as in their apprehension they ought to speak : and unable to reconcile what the apos- tle- Bay with their own views ; they will throw oft* the re- straints which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them simply on the ground, on which they place any other writings of a moral and religious nature. I make no pn -tensions to uncommon foresight, in regard to this subject I certainly do not say these things with invidi- ous designs, and for the sake of kindling the fire of conten- tion. Aery far from it. On the contrary ; I believe that the pafftlel now contending here, will have no quiet, until this ground be openly taken on the part of those who side with you. For myself, I view it as incomparably more desirable, in every point of view, that the authority of the Scripture should at once be renounced, and its claims to divine inspira- tion rejected, than that such rules of exegesis should be in- troduced, as make the Scripture speak nolens volens whatever any party may desire. Avowed unbelief in the divine au- thority of the Scriptures can never continue long, as I would hope, in the present day of light and examination. Such a state of thing- may pass away, with the generation who are actors in it. Bat it is a more difficult matter to purge away the stain, which Christianity may contract by violated laws of interpretation ; because those who indulge in such a violation, profess to respect the Christian religion, and to acknowledge it- divine original. They may therefore obtain, and hold, for v.] U& 177 influen r ihe maM of people, who arc 1 to i xamine in a critical manner the nicer its of theology. If o its to the sentiments in qo tion lift ii[» the f warning) they may not be heard. They liable to the imputation of bigotry, or illiberality, or igno- rance. 1 > 1 1 1 w hen men p // cast off their respect to the am] Scriptures, the case beoomei different, and the great body of plain and sober people frill revolt. hi making these observations on the nature and probable of your system of exegesis, which explains ,y the Deity of Christ, I do not feel that I am building in the air to amuse my own imagination. My duties have necessitated me for Borne time past, to be conversant with the history of exegesis, as it has of late appeared in Ger- many ; a country which, in halt' a century, has produced more works on criticism and sacred literature than the world con- tains besides. About fifty* years since, Semler, Professor of Divinity at Halle, began to lecture and publish on the sub- ject of interpretation, in a manner that excited the attention of the whole German empire. The grand principle by which he explained away whatever he did not think proper to be- lieve, was that which has since been called accommodation. lie maintained that the apostles and the Saviour often ad- mitted representations and doctrines into their instructions, which were calculated merely for the purpose of persuading the Jews, by being accommodated to their prejudices ; but which were not intended to be a general directory of senti- ment. In this way, whatever was inconsistent with his own views he was led to call accommodation ; and thus he at once expunged it in effect from the list of Christian doctrines. Sender's original genius and great learning soon gave cur- rency to his views in Germany, where a system of theology and exegesis had prevailed, which in not a few respects needed reformation. Since his time a host of writers, (many of them possessed of distinguished talents and most extensive erudi- * Some seventy years n< >w\ at the period of issuing the present edition, 178 MODES 01 i:v.\iiiN<; im: RESULTS [LETT. V, tion), lia\c arisen, who hare examined, explained, modified, ami defended, the doctrine of* accom m odation. A more re- eent shape of exegesis in ( rermany is, the solution of all the miraculous facts related in the Bible, by considerations which arc affirmed to be drawn from the idiom and ignorance of an- tiquity in general, and in particular of the sacred writers themselves. Thus, with Eichhorn, the account of the en tion and fall of man. is merely a poetical and philosophical speculation of some ingenious person, on the origin of the world and of evil. (Urgeschicbte, j>a— im.) So, in regard to the offering up of Isaac by Abraham, he says: u The God- head could not have required of Abraham so horrible a crime ; and there can he no justification, palliation, or I for this pretended command of the Divinity." He then ex- plains it in his own way : 'Abraham dreamed that he must oiler up fattM ; and according to the superstition of the times, lie regarded it as a divine admonition. He prepared to exe- cute the mandate, which his dream had conveyed to him. A lucky accident, (probably the rustling of a ram who was en- tangled in the bushes), hindered it ; and this, according to ancient notions, was the voice of the divinity.' (Bibliothek, Band I. s. 45, etc.) The same writer represents the history of the Mosaic leg- islation, at mount Sinai, in a curious manner. Moses as- cended the top of Sinai, and built a fire there, [how he found wood on this barren rock, or raised it up to the top, Eichhorn does not tell us], which was consecrated to the worship of God, and before which he prayed. Here an unexpected and tremendous thunder storm o c curred. He seized the occasion, in order to proclaim the law.-, which he had composed in his retirement, as the statutes of Jehovah; thus leading the peo- ple to believe that Jehovah had conversed with him. Not that he was a deceiver; but he really believed that the oc- currence of such a thunderstorm was a sufficient proof of the tact, that Jehovah had spoken to him, or .-auctioned the work in which he had been engaged. (Bibliothek, Band 1. Theil 1. s. 70, etc.). The prophecies of the Old Testament are, V.] OF SIMl'I according to him, \pn — . d with all tin* fire and elegance i f p * the future proept rity end ■ future deli isfa nation, beten, Biblioth., Kin- lei t., passim.) In like main of theology at ErL tells us, in to the miracle of l l>e with them, who set out with your max- im, thai M to believe with Mr, Belsham is no crime. n No man can rca»• bo openly explicit They have even gone so lar as \ irtuallj to excommunicate Mr. Parker, and some of them actually begin to call him an infidel Some Creed, then, they would seem secretly to have, by which Mr. Parker is actually tried, it' not actually amenable to it, and in their view condemned. I would hope, therefore, thai the orthodox will no longer be re- proached for having a Creed, or for adhering to it. And what now is Mr. Parker's heresy? It is no] for me to enter into the dis- pute between him with his adherents, and those who begin to call themselves evangelical (!?) Unitarians. l Inter tales ctrtan- tfs. quis dyudicabit V Geneva and Boston Bhow us, (after all the Btroog professions of Unitarians in favour of unlimited liberty of religious opinion, and after loudly and often asserting the crimi- pality of making any man responsible for his religious views), that only an opportunity for the safe exercise of power is want- ing, to convert the mass of liberal Christians into propagandists of their party views, by appeals to force, i. e. to the powei of the magistracy, or to the more dreaded power of virtual excommu- nication. These are not the first lessons of this kind which are recorded on the pages of faithful history. They probably are not the last, which even the present generation a\ il 1 be called to learn. It lies upon the very face of all this matter, at Least such is my serious apprehension, that nothing hut power is wanting, among some of the leading zealous Unitarians, to exclude the orthodox not only from Cambridge University, (which has already SO long and so effectually been done), hut to exclude them from all active and intluenti.il participation in affairs of church, state, Civil office, and education, so tar as tin 1 government has the con- trol of an) oi" these matters. There are men, indeed, and I would hope that they are not few, in the Unitarian party, who would not intentionally do such things. Bui 1 am compelled to believe, that the leaders of the dominant party would at once go lull length and breadth in all matters over which they had control, if they did not fear a reac- tion. In the mean time, the Trinitarians are, as vet, by far the greater majority ^\' the State; and it' such tattles are to be fought, I am greatly mistaken if they may not he relied on as ready to take their place, in the ranks of those who are obliged to do battle iii their own defence. That this latter party (if I must so name them) are on the increase, is plain enough, so far I can discern, to every man whose ('yes are really open. That Unitarianism, divided against itself, and contending with IT. V.] 'STSCRirT. lO." tperiry in this than with Trinitarians, is lik«'l\ t<> !••• rather on the wane, ia somewhat probable. 1 think ad w HI Bcarcelj be denii d. >le of Boston and its viclnit] in general, • ri denth I I shorn supporting and propagating I Unitarian timents than their fathers had Ifanj one Bhould replj and thai tlh< is because thej have less zeal for religion in any l>e than their fathers had ; I do n<>t feel authorized to deny the truth of this allegation. 1 must also say, that in mj appre- hension, oneofthe genuine fruits of Unitarianfsm. A re- on, the prominent feature of which is N«»r to believe, ran never deeply interest any community, for anj preat length of lime. The human soul, made sooner or later deeply t«> feel its . ond wants, and woes, pants lor something more than a not j- religion to rest upon, and will have it it' it be at- tainable. In Germany, Bince the first edition of these Letters was pub- lished, the work of boasted philosophy and reason has been !i, until it seems at last to have reached its w plus ultra. First came Seraler and Eich horn's accommodation scheme. Next followed Paulus and others with the plan of explaining everything by mere natural causes, allowing at the Mime time a Spice of superstition and iirnoranee in the writers of the Scrip- tures. Then came De Wette and his friends, with honest maxims of interpretation, but renouncing all idea of inspiration in the Bi- ble, and maintaining that it abounds in mistakes and errors. Next came Strauss, w ith his scheme of mere moral romance. The Jesus of the Gospels i< altogether a personage of romance, an exhibition and Symbol of singular piety and virtue, as conceived of by the mind of the romancers. The numberless discrepancies and errors of the writers of the New Testament show, as this party aver, that the hook is no authentic account either of facts or of doc- trines. Last of all comes Bruno Bauer, with the downright charge of fraud and imposition on the part of the evangelists and apostles. What step lies beyond this, it is difficult to sec. Philosophy, however, has rather outstripped even Bauer him- self. God, (in the view of what is now called the philosophy l>y way of eminence), is not a personal conscious being, lie is only the unknown, unthinking, unfeeling amma mundi. and is indebted for his ptrsofwdity and his consciousness to m<,\. Not only is it true that " we an Qod and GodlS ?re," hut we are altogether the most conspicuous and important part of the Godhead, inasmuch as he has not consciousness at all without us. And as to sin — 10G POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. ho* can <»'<»d sin against himself? The deeeutated maxim (it the part) i> : "If the world were not world, God would sal he God." ThiM tndi (shall I say ?] this recent leason. I cannot call it tin- first leason, nor tin* only one. Bui is it at an end ' For ue soar starvelings of this western world, as to the richer feasts of plu- loeophy, it might seem thai this is as far ae men can go. \\w\ ao. The German mind is capable of still further advances; audi predict that ten years will sec Hegelism melting away, and the market Supplied nv it I i ware of a HOW pattern. But enough. A false prophet J was not, as it seems from the present state of/acte, w hen I penned those remarks in ray Letters, twenty-six years ago, to n Inch the present postscript hae relation. lint I take to myself no great credit tor sagacity, in having writ- ten them. The truth is, that these things are everywhere so connected on the pages of ecclesiastical history, that one must be a dull reader not to know, that certain cau>«s will produce certain effects, in respect to a great Variety of matters. liven more than I predicted has taken place; and more is yet to come. The vantage ground which Mr, Parker has, in respect to his supposed frankness and sincerity, bids fair, perhaps, to strengthen him from the ranks of bis more timid and shrinking brethren. Beyond Mr, Parker's position, we in this country, as I am in- clined to think, cannot well jro. It needs u German mind and education to do this. Rut when the mass of the Unitarian party sliall be led to occupy Ins ground, (which can hardly fell to take place), we shall then know where we are; and it" we must take the ti«'|«l of contest, we shall know at least what fashion of ar- mour we are to cope with, who our opponents are, and what kind of defensive or assailing weapons may he expedient on our part Since completing my preparations for the present edition of these Letters, originally addressed to Dr. Channing, a friend has put into my hinds a nrw work, which, as he informs me, is very popular among the Unitarians, and is circulated, even in remoter parts of our country, with no little zeal and assiduity. From a very natural curiosity, and from the interest which I feel in the subject, I have run my eye through the pages of this work ; and it might argue SOme Want of comity in me, if 1 should p it without at least a brief notice. I must confess, that when m\ e\ e met, on the title page, the li n\ v.] P08 rs( Kii'i. 107 namr ofthe author, which openl) proclaimed thai nJemaU bad ventured into the thornj path of theological controversy, I * filled with a variet) of conflicting emotions. An efctraordmarj nan, 1 thought, she must b •• n spec! or other, (bus i«» venture, clad in masculine armour, upon tilt and tournament, i t?Ht it those trained to the use of arms are it to appear. 1: the first time, within the compass of my reading, that I had ever met with such an occurrence, It* the author of Ecclesiastes had lived until the present time, would he i;<»t have had occasion to review his bow ancient (if not an- tiquated) adage: There is nothing new under the sun? Hut it is one thing to wornh r that a lady-combatant should t- the lists, and another thing to meet her in contest, and disarm her, or convince her that retreat is her safest course. For myself, I haw always been accustomed to think, that a man lid not contend with a woman, at any rate before the public . without coming off second best, let his cause be ever so good in itself. There is such a general sympathy for a female under li circumstances, that if her antagonist should get the victory in COmbat, he must do it at the expense, at least in part, of his d name as to chivalry and courtesy. And who would like to he reckoned among those that deserve a censure of this sort? And yet, (for J must speak of serious matters in a graver man- . when ladies think it meet to take upon them the costume and the armour of" the other s«\. and present themselves on the arena for combat, 1 am not sure that it is the duty of every man to give up what In 1 deems a good cause, rather than to tarnish the lustre of his chivalry a little. If I ken Mv*. Dana aright, she would deem it quite a piece of neglect, on my part, not to meet her on the new ground that she has taken, just as 1 would meet one who had been trained for combat She would he far from taking it amiss, if I should feel that there is as much need of putting forth the best of my strength, in order to maintain my ground, as there 1 would he in case the attack had been made by more experienced polemics. I am heartily sorry, that the heroine before us is undergoing !i a martyrdom as she everywhere. 1 complains o£ "Tin 1 days of proscription, 9 ' »yt Bhe, u of slander, insult, and neglect, have by no means passed away. Cold greetings, averted looks, long and intimate friendships sundered in a moment, tell a mournful tale in respect to the toleration rtatty exercised in this country, so proud of its civil and religious liberty, towards those who have conscientiously changed their opinions f Introd. p. iii. 17* 108 POSTS4 MPT. [LETT. Y. Sbe then goes on to speak of a injurious suspicions," of ** direct charges which would almost break tin* hear! of the sufferer, if be did not fed himself above their reach," and die like. This last circumstance is well thrown in; for that she feels herself above the reach of all her Trinitarian friends, lies upon the face of her whole hook, from beginning to end, and is in- deed one of its most prominent characteristics. That a hid)/ should be subjected to " proscription, slander, insult, and n< Jed," was indeed, at fust \iew, somewhat adapted to excite com- miseration in ever) hreast not hardened against the emotions of chivalry and courtesy. J>ut while my commiseration was be- ginning to he somewhat excited by reading such an account of persecutors 1 deeds, and the hree/e of compassion be-all to spring tip and watt along my little barque which had spread Bail to catch its influence, 1 Was taken, as the seamen say, "all aback," after making hut a short run. The lady has found for herself, without the aid of sympathizers, an adequate remedy, as it would seem, lor all her woes. In the very next paragraph she tells us the secret of it: "When I look around me, and ob- serve 4 bow the great majority of mankind are blindly following the lead of others, how few there are who think for themseh' bow few are willing to test their religious opinions b\ compar- ing them with other systems of faith, by bringing them all "to the law and to the testimony" of Cod's inspired word . . . -when these things meet my view, though I may be distressed at the exhibition of intolerance, 1 ought not, perhaps, to be surprised at the spirit which is manifested." p. iv. It is indeed a most comforting sensation, to feel one's self to be M faithful found among the faithless." The great majority are "blindly [the Italics are my own] following tin 1 lead of other- Whom thee are those others following, who lead the majorit We cannot escape tin- conclusion, that they must be "blind leaders of the blind." At any rate Mrs. D. would fain put them both in the ditch, if they should fail to get there by virtue of their ow ii wandej inns. The modesty and delicacy of these imputations (Ml the g mass of Christians in our country, from a young woman who makes her appearance in the costume of the other sex, is not for me to descant upon. These are matters to be jilt, rather than talked about. Bu1 however this may be, the gale of com- panion that indicated a favourable approach to the harbour of sympathy, was dissipated by this adverse blast; and 1 soon brought myself to a state of great composure, in regard to tin' LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. martyrdom of this singularly independent woman, who, it* wo are to credit her own account, ia almost the onlj one in all the ranks of such a- have professed to be orthodox, thai dares t<> venture on a course of free and independent thought and opinion. The whole work is somewhat strongly marked with tin- char- acteristics developed in the Introduction. Never did lady-knight before meet with so many and such ungallant and unmerciful adversaries, However, not at all daunted, in right good earnest she docs them battle. Still, there arc limes, when, as it would i). she rather overrates the bloodthirstinesa of her opponent- : lor when, as I am inclined to suppose, they mean at most only to commit some petty offence, such as Pope has held up to long remembrance in his Rape of the Lock, she seems to feci, that in the true Turkish style they mean to cut oil' the head rather than the lock. All this, which is spread over the book in great profusion, is quite intelligible. This lady is the only candid and independent investigator and thinker, in all the circle where she formerly moved. Nor is this all. Her sympathies, her convictions, her wrongs, her prospects, hei hopes, her comforts — these united form the central nodus about which all the smaller planets move — or, as she thinks, ought to move. The best opinion I have been able to form of this whole affair is, that it began, and has thus far continued — I do not say, will end — in sentimentality. A spirit, kindred to that of music and song, is its substratum; and the same taste which leads to devotion in a high degree to these, leads on to the exquisite and the sentimental, on every oc- casion where these can be displayed* With all becoming deference to the assurances of this lady, that she never consulted Unitarians, or read any of their books, before she was already a convert to their doctrines, I have still some difficulties. How comes she, all at once, to have travelled over such a widely extended field of reading, the moment she ins to correspond with her friends? Her quotations and references would seem to betray years of hard study, pursued in all directions. For myself, I have been obliged to plod my way slowly along, and even to reach a " viginti annorum lucu- brationes," before I could venture on reference to such a widely extended circle of reading. I can form no conception, there- fore, of a young woman, more attentive, if report speaks truly, to accomplishments than to grave studies, traversing such a field in a few weeks or months, with more than Jack the Giant-killer's speed. It is a phenomenon. But it is not an incomprehensible 200 POSTSCRIPT, [LETT. V. one. 'Others have laboured, and she has entered Into their la- bours. 1 •But what of all this'-' I hear her and her friends exclaim. What is this to the purpose of refuting her book? Nothing at all 1 confl ss, as to one meaning which this question may have; but as to another meaning that some may give it, it is not wan- dering far from the main point I might reply, with some show aSOri, that all this avails just as much to the refutation Of her hook, as her complaints of persecution and parade of senti- mentalitj Contribute to the making of it. and to the commend- ing of it to the notice of sentimental ladies, and to the exquisites of the other sex. She has evidently COtinted much on this; and - it strikes me, have hel new friends reckoned, x% ho have encourftged her to publish it. And in fact, I am m\ self doubt- ful, whether this will not prove to be the most taking feature of the hook. If so, it is not amiss to submit this feature fairly to inspection. This is the sum and substance of what I nave to say. in respect to ihe point now before us. For the rest, I have little indeed to say of the book in general. I have gone through the whole of it, Appendix and all, without finding one new idea, or one trace of not being led, (after all the professions of independent thinking), by others who had travelled the same road before. How could it be otherwise r Here is a lady, whose life seems to have been mainly devoted to other very different things, who enters the held of metaphysical, phi- lological, theological, scriptural, and patristical controversy, about the doctrine of the Trinity, What! Has she then been diving into all these depths, or ascendinir these lofty heights? Believe it who may; but f f.nd not a trace of anything like argument in her book, which has not been said many and many a time before; and equally often, as I believe, refuted. It would be mererj tktiagert actum to undertake a formal examination of her WOtk. I could wish to say no more than I have already said in the preceding pages, on scarcely a single text or topic. She 58 - to be quite open to future conviction of error, if any one will adduce good arguments for this purpose. She doubt- i, gg means — good in her own estimation. 1 believe she may safely challenge the whole of "the lords of the creation " in to produce such arguments. As to any champion who enters the li>ts with her, I venture to predict that he will surely come off w ithout his gUtrd&n, It wire easj to point out a goodly number of slips and etrors in various statements, notwithstanding all the aid her new friends IT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 20J have given her, (and this I trust is n<'t a little), if the panic were worth the bunting. I cannol think thai it ha But leal she ihould complain of a disposition to bear hard upon her, to per- ute, and t<> }»nt her down more l»\ sneering than by argu- ment ; and lesl Bhc should allege, that my assertions respecting this matter arc mere random shots, intended mainlj for effect, when in truth I was n<>t able to point "in anything of this na- ture in \\fv work : I am compelled to give Borne specimens. And thr\ are but mere specimens of a somewhat plentiful crop. Some actual or imaginary correspondent of our author had, it seems, quoted 1 Tim. 3: 16, ( u God manifest in the flesh") tins! her views. In reply she says: M Yon arc perhaps aware . . . that Griesbach, whose authority is universally acknowledged by Trinitarians as well as others, lias decided that tin; word God, in this passage, is not to be found in the best ancient man- uscripts. . . . lie expresses it: Great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifest in the flesh, etc." She then goes on to cite from Sir Isaac Newton's famous (famous among Unitarians) History of two Corruptions of the Scriptures; the amount of which is, an assertion that 'all the churches for the first four or five hundred years, and all the ancient versions, and all the Greek and Latin writers, read : Which was manifested in the flesh, etc.' I say nothing of the singular appeal to Griesbach, as an au- thority deciding that the word God, in the passage in question, is not to he found in the best ancient Mss. A simple matter of fact, like the one before us, viz. Whether a Ms. reads 02 or 02 [he who, or God), is one on which others can decide as well as Griesbach ; and Trinitarians are far enough from attributing to him such an authority in these matters, as Mrs. D. supposes. Then again the statement of Newton is almost quot voces tot er- rores. Instead of all antiquity agreeing to read which (o), but a single Ms. (the Cod. Claromont.) is even supposed to exhibit it; and it is nearly certain that this supposition has no good ground. As to the ancient versions, such as the Jtala, the Vulgate, the Pe- ghito Syriac, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, Sahidic, and Ara- bic of Erpenius, only the Latin versions (which read quod) are certain as to the reading; all the rest, on thorough examination, turn out to be altogether doubtful witnesses. In the Latin fa- thers, in accordance with the Vulgate, we find quod (which); but in the genuine Greek fit hers, not one can be found which ex- hibits it. So much for Sir Isaac's statement. Then, as to Griesbach's " og instead of Otog" he can appeal P09fS< i:ii [LETT. V. otil\ to Codd A. C. P, 0. 17. ;.;. Of these, the first, in cona quence of the faded ink, cannot be decided upon with anj cer- tainty. In resped to 0., I. e. the Codex Ephrendy Tischendorf in In- recent republication <>f it, states as a matter beyond all doubt, that B2 now stands in the Codex, i. e. Seog, God\ But he seems to think, (hat the line across the 0, and the line above, are from a later hand. Conjectural this must <>f course be. These are clear and certain marks, that the reading God now stands in the M<. All the evidences of a different reading are derived solely from the alleged paleness of the ink in th< marks. Weber, IVnide, and Parquoi [custoa of the Royal Libra- ry , all maintain tin 1 originality of 02 in the case in question. It seems to be incumbent on those \\ ho deny this, to show, in some way, how or why these alleged additions were made to the orij nal copy. The mere colour of the ink cannot decide a point of this nature. F. and G. are Mss. of the ninth or tenth centuries; 17. and 73. of the eleventh and twelfth. As to fusions, not one of all the ancient ones can be appealed to with any certainty to confirm Griesbach's reading. And as, to \\ir fathers, qui ( oc) oc- curs once or twice in the Latin lathers, hut never in any Greek one, in a direct quotation. Griesbach and Lachmann, moreover, are the only critical editors of any note, that have admitted this reading into the text. Ajs to the reading 02 [Oh,^, God), some time ago 171 Mss. of the Pauline epistles, among which are some of the oldest, were known to exhibit it. The number has recently been much in- creased. The Philoxenian Syriac, the Arabic Polyg., the Sla- vonic, and Georgian versions, all exhibit it. The Greek father-, Ignatius, Hippolytus, Dionysins Alex., Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nys*a, Cyril <>f Alexandria, Theodoret, Euthaliua, (most of them certainly, all of them probably 1 , exhibit it. The evidence in favour of it is altogether predominant, and nearly overw helming. So much for Newton's Corruptions of Scripture ; and so much for what can be said by one, in a state of all but entire ignorance with regard to the true position of such a critical matter at the present period. Hut then — Newton had given an opinion that helped a little to remove obstacles in the way ofourauthu opinion; and the help of such a great name was very grateful. But if Sir I>aa<- had done nothing beyond writing his Two C<>r- nij;ii>,iis and his work on Prophecy, to emblazon his name, it would have needed, by this time, a larger magnifying glass than i.r ; HI be ii l in who! ; the firmament In- warn, Voltaire Bays, thai he wrote hu do Propkte the ill for ! In a // I '1 the 6 Don. J' I- " lira. D bal '* tin* spirit of persecution 1 ." I - I - . - • m cl - 1 had i i er [Hwed thai P urice | • iiall) beheaded lical jealous} and ei all« _ -t him an attempt to deliver tin- country to ds. T -i that could 1" - to be, thai rneveldt, among other things, pouring the Armi- i part\ : but all this - int, in order t<» render him odious to the high orthodox party. 1I< !, i our autfr opinion, thi< all goes to making out a charf (MhodoryJ ami helps t<> swell the catalogue of its enormit These ma] - of what those can do, who ddle with ti fact, that theydo noi und\ st \e apec men of criticism which our author repeats the thou- sandth time, after Socinus and others, the remarks on John & nay answer onr present purpose. Jesn- - 9 to the J« Hi, i. e. before Abraham was. I am. Our fair critic stoutly maintains, that ii should be translate "Before Abraham v ras, I am l - :" and she belabours in ean '• k'niL r James* trans for not - tim: here, when else* they had rendered fym tqu by I am he. And what if they had so done? Why then the n would have been, according to Wakefield and our critic: •• My mission settled and certain before the birth of Ahraham.*' But then, in the first place, what is there that was not equally settled and certain at the same period, in the view of the omniscient God? Secondly, what was the point in dispute between Jesus and the Jews? Was it in reaped to the time when his mis-inn was de- creed ? Not a word of this in the narrative of John. What then? Why the Jews had just said to . I i &: "Thou art not B «>ld, and bast thotl \hrahai - re- plies: • • r. kbraham n s, I am." In other words : !• I did exist before Abraham. Such is tin' d _ of the P tlfd, in the Mich a meaning the Pre* a John 14: 9. 15c 27. J< r. 1: .">. Pa 00: % and Winer's V T Thirdly, the antitln - fiham was and low, renders it impossible 204 rOSTSCRIFT. [LETT. V. t<> Bupply he after torn, without losing the \n 1k>1o point and aim of the assertion. To supply it, and interpret it as our critic, fol- low ing tht* suit of Socinus and Wakefield, does, necessai il\ bril us to this: 'Before Abraham's mission was decreed, mine \ decreed f which surely needs no further comment De Wette, who is the Rev. Theodore Parker's favourite Nader, and who, whatever else he may he, is a master critic of language, trans- lates and comments thus: " I am ; not 1 am it or he. . . . Thai Jisus ascribes prtBxistcflCt to himself is CtHatfi ; see John 1: 1. (I: 62. 17: 5. . . . Not in a nominal sense, as the Socinians and Gro- tius understand it, so that merely the foreordi nation of Christ the .Messiah was the meaning of the phrase." Very justly might this well skilled critic say thus. The monstrosity of such an e.x- ~is as Wakefield's, (I cannot say Mrs. D's.), stands out in high relict' to the eye of every scholar who lias gone beyond the ru- diments of Greek. Jiut I do not mean to review Mrs. TVs hook, and therefore must withhold my hand. I have only two or three remarks to make, and then I shall dismiss the matter. Mrs, I), has one Letter inscribed: An Overflow of Feeling; another, Mental Suffering ; and so, in one way and another, we are continually meeting with her sentimentalities. Her new friends and herself, it would seem, are overflowing with the milk of human kindness. 'The arms of their charity are stretch- ed out so wide, that Arians, Socinians, Arminians, Universalis and the like, may all find a place, and a somewhat warm em- brace therein. But how is it with the Orthodox, the Calvin ists, the bigots, the predestinarians, and the like ? Does this over- flow of charity, and good will, and gentle feeling, bring them within its reach and influence? Let us see: "I regard it [Cal- vinism] as I would some venomous serpent, from whose fangs I have narrowly escaped. Too long has it been coiling itself around my struggling spirit That its poisonous fangs have not reached my vitals, 1 oWe to that wonderful Providence of God which has protected me from harm, and at length, provided a way of escape. He has given me strength to struggle on, till, at length, 1 have thrown the monster from me. I bless God for my escape." — j>. 131. The musical world may perhaps reap some advantage from this: for they may naturally expect, that the next edition of the Harp will contain an additional and highly spirited Ti Deum lamtnmns, inspired and called forth b) such an important i zuq. More gentle seem to have been her struggles, against the v.] POSTSCRIPT, captivating add »f Unitarianism. What surprises one moat iiat the u venomous Calvinism" did nol sooner lake the bint, n the repulsive struggles of the lady against liim, and quit urging a suit which be could not fail u> sec was desjxTate. I surprised w» are, that I nitarianism, with ii is well-dressed per- son, anened to behold the truth, beauty, and symmetry of another faith." It may be so, I will not deny; but then, all is not gold which glistens to our view; and 1 have sometimes heard of * optics even so sharp, as to see what is not to be seen.' How is it now, that this same tender-hearted lady, who recoils from the ' venomous serpent,' and pronounces all to be slaves, who sympathize in sentiment with Calvin, zealously rebukes Calvin for merely saying that he detests the sentiments of those, who maintain that our free-will is such, in our natural condition, that we may prepare ourselves to receive the grace of God? p. 11^. Pres. Edwards comes in, too, for a full share of her denun- ciations. But enough of this. It is all quite tolerable, compared with this lady's assertion in other places, that Unitarianism is unjustly charged with denying the atonement, regeneration, and the Holy Spirit, p. 270. On p. 71 seq., she has a long extract from Dr. Dewey (of N. York), in which he asserts, that Unitarians believe " in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; in the atonement, as a sacrifice, a propitiation ; in human depravity ; in regeneration ; in the doctrine of election ; and in a future state of iewards and 18 206 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. punishments." On the part of such a man as Dr. Dewey, I can call this nothing hut gross deception* He knows well, although this lady-champion does not, that there is not a single MM of tliese doctrines, according to the usual 061186 attached to them by all theologians of any name, which Unitarians admit, and Which indeed they do not violently oppose. The artifice of Dr. Dewey consists in employing an entire new set of definitions. lie believed in such a mime, provided that name is defined agree- ahly to his notion of things. It is exactly a case of the same nature as would have heen presented by a Philistine 4 votary of the god of Ekron, who went up to Jerusalem, and offered him- self as a worshipper in the temple of Jehovah. The Jews re- pelled him, hecause he was an idolater. lie claimed fellowship, however, as Standing on the same ground with them. They believed in one God : IS did he. There was no other difference between them, than that of the definition of words ; and who could he so senselos as to engage in the idle task of logomachy ? Were the Jews now to he taken in with such hypocritical and delusive pretences as these ? ' No* — they would have said, * you believe indeed in one god ; but he is the god of Ekron, and a mere block of wood. The God in whom we believe is a Spirit, and the Maker of heaven and earth. 1 Just such a differ- ence there is hetween Dr. Dewey's orthodoxly named doctrines, and the real matter of his belief compared with that of the Or- thodox. His are a body without a soul — the cold and lifeless statue at Ekron, compared with the living and eternal Creator. The worst of the ca3e is, that he knows this to be so, and yet holds out these lures l»efore the public. And the Orthodox, forsooth, are bigots and logomachists, because they will not allow him the latitude of defining as he pleases, until he defines away iy distinctive attribute which marks the doctrines in question. It is an unworthy — a degrading artifice, to practise thus upon the credulity or the Ignorance of his uninstructed hearers or readers. It merits, (what it will he certain sooner or later to receive), tin; scorn of every upright and honest mind. With the lady J would deal more gently. She is plainly an offender fiom want of adequate knowledge. Less confidence would indeed hecome her in such a condition ; hut she does not appeal to be embarrassed by any troubles arising from diift- dence. Mrs. Dana, who has laid before the world so circumstantial and protracted an account of her trials and Bufferings from big- otH and bigotry, does not quit the stage without letting us know LETT, V.J ' UITT. 207 issue of all this discipline. tt Thanks be unto God, -he, tt I am enjoying a new life. While my friends are mourning over rii«'. 1 am rejoicing with a calm and holy joy, which lias spread itself to the inmost r. f m\ soul.* 1 And a little further on >he a-snre> ns, that k her heaven has alread\ beuuii, in the u.i\ of anticipation/ Now all this is quite sentimental. The boofc begins* « , onfmiie% and ends, in a -train of entire CODSisK this matter ►ncerncd. But I am exceeding the hounds allotted me: and long since have doubtless lost all credit with this writer and her friends, for courtesy and kind feeling toward a new and young adven- turer on the field of theology. I shall not improbably he ranked among denouncing bigots; nor is it at all unlikely, that 1 shall be accused as wanting even in the humane toward the gentler part of the creation, l>oth by Mrs. D. and her new friends. I am very sorry to lie under such an imputation ; but I really do not know how to help it If the young adventurer had no such feeling of modesty and diffidence as would make her refrain from so bold an attack on all Trinitarians, I cannot feel myself altogether guilty of a betise, because I defend a sacred enclosure against what I look upon in the light of a profanation. Comity itself must needs have some bounds. Truth must not be sacri- ficed to mere urbanity. I say this calmly and deliberately, in view of all the outcry that can be made among sentimentalists and exquisites. There are more serious duties to be done by a Christian minister, than to listen to any voice of persuasion that doctrines respecting the Godhead may be compromised by any of the usages of etiquette. I have no other apology, therefore, to make to Mrs. D. or to her new friends, than that I think the truths assailed to be too sacred to be passed by in silence. To her and her advisers in the matter of this publication, if they will tolerate it in this land of freedom, I would even ven- ture to suggest for their consideration, the sentiment of one of the shrewdest observers of human nature which the heathen world ever produced — Ae sutor ultra crepidam. If this advice should be spurned, I would with all diffidence recommend a careful examination of 1 Tim. 9k 12. I have done with Mrs. I), and her book. But the subjects presented, and the attitude in which some of them are placed, as well as the reasoning grounded upon this, seem to call for a few remarks. 1 engage that they shall he brief. Dr. Churning maintains, with much earnestness, the separate 208 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. personality and inftrioriti/ oftheSon of God Bui if he has nny- vrbere declared himself qp ticttfy , in respect to the actual rank which Christ holds and the constitution oi hk person, I In not yet met with the passage. Whether he was Arian i oinian, is his speculative views, ] must confess myself unable — liiifin toi ily to determine. Many things which he Bays of Christ look DMlcfa like high Arianism, and he seems to lean to i views of Dr. Samuel Clarke. lint whether he actually regarded Chrisl ss created before the world was made, specially whettoof he d'nl this in the latter part of his life, is not known to me. On the Other hand, Sociuus and his contemporaries and fellow la- bourers often speak in exalted terms of the Saviour, and h< tate not to declare that worship is due to him; hut still only a secondary worship, such as we may pay to a most exalted char- acter after an apotheosis. If .Mrs. J)., in sketching her own views, has al><» given a faithful portrait of the opinions of her confidential advisers, then are they more explicit than Dr. Chan- ning. No names are too high for Christ. Ue is Lord of all and God aver ulL and the object of worship and praise; yet all in subordination to one, who, with the same names, is the only and aloolnte Supreme, and is alone entitled to our highest spiritual homage and worship. She does not even once appear to \vr\ the immeasurable distance there is, between these high Arian notions and the simple JInmanitarianism of Priestley, and of a large portion of the Unitarians in England and this country. That Christ was a mtre man, when once assumed, leads natu- rally enough to the inquiry: Whether he was the Son of Mafy by a miraculous birth, or the Son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of things. Those who distrust and im- pugn all miraculous events, of course deny his miraculous birth, and attribute his paternity to Joseph, Of this party, if I rightly understand the matter, there are not a few, among I nitarians of the present day. To Dr. Chaun'uuz's admirers and friends in respect to reli- gious sentiment, as well as to all gradations of Humanitarians, I ask liberty here to put a lew questions. The doctrine of the Trinity is rejected and spurned at mainly for two reasons. ' PirSt, thiee Cannot be one, nor one three, he- cause it is impossible in the nature of things, inasmuch as the proposition presents us with a downright contradiction. Se- condly, admitting the possibility of a threefold distinction in i Godhead, the whole matter respecting Chrisl is covered with Impenetrable darkness and wrapped in mystery. The Bible FT. V.] >3WCBfTT. 1?09 hi bits Christ M 1 man, really and truly a MOM ; and fee say, that ; and man an united m am aeraoi^ it affirming ■ thing both mysterious and impossible. The unity of God, more* vtrttiall) denied by such a supposition. M >f these allegations have already been 6 TO mined I touch here only on what needs, perhaps, a fuller development I have often thought it very strange, thai Unitarians of the unplain everywhere of Trinitarians for intro- dueing so much of the mysterious and unintelligible into thru • in once to entertain the suspicion thai they arc full\ exposed to the same charge, even in a still higher degree. if there is any one thing that lies on the very nice of all the N. Testament, Gospels and Epistles and Apocalypse, it is that Christ was really and truly man. If the reader has a moment's doubt, I must refer him to pp. f>4, l.VJ above. Indeed this is what all Unitarians of the present day are in the constant habit of affirming, particularly when they Irish to expose, what they name the absurdity of Trinitarians, in maintaining that he is truly God. Let us take them now at their own word. Christ was a man. But what is a man ? A human body and a human soul consti- tute the being to whom we give this appellation. Let Dr. C, then, and all his friends and followers, choose between the horns of the dilemma, on which their assertions place them. 'Christ -ted before the world was;' for so of course the Brians must speak. 'He created the world ; he is the object of worship and homage, next to the Father.' Very well. But then, when "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us," how did he unite with the person of Jesus, so as constitute a being truly man? The old Arian theory was, that he became the soul of the man Jesus. For argument's sake I will concede this, at present. But then I must be allowed of course to make some inquiries here. If the Logos became the soul of Jesus, then in what re- spect was Jesus really and truly a man? A man is made up of a material body and a reasonable human soul. I have always been accustomed to suppose, moreover, that the soul is, in a high and altogether preeminent sense, the very essence of man or human nature. The body is only the costume ; the soul is the person. To talk then of Christ's being a man, and on this ground to deny that he can have a divine nature, and yet to re- present him as having no human soul, but only as being inhabi- ted by the Logos — is this steering clear of mystery and even ab- surdity ? 18* 210 rosTSCRirT. [lett. t. Such is one horn of the dilemma. The other is equally promi- nent and sharp. A comj/ositt person, GM and man, is said by 1'nitarians to bl an ahsurditx . But it' so, how is this at all re- moved by linking in the person of Jesus the fagOMK^NM and the fleshly natun :■ I say fleshly, lor I cannot of course speak of human nature, when a human soul is denied to Jesus. Here then Arianism itself bringl forward and eommends to our faith, a Saviour who is neither human nor divine, neither of the an- gelic tldef nor of that of the sons of men. What else is this, hut to hid us helieve in two natures and one person t Yea, we are called on to admit, that there are two created natures united in one and the same person. This is the other horn of the di- lemma. For my own part, I can mueli r in predicai unit i our inindd at all on considerations of this nature. In what then does this unity positivelj and absolutely coi A positive definition of it, Le. an affirmative definition, I be- have no Unitarian can well give, however familiar be may he with tit rminology. We may say negatively, that there, is baH I iM God and DO more, and the like ; yet all of this makes no approach to an affirmative defini- tion. Unity, moreover, cannot consist in sameness or uoro\ (I can find no adequate English word] of attribute ; tor the God- d has many attributes. It cannot consist in on- Hon ; tor there ie B variety of this. e. g. creatine. su-tain- awarding, punishing, etc. If now we push this inquiry to its utmost bounds, we shall he obliged, at last, to fall hack upon our own as of one- ness or identity of soul, in all the various stages of our existBl Our co of identity is our highest evidence of oneness in our souls, or in our person-, (persons in the metaphysical sense). What we are conscious of in ourselves, as constituting our essential 1 or Ezoismus, we apply to the Godhead, when we assert its unity. We mean that there is the same identical S rit or Mind, which thinks and acts at all times and in all Whatever may be th tial or ontologies! constitu- ents or elements of this Spirit or Mind, they have been, are, and will continue to he. identically the same, and of course the same Mind or Agent will continue to exist. In such a sense we af- firm that God is oiu. We tacitly refer, in such an assertion, to our own consciousness of oneness and identity in our spirits. . what is there in all this, which renders it impossible or ird, that there should he distinctions in the Godhead? We that it is u the same in suhstance f that there are not two or more wills, two or more consciously not two or more distinct sete so to speak) of essential attribute.-; and the like. But how does all this piove, that in the Godhead there are no distinctions, which, by the manner of their development, have given rise to the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; J, Thou, He; ami the like? Imperfection of language oblige- to express these distinctions in such a way. Who can venture to assert, that there are not jnoclijications of the divine Being 214 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V. which give rise to all this, and which do not at all interfere with it- essential I'nitv r It would he even metapln sically and phi- lo>ophicall\ presumptuous, to say that there are not, and cannot he, such distinctions or modifications. J readily grant that n\c cannot prove them hy the aid of mere natural theology. Jlut I am equally certain, that we cannot disprove them. The whole matter must DO referred to nrtlulion. And it' sueh a fact or doctrine is revealed, no man can >ho\v that it is Stamped with any absurdity or contradiction of the divine Unity. Of course he cannot show, that we are hound to reject such a doctrine Oil this ground. Why then should a triumphant air he so often assumed hy Unitarian writers, as if they were the only men in the world suf- ficiently rational to vindicate the divine Unity? Why should they so often claim to he the only advocates of a consistent and rational view of the nature of the Godhead ? I deny the justice of such claims. I deny the right to charge us with believing in three Gods, or with maintaining what is in itself ahsurd or im- poSSfbfo. It is easy, I well know, to talk largely and loudly of the divine unity. J5ut it is not so easy to define what one really means hy it. It is still harder to show, that unity is at all in- compatible with the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, when these are understood in the scriptural sense. I scarcely need to surest, that probably neither Mrs. D., nor thousands of others who have the words one God so constantly in their mouths, ever bestowed one serious hour of reflection on the inquiry: What idea does this language exactly convey? And when we get to the ne plus ultra of our inquiries, we find nothing that can show us in any degree, that die doctrine of the Trinity involves either an impossibility or an absurdity. We say respecting ourselves, that the understanding perceives and comprehends, that the will decides, that reason ponders and compares and deduces, and the like. That is, we often assign distinct and diverse attributes to the soul or mind, and speak of thetn as distinct agents, doing different things and active in a variety of ways. JSut in the language of sound and well ar- ranged philosophy WC also say: The so?// comprehends, decide*, ponders, compares, concludes, and the like. Will any one ven- ture to call the propriety of either of these methods of expression in question? I trust not. Jf this he allowed, on all hands, is there not Something to be learned from it, in respect to the subject hefore ne? Wh> may we not say, that the Father does this, the Send that, and the Holy ►Spirit dons another and different tiling, and ft. v.] Pom< vm. ill \«t say, with perfect truth, ami correctness that God does each of these things? Some oflhe ancients held man to be i njcro- a»/fi, that is a comprcaosd similitude or reseniblanoe of the whole world. Without appealing to this, ire have better an- th(»rity for saying, that " .Mau was made iu the image of God." Our mind or spirit performs acts bo diverse, and is constitution^ ally and isst nti'dhf mi fitted tO perform SUCh acts, that w c name it- si vera! faculties as agents in and bj themselves, when v#e speak of those acts which arc appropriate to each; and yet we do not ooce think of doing an\ violence by all this to me doe- trine of OUT OWn unity. Why now can it not l>c true of lather, Son. and Holy Ghost, that there is a foundation in the essential nature of the Godhead, for the diversity of acts attributed to •h of them, while one and the same God is u in all, and over all, and through all?" I do not say — I must not be understood as meaning to aver, that any comparison drawn from created beings is fully adequate to explain the nature of an uncreated and eternal Being. The thing is impossible. But I may say, that since man is made in the image of God, we may help to remove difficulties that lie in our way in regard to our conceptions of the Trinity, by inviting attention to a like mystery in respect to ourselves. I may call, moreover, on all sober and reasoning Uni- tarians to consider, whether there is anything more absurd or contradictory, in saying that the Father does this, and the Son that, and the Spirit another thing, and also in saying that God does each of these things, than there is in saying, that the un- derstanding does this, and the will that, and reason another thing, and yet that the sold does each and all of these. Is there a sound thinker in the land, who will venture to say, that this language in respect to the soul is not every day employed, and employed without any apprehension of creating difficulties in respect to the unity of the soul ? Why should the like use of language, then, in regard to the Godhead, be viewed in such a light as to name it absurd and irrational? Truly the assertion of Unitarians, that Trinity is incompatible with Unity, and that distinctions in the Godhead are based upon impossibility and absurdity, are far — in my judgment very far — from having any solid foundation. nvo DISCOURSES ON THE ATONEMENT 19 [Tbi two following Sermons on die Atonement were delivered in tlic Chapel of the TheoL Seminary in Andover t in the year 1824, when then med to be a BpeciaJ call for a discussion of the Bubject of which they treat. They were printed soon after delivery, by request of the Students and others : and they have, Bince thai period, been several times reprint- ed, partly in large editions. For some time peal there have been none for Bale. The frequency of the inquiry for them, and the importance of the Bubject, are my apology for reprinting them at present, if an apolo- gy be necessary. My views in respect to the subject of the Sermons hate not changed since that period, excepting that they have become more vivid and intensive, if there be a central point in the system of Christianity, around which all the rest of the system moves, I am satis- fied that it i- the doctrine of Ai<>m:mi:\t. or (in other words) the vi< \- BIOU8 SUFVXRINGfl and DJU.TB 00 ( 'h liisr. in order that sinners may be pardoned and redeemed. The design of the two following discos is to remove the leading objections to this doctrine, and to establish it on a scriptural basis. It would be easier, in some respects, to write a hook mi such a subject, than to compress what one has to -ay. within the limits of two abort discourses. But then brevity has its advantages, in some cases; and I mu-t leave more .ample discussion to professed The- gians, whose proper business it i-. Of course, no intelligent peasosi can regard the discourses which follow, as anything mure than a mere outiiit- of the all-important Bubject under consideration. — M. S.] M< DISCOURSE I ISAIAH i. in. Hf. was w FOR Oim TRAFSGR1 9SIORI : III". \\ it BR1 ISED FOR mi R IlfiqtTITIES ; THE CHASTISEMENT OF OCR PEACE WAS rruN him J \M» iT BIS STRIFES IBM WE HEALED. Al.l WE i.iki 8H] I P H\ i ASTRAY J F< I HATE TURNED f.yf.ky <>\i; i o HIS o\\ N WAY J AND THE LORD II VTH LAID ON HIM TDK INIQUITY OF TS ALL. Tni: sentiment of tlii> passage may perhaps be made more perspicuous, by a translation of it somewhat nearer to the spirit of the original. " He was wounded on account of our transgressions ; he was smitten on account of our iniquities ; the chastisement by which our peace is procured was laid on him ; and by his wounds are we healed. All we like sheep have gone astray ; we have wandered each one in the path that he chose ; and Jehovah hath laid on him the punishment due to us all." This passage, no less than the august personage to whom it relates, has been to the Jews of ancient and modern times a stumbling block, and to many of the Gentiles foolishness. Very soon after Christians, when disputing with the Jews about Christ crucified, began to make their appeal to it, as proof that a suffering and atoning Saviour, Jesus of Naza- reth, was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews set themselves to find out some other person, or some class of men, concerning whom the prophet might be regarded as here speaking. Some of them have maintained, that the prophet had reference to their nation at large ; some that he had respect to Uzziah, Hezekiah, or Joeiah; while others suppose, that Isaiah, Jeremiah, or some one of the prophets, was the subject of his description. ISTor have commentators 220 -i m; atonf.mi [DI8C. L and critic- among Christians been wanting, who hare advo- cated the opinions thus proposed by the Jews. Of late, the prevailing sentiment among the so-called neological class of critics ie, that the ]>rn],J t rtl<> order of men among the He- brews, rather than any particular individual of it, is r efe rr ed to by Isaiah. As the prophet8, in ancient time-, were often subjected to Bufferings and death, by the persecuting spirit which reigned among their contemporaries ; so they are sup- posed to he represented, in our text and context, as bearing the sins of the nation, and making atonement for them. It is not my present design to enter into a particular ex- amination of these discrepant and very unsatisfactory inter- pretations. To the Jew 1 would say : In what other part of the Old Testament are the sufferings of any mere king or prophet ever represented as expiatory? The Mosaic law has prescribed expiatory sacrifices ; and has prescribed all that were to be offered under the ancient dispensation. What part of this law speaks of expiation by the sufferings and death of any mere king or prophet ? Or if the Jewish na- tion at large be the subject of the prophet's description, where is this nation, when persecuted and suffering, repre- sented as an expiatory sacrifice? And for whom did they make expiation? On the contrary, are they not always rep- resented as bearing the punishment due to their awn trans- gressions, and not as bearing that due to others? To the commentator bearing the name of Christian, and disposed to follow these wanderings of unbelief and olfence at the cross of Christ in which the Jews have so long indul- ged, I have only one brief remark to make ; which is, that evangelists and apostles have told us, who is the subject of the prophet's description in our text and context. When the treasurer of the Ethiopian qtieen had been up to worship at Jerusalem, and was returning home, by an express direction from the Spirit of God Philip the evangelist met him. Afl Philip drew near, he heard the Ethiopian reading a portion of our chapter: k ' lie was led M a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb before his shearers, so he opened not his DISC. I.] 1 HI A.TON 221 mouth, In his humiliation, his judgment was takes away; Mi who shall declare hi> generation? for hi- life h taken Grom the earth. And the eunuch laid to Philip : Of whom aketh the prophet this? Of himself} or of some other man? Thru Philip opened his mouth, and began at the tame Scripture, and preached onto him JESUS.'- Acts 8: also applied a part of our chapter to the Basse hed Sufferer. 4 - Christ suffered tor us . . . his own Belf our -in- in his own body on the tree ... by who.-e strij an healed ; tor ye were as sheep going astray." 1 Pet. -1 — 25. The two last phrases are quotations from our text itself) and are certainly applied by the apostle directly to the Saviour. I add only, that Jesus himself cites a part of the chapter from which our text is taken, as containing a description of hi- own sufferings: " I say unto you, that what is written must be accomplished in me : And he was reckoned among the transgressors." Luke 22: 07, comp. Is. 53: 12. I feel no concern further to vindicate the application of the text to the person of the Messiah. The matter resolves it- self into the simple question, whether the interpretation of evangelists and apostles is to be admitted, and believed to be correct ; or whether our own conjecture or philosophical ra- tiocination is to be the ultimate authority, to which w r e must make our appeal. From the language of our text? as applied to Christ, I de- duce the proposition, that he suffered as our substitute ; Or, that HIS SUFFERINGS AND DEATH WERE AN EXPIATORY OFFERING, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH OUR SINS ABE PARDON- ED, AM) WE A Jit: RE8TO&ED TO THE DIVINE FAVOUR. My present object is to discuss the doctrine of the atone- ment made by Christ, which this proposition brings to our view ; and in doing this, I design, I. To make some explanations necessary to a right under- standing of the subject. II. To prove the doctrine. *I9 Till: ATOXKMF.XT. DI>C. I« J II. To answer KHDfl objections all tinst it. aiding to the method proposed, I am, lirst, to make •• explanations necessary to a right understanding of our Subject. In order to avoid all misapprehension of the design which I haw in view, let me observe at the commencement of this discourse, thai it is not my object to treat of the oh of Christ, considered as having an influence upon our redemp- tion, or in procuring salvation for as* I speak of obedience here, in the sense which many of the older divines mean to express, when they employ the phrase active obedience of Christ, in order to distinguish his positive fulfilment of the divine law from what they name his pu;ai> or infu< nv. the ltn- . i.] Till LT0H1 v: 22:] 1MIM1NT ] > US AS SIWN1 LIK8T Hit LAWj and that in ecru - fer* and ft 1 to his favour* A 1 something put in lien <>f another thing, and epted instead of it. An g ia something presented to God. An offering which i< acceptable to him, is one made by \w< appointment An expiatory offering, under the rish law, h slain beast, presented to God by his ap- itnirnt, and by a person who had been guilty of some offence and incurred some penalty ; in consequence of which n, the penalty for his offence, threatened by the law of Mioses, iraa remitted, or the offender was pardoned. To say then that Christ made an expiatory offering for us, according to my apprehension of the meaning of scriptural language, implies that his sufferings and death were, by di- ntment, accepted instead of the punishment due to us as sinners, and that God, in consequence of the offering made by Christ, pardons our offences and restores us to his favour. This also is just what I mean, when I say that Christ in his sufferings and death icas our substitute. I do not feel at all disposed to find any fault with other language, which Christians may choose to employ, in order to designate the idea that I have now expressed, provided they define the sense in which they employ it, and do not leave it open to misconstruction. So doing they may say : " Christ made satisfaction for our sins;" or, "his death w T as a full equivalent for the demands of the law ;" or, " our pun- ishment — our guilt — was transferred to him ;" for certainly our text employs phraseology equally strong, and of the same nature with this. I may also say: " Christ made atonement — Christ atoned — for our sins ; his sufferings were vicarious — were in lieu of ours ; he bore the punishment due to 1 I may use other and different expressions of the same nature, to designate my ideas relative to the subject before us ; but whatever phraseology of this kind I might employ, or whatever I may employ in this discourse, my meaning would and will be one and the same, viz. Christ 224 mi-: atoxf.mfxt. [disc. r. r i -\riAToi;v mil. SOBSim R, in the mom already explained* So far as I am able to u nd er s t a nd the language which Christians io general, who receive tlic doctrine of the atone- ment, have employed in respect to this subject, it is designed to convey the idea that I have just conveyed. I am aware that one may occasionally meet with expressions in some writers, relative to the Bufferings of Christ, that seem to im- ply something more than what I have expressed, or some- thing different from it. Bat most divines, who have clearly explained themselves, appear to me substantially to agree With the view which I have given of substitution or expiato- ry ottering. IF this be the fact, is it not idle to waste time and pains, in contending about certain mode* of i rj,rcssion^ which some may choose to employ, but which others think it better to avoid because they are liable to misconstruction, when, after all, there is a substantial agreement in regard to the idea, to be designated ? In reality, can such contention amount to anything more than a strife about words? A strife unworthy of sober and earnest inquirers after truth ; and one which never can serve any purpose, but to alienate from each other and divide those, who love the Saviour, and trust far acceptance with God solely in his atoning blood. To pursue still farther the explanation of the leading terms employed to de.-ignate the doctrine which I am to establish ; a s'tbsfif/ifr may be, and where it is voluntarily accepted on the part of him to whom any debt or reparation is dins must b<-, an equivalent of some kind or other, a satufaction in some BCBSe, for such debt or penally due. Bat it may be equiva- lent or satisfactory, without being the same either in kind or quantity as that in the place of which it comes. For plainly an equivalent US of two sorts. The fret has respect to kind and quantity^ and requires equality or sameness in regard to both. The second is where the substitute answers the same 0*4 Bfl that would have done in the place of which it is put, or a higher end of the same nature. The first species of substitution or equivalency belongs to various transactions of MSO. L] I Mi: AinMMIN 1. 225 business among men ; Bach as borrowing :m6Cl to civil rulers and their subjects, the equivalent or sat- isfaction is not usually the same in kind or quantity as that for which it is substituted. Indeed, in all transactions which have respect to a penalty for any injury done, or any viola- tion of law, where substitution is admitted with regard to the offender, the first kind of equivalency, or that which consists in the same quality and quantity, is out of the question. The letter of a penal law demands that the offender himself, and no other, should suffer. But the object of the penalty — the ultimate and highest object of attaching it to a law — may be attained, perhaps, in some other way, and by substitution ; even in a more effectual manner, in some cases, than by a literal infliction of the punishment threatened. On the sup- position that it can be so attained, then if a substitute be ad- mitted instead of literally inflicting the penalty, satisfaction may be truly said to be made, or an equivalent rendered, ac- cording to the common usage and understanding of all men, in respect to subjects of this nature. Indeed the term equiva- lent has come, in general usage, most commonly to imply, that the substitute not only may, but actually does, differ in some respects from that for which it is substituted. If Christ died then as a substitute for sinners, it is not at all necessary to suppose, that his sufferings were the same I EIE A rONEMENT. [DISC. I. able horror, does he exhibit on the cross! Thousands of other sufferers have met death, in all its most dreadful fern with far more composure, even when unsupported l»v the the consolations and hopes of religion. Thousands of mar- tyrs, feeble, emaciated, thousands even of the more deliea ., have been stretched on the rack, or cast into the lam — punishments more dreadful than simple crucifixion — while with a dauntless, nay with a triumphant spirit, they rejoiced in the midst of torments. Hut here is a sufferer, the only one on earth who ever had a spotless character, tilled too with exalted and certain hopes of ultimate triumph and glory, first shrinking with horror from the enp of Buffering which In* \\ to drink, and then uttering language indicative of the highest ible agitation and distress upon the cross. All this, now, presents a difficulty which cannot be solved, on the ground that his death was in any respect like that of a common man. If it indeed were such, must he not be re- garded by every one who contemplates his demeanor on the cro.->. a- wanting in calmness and fortitude of soul, when he was so appalled and agitated with sufferings which others have triumphantly endured? Are we not constrained then to regard him as suffering in a degree unparalleled) indescrib- able, in short not capable of being adequately conceived of by us 1 What this degree was, the Scriptures have not explicitly declared ; nor indeed was such a declaration necessary. Enough, that in his Buffering the awful displeasure of God ■gMBfll sin has been manifested in a most impressive manner. Enough, if God has judged that his Bufferings, as our substi- tute, were carried to such a height as was by infinite wisdom deemed necessary, in order to promote the best designs of the divine government. To pursue my explanation ; although I cannot consider an equivalent of the first kind as being rendered by the death of Christ, yet 1 fully believe that one of the second kind wa> rendered The object o£ the penalty affixed to the divine law is noi nrv,< to pul restraint upon offeno simony or warning against them, and to secure the inter \ irtue and obedience, [fnow virtue be in the bail manner promoted, and tin n i - I, by the death of Christ and the consequences that. llow from it, thru tin of the di\ law and it- penalties is promoted in the most effectual man* aer. Such 1 suppose t<> be Ihe fact ; but this is not the proper place to establish it. I only state bo much, therefore, jsary to elucidate the meaning which I assign to the language that I have employed. Indeed, I view the great object of the divine law ai answered by the death of Christ in a much higher degree, than it could have been by a mere law-administration and literal infliction of the penalty. Must not his death be regarded as a more awful manifesta- tion of divine displeasure against sin, than the execution of the law on sinners themselves ? I am forced to view the subject in this light, when I contemplate the infinite dignity of the Saviour's person, and the spotless purity of his char- acter, and then turn my eye to Gethsemane, and to the scenes of the cross. I confess myself averse to indulging much in speculation here, as to the how and the ichy of the equivalency in question. My reason is, that the sacred writers do not seem to indulge in any curious speculation on the subject. Some things, as presented by them, appear exceedingly plain. When they bring to our view the Word, wdio was in the beginning with God and who was God ; who created all things ; who is God over all, and blessed forever; the tkue God and eternal life ; and represent him as becoming incarnate — as taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ; and all this on our ac- count, that we might be redeemed from deserved ruin ; they do this to excite our gratitude, our love, our humility, our obedience ; and also to urge upon us our obligation to devote ourselves, with all we have and are, to the service of him 20 230 MIL ATO.M.MLNT. [DISC. I. "who loved u<, and who gave himself to die for as." They teach us that the gospel presents motive- tu obedience of a higher nature, and puts restraints upon vice that are more i -f- fretual, than a system of law could do. With this iay well be content : for with this they appear to have been sat- isfied. vYhere is there any philosophizing, any refined Bp ulatiuu in their writings, about the manner in which equiv- alency or satisfaction is or can be made out ? Can we not acquiesce in the subject, just as they have left it? If they present the death of Christ as a monitory and most affecting display of the evil of sin, and of the divine displeasure agar it, the value of which h enhanced beyond description by the dignity of his person, and the peculiar severity of his suffer- ings; and if this makes an appeal to the moral sensibilit of the human race, in favour of gratitude and obedience to God, and against sin. in a manner far more affecting and suc- cessful, than the literal execution of the penalty of the law on sinners ; is not this sufficient ? And if thus much lies on the face of the New Testament, and every reader, learned and unlearned, can see and feel it : this is enough. The ob- ject of the law is in the most effectual manner answered. For myself, I need nothing more than this to produce qui- etude of mind, in regard to this part of our subject. More than this, the Laplander and the Hottentot — nay most of the human race — cannot well be expected to understand ; nor can I see how it is really important that they should. If oth< feel that clear and .satisfactory views about the manner in which equivalency is made oat, are to be obtained by pursu- ing the speculations of a refined philosophy, I will not object. But I ma] 5t one caution, viz., that if we attempt to build the doctrine ^\' atonement on the speculations of phi- losophy, and do not acquiesce in the matter as it is simply presented by the writers of the New Testament — so -imply that the heathen can understand and feel it as well as we — then we must not be surprised, if we find some other modes of what may be deemed more refined philosophy, objecting to the atonement, and claiming a right to prostrate the edifice DISC. I.] HI' ; Ml N I. M which ire had «1 i<> be reared and established, by the same power which has raised it up. J have Sai I enough] I trilSt) tO explain what I mean, and i what I do not mean, by the principal terms employed relative to the doctrine which I am disoossingi I pan <>n then. II. TV) prove the doctrine, that Christ in hi- sufferings was our -i B8TIT1 n:, or that bj them he made an BXPIATOET OFi bring for sinn< Here I must ask at the threshold : Before what tribunal must the question be brought which this subject necessarily I am hold to aver that philosophy is not a competent judge to decide it. In averring this, however, I take it for granted, that philosophy is unable to disprove the credit due to divine revelation. On the supposition that such is the tact, and as a believer in divine revelation, I hold myself under obligation to prove nothing more in regard to the substitution or expia- tory sacrifice of Christ, than that the Scriptures have re- vealed it as a fact, lias God declared it to be a fact ? Do the Saviour and his apostles declare it to be so ? These are the questions, and the only ones of any particular impor- tance, about which a sincere and implicit believer in the di- vine testimony needs to be solicitous. It cannot surely be of much consequence, what difficulties can be raised by specu- lating on philosophical grounds, about the nature or manner of substitution. The fact itself is that with which we are concerned, as poor ruined sinners. We might indeed well say, that when the authority of revelation is once admitted, the questions xchy and how, in respect to the atonement, might be entirely dismissed from our discussion, as being by no means necessarily attached to it. Does philosophy find the doctrine of atonement by the death of the Son of God mysterious? We readily concede that it is so ; and we know that the dis- tinguished apostle of the Gentiles believed the mystery of god- liness to be great ; and that the angels themselves are repre- sented as earnestly desirous of prying into this mystery. 232 Till: ATONEMENT. [DISC. I. Bui if philosophy wondera here, (for which we will not blame her), yd die has no right to scoff. If atonement by the vicarious Buffering and death of Chrfet he a reality, it M one which the hook of God only reveals. I fully agree with the Naturalists hi Baying, that the book of nature presents nothing but a blank leaf, in respect to an atonement effected in this manner. No( one syllable can be made out from it, with any certainty. The necessity of BOme atonement or ex- piatory offering, has indeed been felt by nearly all the human race, however unenlightened. It has been universally ac- knowledged, in the bloody sacrifices which they have offered to the gods whom they worshipped. But the method of it, as proposed in the Gospel, is quite above the discovery of unen- lightened or even philosophical reason. The most rigid sect Of moralists among the heathen did not admit, that pardoning mercy could with any propriety be extended to those, who had incurred the penalty which justice demanded. Seneca declares that a wise man docs not remit the punishment which he ought to exact. (De Clementia 11. 0, 7). How then could this philosopher, or those who were like him, discover or be- lieve the doctrine of substitution or vicarious suffering by the death of the Son of God? AVhat they never imagined, or what many when it is proposed to them regard as foolishness, ( iod has declared to be the means of salvation. To revelation then we must go for any instruction, with regard to the doc- trim.' of pardoning mercy through the atoning blood of Jesus. I >u t another view of the subject is necessarily Suggested by that which has now been taken. This IS, that as philosophy was unable to discover the doctrine of atonement by Christ, lhe is equally incompetent to make any valid objections against it. She cannot show that it is absurd. Could this be done, then we must admit that the doctrine of atonement by Vicarious Buffering would be incapable of defence ; for the human mind, if it be well illuminated, and guided in its 18- rches by candour and a love of truth, cannot receive and ivdit that which is absurd. Bat who does not know that through ignorance, prejudice, and haste, or when influenced . i.] rai 203 by erroneous philosophy, some men may pronounce things to tbsard, which the most acute, sober, and judicious think to rational ? in regard, however, to the doctrine of sub- stitution, the matter ><•< ms to be quite clear. Absurd this if cannot be called; fur the wisest andbesl hu- man governments, as has already been mentioned, often admit the principle in respect to penalties incurred. But will any one OOUnt of this, to accuse civil rulers of acting irra- tionally and absurdly? Willanyone even venture the asser- tion, that this principle, prudently and soberly applied, is not the mean- of evident gain in respect to the great ends which civil government is designed to accomplish? If not, then surely it must be conceded, that infinite power, connected with infinite wisdom and benevolence, can employ substitution in such a way as to promote the important ends of the divine government. Philosophy, most evidently, has it not in her power to disprove this; and therefore has no right to deny the possibility of it ; much less to declare that the doctrine is absurd. In short, as she cannot do this, nor disprove the credit due to revelation, it is plain that the matter comes not at all within her jurisdiction. The question in respect to substitution, then, stands high above the objections which all the efforts of philosophy can raise ; equally unaffected by her sophistry at one time, or by her scorn and contumely at another. It follows from what has been said, that the impossibility of substitution, under the divine government, cannot be estab- lished. Nay, I advance farther, and aver that so far from there being any impossibility in the case, it is a matter of fact that substitution was admitted for nearly fifteen centuries, under the Mosaic dispensation ; to say nothing of the expia- tory sacrifices of the patriarchal age. It was admitted, too, under the Mosaic economy, as a type of the substitution or expiatory offering of Christ. Paul has taught us, in the most explicit manner, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, that all the expiatory offerings and sacrifices of the Jews were typical of the great atoning sacrifice by the death of Christ ; and that they 20* 234 i in: atonement. [disci. Wert originally designed hg God to be W. Consequently, when thus authorized, we may draw a comparison from the one, in order to illustrate the other. The expiatory offerings of the law were not a substitution, I admit, which did of itself procure a remission of the punish- ment due to the moral turpitude of sin ; for it is impossible, i- the .-acred writer lias told us, that the blood of gOfttS and bullocks should take away Bin, and tranquillize the conscience wounded by a sense of guilt It could not remove the appre- hension, thai divine displeasure might inflict on the offender punishment of a spiritual nature. But Still, it is a fact that the blood of goats and bullocks was appointed by God, to be an expiatory offering for certain offences against the Jewish law ; while at the same time this very offering WBS also a type of the sacrifice to be offered by Christ, in order to remove the punishment due to moral turpitude. lie who brought a sin or trespass offering, and presented it to the Lord, was ex- empted from the sentence which the law of Moses pronounced against the external offence that he had committed. The whole nation, as such, were freed, on the great day of atone- ment, from the penalty annexed to certain offences, when the high-priest entered the most holy place, and presented the blood of the national offering or victim before Jehovah; not indeed from the punishment of a spiritual nature due to sin, but from penalty of an external nature, threatened to be In- flicted during the present life. In a word. God as the sove- reign legislator and judge of the Jews did. by the exercise of his supreme 4 right, actually appoint sin and trespass offerings a- expiatory Sacrifices; which, being presented agreeably to his appointment, were followed by the real remission, on his part, of the penalty due to certain olVcnces, which was threat- ened by the law of MoseS. So the apostle himself Mates the Subject : u The blood of bulls and goats, and the aur guilty rebellious race ? A question which "agea and generations" could not answer; a mystery hidden from them. A question which philosophy may seek in vain satisfactorily to solve. But in the cross of Christ — in his expiatory suffering! and death— we way find an answer. Here, "mercy ami truth have met together; right* ousness and peace have embraced each other." In the of Christ, a personage of such transcendent dignity and glory, we see the terrors of divine justice displayed in the most affecting manner, and are impressively taught what evil is due to sin. In the pardon purchased by his death, we contemplate the riches of divine mercy. God might have displayed his justice, indeed, in the world of perdition, and called us to contemplate it as written in characters that w T ould make us shudder. His mercy also he might have dis- played, by the absolute and unconditional pardon of sinners, provided no atonement had been made. But who could look on the radiance of his simple justice, as exhibited only in such a manner as I have stated, without extinguishing his vision forever? Or who could contemplate undiscriminating and unconditional mercy only, without being influenced to forget the awful displeasure of God against sin, or being em- boldened to continue in it? But in the cross of Jesus, his justice and his mercy are united. Here is the bright spot where the effulgency of the Deity converges and concenters. On this we may gaze with admiration, with calmness, with delight; for here the rays of eternal glory meet and blend, so as to be sweetly attempered to our vision. The bow in the cloud, where the glories of the sun, the brightest image of its Maker in the natural world, meet and mingle, and pre- sent to our view the delightful token that the waters of a flood will drown the earth no more, is but a faint emblem of the attempered glory which beams from the cross of Jesus, the token of deliverance from a flood more awful than that of Noah. DISCOURSE II ISAIAH LIN. f>, G. HE WAfl WnlMiED FOR OUR T R \ H I (. KESSION 18 J HE WAS BRUISED FOR 01 r iniquities; Till chastisement of our peace was upon HIM J AND BY HIS BTRIPXS A. RE W E UK MID. Al*L WE I. IKF. SHE1 P HAYS <.n\l \-TK\V: WE HAVE TURNED EVERY ONE TO HIS OWN WAY ; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL. I have endeavoured, in the preceding discourse, to make such explanations as are necessary to a right understanding of our subject ; and to prepare the way for the introduction of direct proof from the Scriptures respecting the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. I have endeavoured also to show, that we cannot refer the question, whether an expiatory offering has been made by the Son of God for the sins of men, to the tribunal of philosophy. The impossibility of such an offer- ing, philosophy cannot prove. The fact that substitution in the case of penalties incurred, did for many centuries consti- tute a distinguishing characteristic in the administration of di- vine government among the Jews, must be admitted ; and the possibility that it may constitute a prominent feature of God's general government, cannot therefore be disproved. I have ventured even to advance a step farther, and undertak- en to show that the improbability of an atonement for sin can by no means be made out ; inasmuch as the human race at large are deeply impressed with the need of propitiatory sac- rifice. Moreover, the attributes of God and the character of man, as revealed in the Scriptures, render the doctrine of pardon for sin through the expiatory offering of Christ, by no means improbable. li' I have succeeded in my endeavours to remove obsta- DISC. II.] Till 241 . which seemed to lie in the way of making an impartial estimate of Scripture testimony in reaped t<> the subject be- fore as, ami have also Bhown that the whole question must he referred for decision solely to the word of God, then we are prepared without embarrassment to pursue the inquiry: What is tlie testimony of revelation on this subject? Let me here premise a tew considerations respecting tin kind of appeal which I am about to make to the Scriptutt ami then my proof shall he very brief. For nothing can be plainer, than that if " all Scripture is given by inspiration of ( Jod," then M the mouth of two or three witnesses" is enough to establish the point at which I aim. Of the very numer- ous texts, therefore, to which I might appeal, I shall select but a few ; and for every attentive and intelligent reader of the Bible, these may serve as a clue to all the rest. My first remark is, that every speaker and w r riter, intend- ing to be understood, employs, and necessarily employs, lan- guage in the same sense, in which those whom he addresses use and understand it. None will deny so plain a proposi- tion. Nor can it be deemed less certain, that the sacred wri- ters designed to be understood by those whom they addressed. My second remark is, that all the writers of the Old and New Testament were Jews ; and that all the Scriptures, with . very little exception, were originally addressed to Jews, or to churches which in part consisted of Jews. If w r e design, then, to come at the meaning of the sacred writers, we must necessarily construe their language in the same way as the Jews would naturally construe it, who lived in the age of the prophets and apostles. Nothing can be more plain and ir- refragable, than this maxim of interpretation. It is no part of the inquiry, what ideas we may affix to the language of Scripture, coming to read it in another tongue, in another re- gion, nurtured in the bosom of speculative philosophy, and desirous of adjusting everything to our own standard. AVjiat IDEAS DID TIIK PROPHETS, APOSTLES, AND EVANGELISTS mean to convey ? is the only proper question, for one who 21 242 Tin [disc. ii. -imply to the law and to the testimony for the grounds of his belief Let u- then call to mind, that every Jew was habituallj conversant with expiatory tacrificeg) with subttitution : that the system of substitution was inwrought into the very oon- Btitution of bifi religious worship ; and that all the Scripture language, which baa respect to the -aeriiiee of Christ, i- di- rectly borrowed from that which was every day used by the elcw. in -peaking of the sacrifices that he was required to of- fer. "With these fact- in view, we are ready to present the sub- ject, as it lies before OS in the Scriptures. Our text is fre&h in your minds, and I need net hen peat it. It asserts that the ' chastisement or punishment by which oar peace is procured, was laid upon the Saviour; that by his wounds we are healed; that all we ha astray, i. e. sinned; and that Jehovah hath laid on him the punishment due to us.' Other parts of the chapter, from which our text is taken, repeat the same idea. u For the transgression of my people was lie smitten," v. 8; "his soul [i. e. he] was made an offering for Bin/' v. 10 ; "lie shall jus- tify [i. e. procure pardon lor] many, for he shall bear their iniquities," v. 1 I ; " he hare the sin of many, and made inter- cession for the transgressors," v. 12. I only ask here, whether any man can rationally and can- didly indulge doubts, in what maimer the Jews whom the prophet addressed, must necessarily have understood this lan- guage ? In regard to the New Testament, it is so full of the doc- trine in question, that the only difficulty lies in making a pro- per selection of testimony. Peter has quoted some of the passages, which T have just Cited. Observe how he comments on this sentiment. " Who hi- own self, hare our Bins in his own body on the tree by whose stripes ye were healed," 1 Pet. 2: 24. A l * We were not redeemed with corruptible things .... but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and Tin: vtonkmknt. 213 with ■ >t." 1 IVt. l: 18, r.». John the Baptist al clainw: " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketfa away the rid;" 1. e. the victim, who bj divine appoint- Dt is, through hi- expiatory death, to procure pardon foa men, J«'lm l: 29, So the apostle John : " The Mood of Jeeofl Chri h u- from all sin," 1 John 1: 7. * Who is (be pitiation [or propitiatory sacrifice] for our sins; and not •a only. I >nt also for the una of the whole world/ 1 1 John '. Paul abounds, everywhere, with the most glowing sen- timents in respect to this great point *• Foi he hath made him to be Bin [L e. a sin offering] for us, who knew no .^in," 1 Cor, 5: 21. "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," 1 Cor. 5: 7. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins," Eph. 1: 7. "Whom God hath set forth to he a propitiation [or propitiatory sacrifice], through faith in his blood .... to declare his righteousness [i. e. for the manifestation of his pardoning mercy], by the remission of sins," Rom. 3: 2o. u Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us/' Gal. 3: 13. It w r ere easy to proceed, and fill out my whole discourse with passages of the like import. But the limits which I have prescribed to myself forbid ; and I shall close with two texts more, where the resemblance, between the sacrifices under the law and the offering of Christ, is so brought into view, that it is impossible to mistake the writer's meaning. " For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp ; wherefore Jesus also, that he might make expiation (uyiaut this mode of objecting, the speculators and skeptics who have rejected the doctrine of substitution, have been very careful to avoid. Their re- fuge is philosophy. They raise doubts about "equivalency ; they must see, as philosophers, the why and the how in re- spect to this mysterious transaction. Whatever pertains to this part of the subject, however, I have sufficiently dwelt 21* 24G THE ATONEMENT. Wj/m already. I shall therefore only glance here, at MBi of the hmmI popular Methods employed to oppose the doctrine of substitution, or to explain it away. Obj, 1. 'An atonement for sin is unnecessary, (iod can forgive it as well without an atonement as with one ; and Ike doctrine if true, divests the supreme Being of the attri- bute of mercy. If the full debt i- paid, where is there any room lor mercy in forgiving it?' But who is to decide the point, whether God can forgive sin without an atonement? The natural possibility of h^I admit : that is, I admit that as sovereign of the universe, and poss essin g omnipotence, he might pardon sin, (if he had judged it best to do so), without the intervention of a suffer- ing substitute. Bat this is no real part of our question. What has he judged best, is the only proper inquiry; and how can this be answered? Only, as we have already seen, by revelation. But that revelation tells us, it is "the Lamb of (iod which taketh away the sins of the world ;" that " there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby A\e mast be saved, nor is there salvation in any other," Acts 1: 12; that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all," 1 Tim. 2: 5, G ; and that "all have sinned land come short of the glory of God," and consequently, must be ''gratuitously justified through the redemption that is in JedUS Christ, whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory 8: 23— 25. The point then is put at rest by the Bible. And when those who doubt, admonish us that it would be unb '/in teepeet to the Supreme Being, and derogatory to his charac- ter, to suppose that the sufferings of Christ, an innocent vic- tim, were deemed by him to be necessary or acceptable; I answer simply with Paul : " For it N < ami; him, for whom are all thing-, and by whom are all things, in order to bring many >. When they further allege, also, that the attribute of mercy mi 217 virtually denied to the Suj Being! by the MtioQ •in Atonement, they can my this, only on the ground that an i'xa. •[ ;md literal equivalent for the penal part of the di- vine law. both as to the kind and quantity of suffering, lias n demanded of the substitute; a doctrine incapable, as we ipported : and to meet the difficulties of which. 1 certainly will not incur any responsibility. The rim iptural statement of substitution, is not liable to this ction. i. ' The motives to strenuous effort in order to live a virtuous and holy life, are greatly weakened by the doc- trine in question.' This objection is as old, at least, as the time of Paul ; and it is met by him in such a manner as to save us, at the pres- ent time, from the necessity of any effort to make an adequate ! v. After representing the death of Christ (Rom. iii.) as the only foundation of the sinner's hope, he meets this very objection, which he knew would be made by those who doubted his doctrine, in these words ; " Do we then make J the law, through faith ?" i. e. do we diminish the force of moral precept or obligation, by preaching the doctrine of gratuitous pardon through atoning blood? To which he an- swer- at once : " God forbid; rather we establish the law," i. e. we enforce its obligations by higher motives than before existed. After illustrating, by various instances, the fact that such a method of justifying sinners is presented to view in the Jewish Scriptures, he resumes the consideration of the objection. lie represents the objector as suggesting : " What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid," he answers again, " ho w shall we who are dead to sin, any longer continue to practise it ?" Rom. 6: 1,2. lie then goes on to show, (which is indeed a most conclusive and irrefragable answer to the whole objec- tion), that Christianity, from its very nature, implies of ne- sity the mortification of all our sinful passions and appe- tites ; it is itself, in its very essence, a principle directly 2 LB THE A I XT. [DISC. II. hostile to them, and therefore never can indulge or foster them. All the difficulty of objectors here, arises from overlook- ingthe whole of this grand point Atoning blood. niJfiniJTf and gratuitous aa the favours arc which it proffers, never prof- fered one unconditionally. The sinner must be huml and penitent^ who is sprinkled with it. The grace of God, which has appeared to all men through a Saviour's death, in- culcates on them, without exception, the absolute nee of denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts. It urges this, BS the New Testament most amply .-hows, by excitements to virtue of a higher nature, and by penalties for offences more awful, than any system of law could offer or impose. Obj. 3. k There is no need of laying so much stress upon the death of Christ, or of regarding him as our substitute in any sense, lie may very properly be called our Saviour and Redeemer, inasmuch as by Ins instructions, he has taught us the way in which we may acceptably obey God.' That to give instruction was a part of Christ's errand on earth, as our Redeemer, I cheerfully admit. But that this the great work, which marked him exclusively as the Saviour of sinners, it is quite impossible to prove. What ! Have we not other instructors, such too as were inspired, as well as he i Did he w T rite the New Testament ? Did he, who taught about three years, who k was never out of Pales- tine, and made but few disciples, teach as much, and labour with as much success, bs Paul, who preached about thirty year-, and traversed the world to proclaim the messages of salvation ? If the simple fact of giving instruction, of making disciples, of successfully inculcating the truth, makes a Re- deemer, then who has the best title to that appellation, Paul, or (I .-peak it with reverence) Jesus of Nazareth? And to whom should the songs of the redeemed in heaven be direct- ed ? Have we not, too, on such ground as this, just as many redeemers a- we have, or have had, religious teacher- ? OBJ. 1. • The death of Christ was a seal or conlirmation Hi of the truth, by which \v< nlightened and saved. It i< unnecessary to consider what tin- Seripture f its effica- imounting to any more than this. 1 [s this so i Then was Stephen, and James, and P< ■ad Paul, and other martyr to the cause of truth, who has Beated his testimony to it by his own blood, our re de em - gr loo. St i thru how the knee to then for this testt- in<» | ascribe our salvation, at least in part, to them? And the redeemed in heaven — do they aseribe salvation to marti/rs. when they cast their crowns at the feet of the Lamb, and sing: Thou wast slain, and km ! us to God by tiiv bid i )r..i. '). < Christ was our Redeemer, in that lie has by his •■ample set before us an acceptable way of worship, ami Jit ne, by personal obedience both active and passive, we may please God.' The force of his example to inculcate virtue and piety, we ought most gratefully to acknowledge. But the redeeming efficacy of it, I cannot by any means admit. A most conclu- sive reason against such a view of it, is found in the fact, that while his example could, of course, have an influence only during his life, and on times after those in which ho lived, his atonement is represented as reaching back to the very origin of our race. Thus Paul : " If the blood of bulls and goats sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your con- science from dead works, to serve the living God. And for this cause, [i. e. because his expiatory sacrifice possesses a spiritual or moral efficacy of such a nature], he is the Media- tor of the new covenant, so that, his death having taken place to make expiation (st$ im%VTQ«HHv) for sins committed under the former covenant^ they who are called may receive the promised blessings of the heavenly inheritance," Ileb. 9: 18 — lo. That his death is here plainly considered by the apostle, as having a retrospective view and influence, is clear from what follows. After observing that the Jewish sacri- 250 mi: ATQMBDCNT. [disc. II. teded to be often repeated, he goes on to gay : M The death of Christ once only was sufficient ; it' this wen Mi BO| M he adds, M then he must pftoi have suffered ^//c idation of the world!* That is. the object which his death hai now accomplished] the expiatory sacrifice which he has now made, must be adequate for men in all far the past, as well as for the future ; otherwise Christ nasi hai Buffered, since the foundation of the world, Ileb. 9: 25, 86. Exactly to the same purpose, is the sentiment in the third chapter of the epistle to the Romans. After asserting that God had sent forth Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, Paul adds : " To declare or manifest his gratuitous method of jus- tification by the forgiveness of sins in past times, [or, so that the sins of former times might be remitted], through the di- vine lenity; and to declare his gratuitous method of justifica- tion, at the present time," Rom. 3: 25, 26. The opposition of present time here, to the past in the preceding clause, show- beyond all reasonable doubt, as it seems to me, that the object of the apostle is to assert, not only the influence of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, but its extension to past times as well as to present ; and of course, the sentiment is the same with that which is disclosed in the epistle to the Hebrew-. Here then we may take our stand in defence of vicarious '■cure against being moved by suggestions, that \ i, I reply simply in their boguge: "II.' hath made him to be i who kn ' i. <•. the innocent lias sir guilty, 2 Cor. 5: -Jl. - But Christ bath iflered for sins, ihejuM for the unjust, that he ini'_ r lit Mag ii- to God/ 1 l Pet & I8i Such is thefatdt; and I ask : Is God unjust? and do the Scriptures reprfe- sent him to be bo, because of this ? n to those who do not acknowledge the authority of the Scripture-, to the BOber Kationali-t or Theidt, I might greater difficulty still. Children suffer on account of the crimes of their parents; nations, on account of the •s of their rulers ; and that, without the consent of the sufferers. Yet, by their own acknowledgment, divine justice and the principles of moral government are not impeachable on this account. Are they so then, if Christ voluntarily, and out of pity and love, suffered the just for the unjust? l>ut I must leave the examination of objections. I dismiss them all with this single remark. When it shall be shown that the language of the Scriptures must not, according to rules of interpretation which are fundamental and capable of demonstration, be construed as conveying, and as designed to convey, the idea of a vicarious or expiatory offering by the death of Christ ; when it shall be shown that there is even a possibility, that the Jews could have understood it in a dif- ferent way ; then we may consider the doctrine of substitu- tion as doubtful : but never till then, unless our own conjec- tural reasonings are to usurp the place of the sacred writers, in deciding upon this matter. Having thus briefly canvassed the topics proposed for con- sideration at the commencement of my discourses, I shall close with a few reflections on the subject which has been dis- ed. 1. The doctrine of the atonement is a fundamental doc- trine in the Christian system j and that which distinguishes it, in a peculiar manner, from all other systems of religion. It is fundamental ; because, often as belief in a Saviour is urged in the New Testament, and urged as the indispensa- Tin: AT- MM, [DISCL II. bic condition of salvation, equally often m belief in il viour, as our atoning sacrifice, urged ; and equally conspi ous is tlii- point, in the whole system of the Christian re- ligion. It is aot merely, or principally, in Jesus asooi I er, our example, or as having sealed the truth of hi ny by his own blood, thai we are called to believe ; but prin- cipally in him, in that very character iu which ho was "to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishnai while unto them who are saved, he is wisdom and righteo neSfl and sauctilication and redemption*" What says Paul to the Corinthians ? u I am determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Chrisl and him CRUCIFIED,' 1 1 Cor. 2: 2- Why Christ CRUCIFIED? Why not Christ as a teacher, an example, a martyr, a prophet ? Plainly because whatever; was done by Christ in all these characters, it would have utterly tailed to accomplish the design of saving men, unless his expiatory death had also taken place. Christ crucified, then, is the very point on which ultimately hang all the hopes of our sinful race. So Paul viewed it, wl lie said: " Cod forbid that I should glory, save in the CB< of Christ," GaL 0: 11. So we too ought to view it. Other Systems of religion teach the existence, attributes, and moral government of Cod. This does Judaism in its modern form ; this does Theism ; this does even MobammedisnL Other Stems inculcate our social and relative duties. The re- ligion of Ilindoostan exhibits the Deity in a state of incarna- tion ; so that even this is not in all respects peculiar to Chris- tianity. Hut no religion save the Christian, exhibits the in- carnate WOKD, suffering, bleeding, dying for sinners; a Lamb of God to take away the .-in of the world. This is at once the glory and the hope of the Christian system. This is what marks it with a peculiarity, which makes it exceed- ingly distinct from, and superior to, all otln in-. Give up this point, and you confound the broad line of distinction, which separates it- from all else that is called religion. Sailer this SUQ even to be eclipsed, and the race of man is covered with gloom Quench his glory, and we are at once involved DISC. II.] THE ATONEMENT. 253 in ten-fold more than Egyptian night; we are doomed to Wander in the shadow of death, on which no morning r will lawn, nor one gleam of radiance ever fall to alle- viate it- t» t. I remark, finally, that a Saviour Buffering R>r as, the rnal Word, God manifest in the flesh, and in our nature offering an expiatory sacrifice, presents to the moral sympa- thies of our race, higher excitements to virtue and piety, and more powerful dissua8ives from Bin, than any other considera- tion which the Christian religion proffers. I am quite confident, that I might safely undertake to estab- lish the correctness of this observation, from the nature of our moral constitution, and the manner in which we are most sue- fully influenced to engage in the mortification of our sin- ful appetites, and in the practice of virtue. But I will not make such an appeal, because I choose to rest the whole sub- ject on the Scriptures and the actual experience of Christians. Paul, when speaking on the topic now introduced, says: * God commendeth It is love toward ns, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," Rom. 5: 8. " Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends;" but Christ has far surpassed this. The same apos- tle says : "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," Rom. 5: 10. Here then is a con- sideration which will make every heart to vibrate, that is not lost to all sense of gratitude and of mercy. How many thou- sands have heard the thunders of Sinai unmoved ; and even while their awful power has made the very ground to rock on which they stood, how many have still turned a deaf ear to all the admonitions and threatenings which they conveyed, and grown more desperate in their resolutions to persist in rebellion against God ! Yet, after all, they have been melted down by the proclamation of Jesus' dying love, and have fallen as hum- ble suppliants at the foot of his cross. Yes, we may say with John : M Hereby perceive we the love of ( Sod, because he laid down his life for us, w 1 John 3: 1G. And again : k> In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent 22 THI-. A I < ».\ EMEU I [disc. II. his only begotten Son into the world, t lint ire might have life through him.'' But on what point did this love principally rest ? Where did i* 1 1 the glories of benevolence cooeesfc The same apoetle immediately informs us: M Herein ii love, not that we loved God, bat that he loved us, and sent his Sun to be the propitiation tor our -ins ;'' i. e. when we were enemi to God, Christ died as onr propitiatory offering, and nu reconciliation for ns, l John ;>: ( j, 10. Herein is love indeed* and hard niu display. -d in the creation, to the poor benighted Cireenlanders, they listened, they gazed, they turned away with silent neglect. The faithful disciples urged on them -till more vehemently the attributes of the Creator and Judge o\' all, and their moral accountability to him. They listened ; but their hearts remained like the eternal ice, with which their region is overspread. Compassion for their perishing condi- tion made the servants of Jesus more urgent still. One other chord there was, which perhaps, when touched, might be made to vibrate. They touched it with a faithful hand. They pro- claimed to the poor, gazing, perishing heathen, a Saviour, bleeding groaning, dying for them. They pointed them to his bleeding hands, his wounded side; they bid them look to that Lamb of (iod. which taketh away the sin of the world. The sight prostrated them to the earth. Their stubborn hearts melted like wax before the fire. They fell at the foot of a dy- ing Saviours cross, andVxclaimed : Lord Jesus, save us or we perish forever I Xes, and millions of the ransomed, who have gone to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads, can testify the power ot' thi- mighty truth on their rebellious hearts. ( rod commended his love toward them, by disclosing a Saviour dying on their acronnt, that they could no longer resist the c. n.] Tin: at«>\! mi 2~>~) invitations of his n It was a mi«;h . mi, roshing 00 with overwhelming power, and bearing everything bo* l\>n> it. Thai Jesus died, and died form); that he was our si ksti- i ; that his tender compassion did take us into view indi- vidually : that he took OUT nature in order to enter most inti- mately, most endearingly, into our sympathies, and prop himself To us under the most attractive form ; is the view whieh Paul took of the Redeemer's work. He was not an isolated monument of Buffering, and of Qod's displeasure against sin- ner- ; Dot merely a Blgn that sin could he pardoned, by which only an abstract testimony could be given, like that which the rainbow gives of Go6?s covenant to drown the earth no more — ^ mbol which might have served equally well for angels or for men. No ; " Verily lie did not assist the angels, hut the seed of Abraham." Man was the object — the only object — of his incarnation, sufferings, and death. Wherefore it be- hoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things per- taining unto God, to make reconciliation for the sins of his people. For in that he himself suffered, being tempted, he is able also to succour those that are tempted," Ileb. 2: 16 — 18. what pains is here taken to represent the suffering Sa- viour as participating in our nature, and entering with the most tender Sympathy into all our wants and woes. Is this to propose him as a mere example of suffering, cold, distant, abstract ; or is it to make him such a high-priest as we needed, one who can be touched with a feeling for our infirmities, hav- ing been tempted in all points as we are ? Speak, ye whose hearts have been melted by a Saviour's love, and tell us. V ye who live amid the horrors of eternal winter and storm ; or ye, who roam in deserts parched beneath a burning sun ; all ye, who once were without God and without hope in the world, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise, speak, and say : Is not this the Saviour you need ; the Saviour who has cheered your desponding hearts ; who has opened to you the prospect of glory ? Is 25G THE ATONEMENT. [DISC. II. not this he whom your souls love? Speak, ye redeemed, i circling his throne above, and casting your erowas at his fc Is not this D6 who drew your souls to him by bonds of Lo Stronger than death, which many waters could not quench, nor floods drown ? Hark I I hear the notes of that song, which fills all the regions of heaven with harmony. It echoes hack to this distant world: " Tuou avast slain, and iia>t ke- dkkmkd us to GOD r.v thy BLOOD, out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation, and hast made us kings and priests unto our God forever and ever." O for a heart and tongue to unite with this grateful, happy throng, and be- gin on earth the notes which we hope to sing, through ever- lasting ages, in the world above ! Fear not, my brethren, who are to preach this precious Sa- viour to a perishing world, fear not that the declaration of his atoning blood will ever palsy the moral energies of the soul. What says that great apostle, who won more souls to Jesus than any other herald of his salvation has ever done ? " The love of Christ constraineth us." Bat why did it constrain him, and to do what ? " It constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead ;" i. e. it constrains us, because, when we were dead in trespasses and sins, Christ died to redeem us. What follows 1 He died for us, " that they which live, should Jtencefortlt no more live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them and who rose again" Preach the same doctrine : it must forever have the same influence — the same mighty, overpowering, saving influence — on every heart that receives it. Proclaim to a perishing world (/lad ti- dings — glad tidings of great joy. Jesus died for them. Jesus can and will save them, if they accept the offers of his mercy. Glory in nothing hut his cross. Be not turned aside from preaching him crucified^ by any scorn and contumely on the one hand, or cold and speculative philosophy on the other. This doctrine is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. Proclaim it then to a world perishing in iniquity. Proclaim it to the very ends of the earth. It will force open the prison doors. It will liberate the captives. It will scatter DISC. II.] TIIK UhNKMKNT. 267 heavenly glory over our benighted world. It will call the dead to life. It will convert thii gieel Aceldama into the puritan of (tO(1. This boundless valley of dry hones will beeome the scene of« boondleu ■ resurrection to life, I thank God, whOM providence has so fang detained me from this sacred place,* that 1 have now enjoyed another op- portunity of testifying to you my convictions in respect to a Saviour'- dying love. It' I should never aiiain be permitted this as the last and highe8l expression of my affection to him and to you. I ask for no other privilege on earth, but to make known the efficacy of his death ; and none in heaven, but to be associated with those who ascribe salva- tion to his blood. Am in. * For some time, previously to the composition and delivery of these Discourses, the writer of them had been prevented, by long continued infirmity, from the delivery of Sermons in the pulpit 22 THE LAMB OF GOD. [Tin following Sermon wa> delivered in the Chapel of the Andowr Tk&aL Seminary. OB the last Sahhath of the Winter Tern of 184ft, The Student- made a request that I would publish it. by including it in the little volume which they had learned I was ahout to republish. I 1mm- tated. tor a while, about complying with their request; because l afraid that thi- DisCOUTSC might he deemed a repetition, in some m sure at lca-t. of the preceding ones. It WBS Composed and delivered. without any reference to publication. On a renew of the subject, it has seemed to me. that the former disCOUrsefl Stand related to this, as a wJiole due- to a jowl They discuss the subject genericaUy ; the following D Course, in B 8pec{fic manner, and in reference to an important and con- troverted text of Scripture. What led to the composition of the latter was. the reading of F. Ltckfa < , ->mu«nt, WHICH TAKHTII AWAY Till: SIN OF TIM would!" This brings ns, in the third place, to inquire into the SI meaning of such an a n nuueiatiou. If John, a- We believe, was commissioned by heaven to in- troduce the BCsSSiah to the Jew-, we must regard the declara- tion by which he performs this duty, as containing truth, and mi i.am' od. Ml thing but truth. To no prophet or priest, except to the ro needed the honour ami tin* privil baiting a Forerunner or herald to prepare ike way tor hit ap- Hvanci Vet John, who was greater than all that had pre- ceded him, considers himself M entitled to no higher pk than that of a menial Mivant, in comparison with the <1. \;i rank of Christ, ami DDoel readily acknowledges the claims of the newly baptized Saviour to the honour, homage, confi- dence, and obedience of all men. ^<>t only had no prophet, no priest, no king, before Jesus of Nazareth, ever been introcta to the J< R ish [" ople in such a manner ; but it never had beCC announ lrerning any one of them, that he was to re- move or take away the sins of even the Jewish nation, much 3 the sins of the whole world. A sacrifice of a more ex- alted nature and of greater efficacy than any which had been or could be offered by them, was needed in order to purify the conscience from dead works, and to fit the of- ferer for an acceptable service of the living God. John had often and most earnestly urged upon the Jews the duty of repentance, and assured them that nothing short of this could prepare them for the due reception of the Mes- siah. Now, when Jesus makes his appearance in order to enter upon the duties of his station, John discloses to them the great object which is to be accomplished by him. The pardon of sin — the removal of both the penalty and the power of sin — was that object. Mere repentance, important as it was and is, can never of itself remove the penalty of a broken law. It does not atone for sins already committed ; it only prepares the penitent to avoid transgression for the future, by inspiring a hatred of sin, as well as a sorrow for it. John did not tell the Jews, that if they repented they would be forgiven because of their repentance. lie urged repentance upon them, as the indispensable condition of being made partakers of the blessings which Christ was to be8lOW. When he had done all that he was commissioned to do, after he had baptized and exhorted to immediate repentance, he publicly and .sol- emnly announces to all his converts, and to the world, that 264 TnE LAMB OF GOD. they are u to look to the Lamb of God. in order thai their Bins might be taken away." But who or what is the La?ab of (rod? Why does John give to JeSUS such an appellation? I know of hut two lights in which this matter can he view- ed. The literal sense is out of all question, in this be- cause the appellation is given to a person, and a lamb in a literal sense is not a perpon. Of course the word lamb involves a comparison or simile. There are two ways, now, in which a comparison may be made ; the one has respect merely to disposition or character; the other has its basis in the fact, that lambs were so extensively employed, and on the most important occasions, as propitiatory or sin-offerings, under the ancient dispensation. As to the first source of comparison, innocence, meekness, and unresisting submission to harsh treatment, are characteris- tic in an eminent degree of a konb. It is, even among us, one of our most familiar and forcible images, employed to designate a combination of such attributes or virtues. It is possible, I admit, that John might apply the appellation of lamb to Jesus, in order to indicate that such characteristics as 1 have just named, belonged in a peculiar manner to him. So had Isaiah done before him : " He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth;" (Is. 58: 7). Had the object of John been merely to set forth the meek and patient virtues of Jesus amidst persecutions and sufferings, he doubtless might have spoken of him as a lamb, and with much significance. ]>ut how would Mich a view of his words agree with the rest of our text? He IS not merely a lamb — but u a Lamb of God;" and not only so, but "he takes away the sin of the world." Now the fact that Jesus was innocent, and meek, and mild, and patient, and Unresisting when forced to suffering, 18 con- nected, when considered by itself, in no intelligible manner with taking scnibly which John ad- Till: LAMB OF GOD. I, who were in a good degree of the same meek and patient character, and might be called, m Jew call* hi* Irae followers, lambs of hid Father's flock. Bat this < I i < 1 not make them $aviour$ of the world from lin. If Jesus was perfectly innocent, and meek, and unresisting — all this might help t<> form an elevated and very amiable character. It might qual- ify him t<> be an excellent prophet and teacher. lint if he II mainly referred to, in this character, by the text before us then how can we help the feeling that John has been unfor- tunate in the choice of his metaphorical language? In re- i the announcement of * teacher or prophet we should expect to hear something indicative of acutenrss and wi>dom and eloquence. If John means to designate an accomplished teacher, we are prepared to hear him call Jesus a light, a sun, a guide, or to describe him by some other simihir appellation. But to choose a lamb as the symbol of intelligence, wisdom, eloquence, power of instruction — is one of the last choices that we should expect any man to make. When the Saviour sends out his disciples to teach, he exhorts them to " be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." We understand this at once. But if John the Baptist meant to characterize Christ, as " taking away the sins of the world" merely by his saga- cious and discriminating instruction, he has made choice of a word which does not in the remotest manner convey to our minds any image of this sort. The rhetorical argument from this passage is therefore invincibly against such a supposition. The moral argument is still stronger. If Jesus as an in- structor is only, or principally, the Saviour of the world, why have not Paul, and other apostles, and evangelists, and pro- phets, yea, and all preachers of the gospel too, the same reason to be called the saviours of men ? Let it be that Jesus had a preeminence and higher qualifications ; yet their work and office is the same in kind as his. Nay, I may go still further : If the light actually diffused abroad over the world, is the principal means and the measure of taking away sin, then Paul has a higher claim to be called Saviour, than Jesus of Nazareth ; for he taught much longer, far more widely, had 23 THE LAMB or (iOD. more success, and has left on record the most important in- struction we now have Respecting the nature of the Christian sy.-tem. On both grounds, then, viz. on that of rhetorical propriety, and on that of the great moral object to be accomplished by Christ, the interpretation of Lamb in our text as a mere sym- bol or indication otpenonal c}mr out of all reasonable question. We arc of necessity thrown, then, upon the other figura- tive or symbolic meaning of the word lamb t viz. an atwMM- <>K IKoiTHA TnUY SACRiriCK, BT WHICH THE PARDON OF m.\ i- BEOURBD, or (to nse the language of the text) "the sins of the world are taken away." Nothing could be more easy and natural, than for a Jew to employ the word in such a sen>e. What was that victim, whose blood, sprinkled on the door-posts of the Hebrew habi- tations in Egypt, was a sign to the destroying angel that he must pass by. and leave the inmates of the dwelling unharmed, while every Egyptian's house was mourning the death of a firstborn? The victim which furnished that blood was a lamb. Lambs were to be ever employed as victims, at the great feast of the passover. They were extensively employed in other sacrifices, and on occasions of great solemnity. Be- ing less expensive victims than bullocks, the great legislator of the dews enjoined an extensive use of them by the people, so that the poorer classes might thus participate in the offer- ings which were legally to be made. No oik 1 can wonder, then, that a dew. who regarded Christ in the light in which Isaiah has placed him, viz. as "wounded for our transgre ssi ons and braised for our iniquities," should call him a Lamb. See how familiarly Paul speaks, in regard to this matter : M Purge out," says he to the Corinthians, "the old leaven." Every Jew of course would spontaneously feel the reference in this command to the leavened bread which was to be put away, at the feast of the passover. But the apostle does not stop with this. lb' gOOS on to B8Sign a p son for his command, in language equally plain and signiti- i in: i fcflfl 09 rr- lauib. * is sacrificed for u-." ( 1 Oor. 5: 7). Peter -how- that tin* Mime idea is familiar to him: u Y. were redeemed/' says be to the Christiana whom he is addressing, •• not with cor- ruptible things but with the precious Mood of Christ, a Immi without blemish and without spot ;" ( 1 Pel I: 1< S < 19. 1 \. 12: 5), That apostle who leaned on the bosom of Jesus, an recorded the words of John the Baptist which constitute our text, seems to have imbibed, in an unusual meaMnv, the spirit which led to the employment sf such lan- _-.' as I have repeated. Rapt into celestial vision, he be- held the throne of God, supported by four living matures, and surrounded by the twenty-tour elders. "In the midst of them," i.e. between the circling elders and the throne, "I saw." says he, k *a Lamb, as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God." That Lamb advances to the throne, and takes the book with n seal- out of the hand of him who sat upon that throne, in order that he might break the seals and disclose the con- tents of that book. But how are the heavenly spectators af- fected by this ? Every one falls prostrate before the Lamb, and all unite in singing the new song : " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kin- dred and tongue and people and nation." All heaven re- spond to this. They shout aloud: "Worthy is the Lamb, that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory and blessing." The whole universe reechoes back this song : " Blessing and honour, and glory and power, be unto him who sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever!" (Bev. 5: 8 — 14). This settles the question, as to what views were connected with the word Iamb, as applied to Christ. It is a lamb which is slain ; a lamb whose blood has a redeeming efficacy ; even as Paul lias often asserted that we u have redemption by the blood of Christ." And although John has elsewhere in the Apoca- lypse presented the Lamb to our view, as " King of kings and Lord of lords," yet there is nothing in this which is at 268 Tin: LAMB Of . 209 crty. It follows, then, that the meaning must be : The Lamb which God has provided, or which he present! as a rin-offer- y Jew, in bid own case and on account of hi- own -in. was obliged by the Mosaic law to provide] and present as a sacrifice for >in, a lamb without spot <>r blemish* What ii had thus done for himself] God now docs for the Jews and tor all men. He provides a spotless victim, who through the eternal spirit was to offer up himself as a sacrifice to ( rod, and thus procure eternal redemption for all. .Mark, my hearers, what expanded views the forerunner of Jesus had, in regard to the nature and extent of C'hri mission. He was firsl of all a lamb, i. e. a propitiatory or vicarious sacrifice ; then, secondly, he was a lamb presented by no mere man who was himself a sinner, but provided by God himself; and of course, thirdly, we may accede to the remaining part of the declaration : Which taketJi away the sins of the world. In the language of the apostle John this phraseology imports, that the Lamb of Go\l was to be a pro- pitiatory sacrifice for Gentiles as well as Jews. The atone- ment of Christ, then, its efficacy, and its universality, are all plainly within the scope of John the Baptist's view. This brings us to the last declaration of our text: Which taketh away the sin of the world. What is it to take away sin? The Greek words (aiocov zi t v ufiaoiiar) are not of the classical idiom, but are simply Hebrew in Greek costume. The Hebrews employed the phrase (yv X-:) as meaning either to bear the punishment or consequences of sin, or to expiate sin, or to forgive sin. Either of the two first meanings will answer well for our text, for Christ " bore our sins and carried our sorrows ; he bore our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Pet. 2: 24) ; he was made a curse for us (Gal. 3: 13) ; he was made sin, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21). One might vindicate this shade of meaning, also, by appealing to the lamb as a sacri- ficial victim, which bore suffering in the room of him who presented the offering. Substantially, too, this meaning at- 23* 270 THE LAMB OF GOD. tached to the phrase would communicate to us the idea of Christ a< an Gtomng sacrifice. But I doubt not that the other shade of meaning conveyed by this Hebrew phmocoto gy, is the true idea of the passage before us. The Lamb that tabu m> Yin:: power. The Greek verb translated toketh away (atom), like the corresponding Hebrew one (xirj), mean-, first of all, to lift up, elevate ; then to raise vp and NmSOI'I, M 006 lifts op a burden and then conveys it away. It w dmgiy significant in the passage under considera- tion. Christ took on him the burden of our sins, and Un- load he carried away or removed from us. Fif/urative, in- deed, is the whole manner of expression. Figurative was it anong the Jews, who spoke familiarly of their sacrificial victim- ss bearing the sins of the offerer, and taking them away. Over the head of the goat, which on the great day of expiation was sen! into the wilderness, confession was made by the high-priest in behalf of all the people, while his hands were laid on the head of the goat, in order thus to signify that the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to the goat ; and the same scape-goat is said to "bear all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited" (Lev. 1G: 21 seq.), i. e. it took away their sins. The offender who offered a sacrifice in a manner prescribed by law, was ecclesiastically and civil- ly freed from the penalty of the law. The law adjudged the victim to have suffered in his room or stead. No Other meaning than one drawn from these familiar sources, will answer the demands of our text. All else falls far below it, or widely misses the mark. To say that Christ takes away the sins of the world by virtue of the I tfJrtfCflhm which he communicated as our great teacher, is true enough to a certain extent ; but this idea by no means answers the ncies of our text. A lamb is not the emblem of an instructor. When the evangelist wishes to convey his views of Christ as our great teacher, he calls him the Li'ihtof tic world ; he sajl that i/i him was H/c and that life was the THE LAMB >D. 271 light of men ; he says that the Only Begotten of the Father the purposes of God fully to us. Indeed it is quite plain, that entirely another mode of expression than that in our text must be adopted, in order intelligibly to con- the idea in question. One word a< to taking away the mm fifth* world, and ive done with my main theme. Other conditions b68J the expiatory death of Christ are neoessary to complete the actual salvation of the sinner — conditions on kU part, whicli indispensable. He must be a penitent; he must believe and trusr in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only and all-suffi- cient Saviour of sinners. This done, salvation is as wide as the world of men. The proffer of it is universal ; the pro- vision for it on the part of God is all-sufficient. But the sin- ner must become united to Christ by faith, in order actually to avail himself of this provision. Thus have I endeavoured to explain and vindicate this most important part of all the preaching or declarations of John the Baptist, whicli is left on sacred record. No one will deny that our subject has an intimate connection with the solemnities in which we are to engage this day ; for to- day, (we may say with the apostle of old), is Christ our pass- over sacrificed for its. Or we may use the words of the same apostle on another occasion : " Christ Jesus is evident- ly set forth before us, as crucified among us." Christians are you prepared for this sacred feast ? Do you look by faith to that Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world? I would most affectionately and solemnly warn you, that it is necessary to discern the Lord's body aright, if we would escape condemnation when we come to this table ; and surely so, if we would rationally expect to participate in the blessings which it indicates. What then is discerning the Lord's body aright? 'Would any one ever devise such an expression, in order to inculcate the necessity or the importance of recognizing Christ as our instructor, or as a perfect model of piety and virtue ? " Not discerning the Lord's body aright !" And is his body our teacher, and his 272 Tin: lamb of god. body our model of holiness and virtue ? — No ! good taste, propriety, as well as all that is awful and saered in the death of Christ, revolts at sueh an interpretation. Peter hftfl plained it: "Whohia own self, in his own body, base our sins upon the tree," (1 Pel 2: 24). It is the discerning of that body, laden with our sins, suffering and dying under the weight of them, which we are called to, on an occasion like the present. My dear Christian friends, are you prepared to do this in a spiritual manner — in such a way as to feed by faith on the body and blood of an atoning Saviour? This is what is meant by " eating his flesh and drinking his blood." I reject — were not the occasion so sacred I w r ould say — reject with scorn, all carnal and literal interpretation of this. How can the literal eating of flesh, and the literal drinking of hu- man blood, purify and sanctify the spirits of men ? It is a heathen conception. But there is a meaning in phraseology of this nature, which is transcendently excellent, and is re- freshment to the soul. Paul felt what it was, when he said to the Corinthians : " I am determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Paul ac- knowledged it, when he declared that he would " preach Christ crucified," and that " the preaching of the cross is the power of God unto salvation." Paul realized it in all its ex- cellence, when he said to the Galatians : " God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Are you prepared my friends to sympathize with him — to enter fully into the meaning of his words ? If you are, then may you this morning behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. I cannot, indeed, point you to his bodily presence, as John the Uaptist did his hearers ; but I am authorized to assure you, that the symbols of his body and of his blood, are not symbols of what has no existence and no reality. They are symbols of a jjresc/it Christ, lie if a.- really here to-day, as he was on the banks of the Jor- dan, when John announced him as the Lamb of God, to the wondering multitude, lie will be at the head of our table, on thifl occa-ion, if we are ready to receive him. Faith can Tin. i kB M Mfe 278 see him there in all his meekness, and all his benignity, and all his majesty. Faith has an car also to hear him addr Bl and say ; w Eal friend- ; drink, () beloved \ M "This is my body, which was broken for you ; my blood, that v, shed for the remission of sins." Lamb of ( Jod who takest away the rial of the world, open onr blind eyes to see thee in thy giofj and in thy mercy ! Unstop our deaf ears, that may listen to the invitations of thy love to-day, and so hear that our souls may live ! Amkx. CHRISTIANITY A DISTINCT RELIGION. [After haying already apologized, at die beginning of the preceding Discourse, lot the repetition el certain topics in respect to the a ami Godhead of Christ, it would Been to be trespassing upon the patience and offending the taste of the reader, to insert another discos. here, which needs ^t ill more an apology of the like nature, h' this volume consisted of one treatise or discussion only ifl would be oat of question thus to trespass upon my readers; who doubtless would, and not unnaturally, feel that I expected to be heard for much speaking if they did not bring the more serious charge of using vain repetitions. All that I have to say is, that the discourses, when composed, were sep- arated by years, and were delivered before different audiences and at va- rious places, and could not therefore appear as repetitions to the audi- tor-. They arc in each case simple copies of thoughts familiar to my own mind, and not transcriptions of each other. My own taste and judg- ment would lead me to omit some of them in tlii> little volume, in order to avoid the appearance of repetition. Hut 1 feel compelled to defer to the often repeated wishes of friends whom I love and respect, by insert- ing them all without remodeling or Substantial change. Each has its own peculiar attitude ; and besides what is common to all. each is made Up, tor the mo>t part, of what i- peculiar to itself. The preceding sacra- mental Sermon is a purely exegetical discourse. The Sermon which now follows, brings to view an attitude Of Christianity, which never can he made tOO much of. If we Wish tO know whether we are reall v ( 7 tiiins; or whether Others who claim thi> honourable name are entitled to it', we must tir>t know what Christianity is. in distinction from all etSS that i> called religion. This great question 1 have endeavoured to an- swer. In so doing, ir was impossible tor me not to Bay some things, that the reader hafl already met with in the preceding pages. I hope, how- ever, for his indulgence, in these circumstances, and that he will not ae- CUSe me of merely copying from myself, or of making up a hook of repetitions to no purpose. — M. s.] S E II M < ) N MATT. XVIII. 90. ; \\iiii:i: two OB rn 1:1:1: vim: G vi 11 1:1:1 i» rOGBTHKB in my \\M1. MM.Ki; AM I IN Till; KIDS! <»1 l.IKM.* Si < n was the declaration of the Saviour to his apostles* lie had been giving them directions with regard to the mode of exereising discipline in the church, and had promised them special assistance in the discharge of this duty, when he ut- tered the words of our text. lie had told them, that when two of their number should be agreed on earth, respecting anything which they would ask, it should be done for them by his Father in heaven. On this, he assured them, they might rely ; since no such request could escape his notice, or fail of attracting his aid. Wherever two or three are met to- yethcr, said he, in my name, theft am I in the midst of them; consequently the apostles could not fail of obtaining that aid which he had promised. Although these words had a particular reference, when they were first spoken, to the apostles, and were intended to- satisfy their minds respecting the assistance which their Lord and Master would give them, while employed in his service \ yet, as there is nothing in the nature of the case which ne- cessarily limits them to the apostles only, I shall consider them as addressed to Christians of every age, and applicable to all who convene in the name of Christ. Not that a promise of miraculous aid is to be extended to all who are convened as the disciples of Christ ; not that everything for * Preached at the Dedication of the Church in Hanover Street, Bos- ton. March 1, 1826. 24 273 CHRI8TIAKITT whiefa they now ask will be specifically granted, aa it was to those who had a miraculous faith, and who asked for vbxv things under special supernatural guidance. The applica- tion of pur text to Christians of every a - not necessa^ rily involve this. The assurance of Christ to the apostles, that whatever any two should agree in asking for, Bhould be bestowed upon them, is grounded not on the tact that he would be specially present, and present only with them aa (ijx>stl(s, hut on the tact, that wherever his disciples might convene he would be present It involves a general promic that they who Bhould he his sincere friends and faithful min- isters of the gospel, should enjoy his presence and aid. It is a promise oi' a nature similar to that which the Saviour made at the moment of his ascension : u Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." 1 This was addressed to the apostles ; and was designed in a peculiar manner to cbeer their drooping spirit-, and animate them in the great work which they were about to undertake. But who will say, that it must he confined solely to them? Were they to con- tinue to the end of the world? If not, then Christians in general, or at least the ministers of the divine word in gen- eral, down to the end of time, are meant to be included. This may suiHce to show, that our text can be properly adduced at the present d:\\\ and on this occasion, as applica- ble to an assembly of worshippers convened in the name of Christ It' so. we may now proceed to inquire : I. What is it for an assembly of men to convene in the name of Christ ? II. What 18 implied in the declaration that he is in the midst of them ? Our English translation of the verse, which I have chosen as my text, hardly convey- to the common reader of our lan- guage the force of the original (.Jreek. Such a reader would naturally suppose, that the phrase in my name means, by As 1 .Matt A DI9TIW r i;i i. k.k.n. 270 authority or I of Christ; a speak of anything being done in the nam.' of the king, or in the name rf the commonwealth. But this would be an entire misconception of the meaning of tli passage before Oft. In the Hebrew language of the ( Hd Testament, and in the ( ireek of the New, which \/ name, instead of I will reveal myself. So our Sa- viour -ays, in the prayer which we familiarly call the Lord's Prayer : Hallowed be thy name ; which means, Be tltoti held revere n ce, or adored. Front this very common usage in the Hebrew tongue it comes, that in the New Testament such phrases as for thy name?* take, on account of thy name, often mean nothing more than for thy sake, on thy account. For example: Ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake, i. e. for my sake. 1 All these tilings shall they do to you on ac- count of my name, i. e. on account of me.' 3 Whoever shall forsake his family and friends for my name's sake, i. e. on account of me. 3 Whatever ye shall ask in my name, i. e. on account of me, for the sake of my cause. 4 The Holy Spirit, ichom the Father will send in my name, i. e. on ac- count of me, or for the sake of my cause. 5 If ye are re- proached for the name of Christ, i. e. on account of him, be- cause ye are Christians. Whoever shall receive a little child in my name, i. e. on my account. 7 It were easy to add many more examples of the same na- ture, but I forbear. I have produced these, merely to show that I do not hazard anything in asserting the sentiment of our text to be this : )l here two or three are convened on my 1 Matt lo: 22. 4 John 14: 13, 14 ,; 1 Pet. 4: 14. 2 John 15: 21. 5 John 14: 26. 7 Luke 9: 48. 3 Matt 10: 29. CHRISTIANITY t, for my eake, leoauce of me. The original Greek ($tg ro ip&i tLvafia) can scarcely admit of any other con- struction. To meet together on account of Christ. \< to Convene m hii disciples; as having a common interest in him ; and aa i ising characteristics which distinguish those who do thus convene from Other men, i. e. from the world around them. :i may convene for a great variety of purposes, cither of business or of pleasure. lint it will not he affirmed that all conventions of this sort are for the sake of Christ. Nay, men may i gether lor acts of religious worship, and yet not convene for the sake of Christ. Sober theista like Lord Herbert, Jews, Mohammedans, nay idolaters, may meet to- nether for the sake of social worship ; but they come not to- gether in the name of Christ ; nor lias he promised to be in the mid-t of such assemblies. There is something, then, which must distinguish the Chris- tian worshipper from all others; something which makes him what he professes to be, a Christian, in distinction from an unbeliever, a heathen or polytheist, a deist or naturalist, a Jew, or a Mohammedan. Like every other religion received by men, Christianity has, and must have, some distinctive traits of its own which make it what it is; which make it Chris- tianity rather than Deism, or Judaism, or Islamism. The disciples of Christ, his true disciples, must of course recog- nize these traits. It' there be doctrines and duties of Chris- tianity which differ from those of all other religions, then they who are the genuine followers of Christ, and real con- vert- to his religion, must receive those doctrines, and prac- tice those duties. Nor can any be truly said to meet togeth- er in the name of Christ, or as his di consider men as real Christians, or to call an assembly convened for the purposes of worship, ( '/>. tiiius, provided they reject the peculiarities of the Christian religion which stake it what it is, vi/. Okrutianiiy m distinc- tion from all other religions, Wbafl then is it to come together as Christiauf What listinctive traits of belief or character* which sejH ante Christians from all other worshippers j make them the that promise which our text contains ; and give thcni, therefore, the assurance that Christ will be present when they worship as his disoiph Christianity docs not differ, as to every doctrine which it I us, and every duty which it prescribes, from all other ins of religion. The better part even of pagans admit- ted some of the doctrines which our religion inculcates. Many of the moral duties, for example, were taught with no small ^ree of force and perspicuity by Socrates, Plato, Epictetus, Plutarch, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others. The light of nature did much for such men ; and the doctrines which they taught, and the duties which they inculcated, so for as they were guided by that light, were altogether accordant with those which Christianity teaches and enjoins. Uut the difference, after all, is so wide between Christianity and any of the various systems of idolatry and polytheism, that I do not think it worth a moment's delay, on the present occasion, to show that a worshipper under the Gospel is of a very different complexion from one who either bows down to images which his own hands have made, or worships the host of heaven, or prostrates himself before heroes and conquerors, whom superstition has exalted to heaven and ranked among the objects of human adoration. Very different from all these, and at a great advance be- yond them, is the considerate theist or naturalist of modern times, the Jew, and the Mohammedan. These, I mean the sober and reasoning part of them, all unite in the belief, that there is one only living and true God, spiritual, eternal, om- niscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, just, wise, good, 24* CHRISTIANITY merciful, and faithful ; the creator, pre s er ve r, and governor of all things; and the proper object of religious worship by all the creatures which he has made. They all i that man is a rational, accountable, immortal being, placed in a Mal<- of moral probation ; and that there is a future world, a judgment to come, a state of punishment for the wieked, and of reward for the righteous. They all agree, that God is the proper object of prayer, and of secret and social worship; they assert the obligation of men to repent of their sins, and to forsake them ; and they unite in a full acknowledgment of nearly all the moral duties which the gospel enjoins. I have .-aid that the soher theist admits all this ; and I might appeal to the works of Lord Herbert, Tindal, and others of past times ; of Kant and Eberhard, of recent memory; or to various writers of the present time, in proof of this proposi- tion, were any disposed to doubt it. I presume, however, that Done who hear me will doubt it. If then the naturalist, who rejects all revelation, and denies all supernatural intercourse between God and his creatures, admits thus much ; we might well expect that the Jew, with the Old Testament in his hands, would go still farther. This is in fact the case; for he ad- mits the authority of the Old Testament ; the inspiration of Moses and the prophets; that there is a Messiah to come; and that God is not only to be worshipped by a life of prayer and the practice of social virtues and moral duties, but to be Worshipped in the particular manner pointed out in the Old Testament, so often as this may he possible* The .Mohammedan goes -till farther, in the theory of his faith. lie admits both revelations ; that in ancient, and that in later days ; that by Moses and the prophets, and that by JeSHS Christ lb- admits them to have been of di\ine au- thority, and Still to !»<• substantially so. But all that is essen- tial in them, he believes is comprehended in the Koran; which, in his view, is the last and most perfect of all divine revelations. Bow then does the disciple of Jesus differ from these vari- ous religionist- ? Nut in the belief of one Ood ; not in main- A DlSmtOI U i.KilON. taining the perfection of all his natural and moral attribut irding him as the creator, presenter, and gwenov of the universe : n<»t in the belief thai we are rational, ac- intable, immortal beings ; thai there is a judgmenl to con (hat there ifl a future world of happiness, Slid another of wo, in out of which men will he placed, according to the charac- ter which they sustain in their probationary state ; not in the i f that God i> the proper object of prayer, and of private and social worship ; not in admitting the obligation to incul- cate and practise all the social and moral virtues. So far as all these truths are concerned, the Christian occupies ground in common with the naturalist, the Jew, and the Mohamme- dan. AYhy is he then a Christian, and not a Theist, nor a Jew, nor a Mohammedan ? Plainly because he admits some other doctrines, and practises some duties, that are peculiar to Christianity^ and which exclude the peculiarities of the otlu ins of religion, that give names to their respective votaries. AVhen Christians assemble, then, as the disciples of Christ, in a manner that comports with the name which they bear, they assemble as possessed of some peculiar traits of character, which distinguish them from all other worshippers. They meet together, indeed, to acknowledge and adore one only living and true God, possessed of all possible natural and moral perfections ; as immortal beings ; as probationers for eternity ; as believing in a judgment to come, and in the re- wards and punishments of the invisible world. They meet together, acknowledging and inculcating the moral and social duties, and believing them indispensable in order to secure divine approbation. Thus far they go, in common with the Rationalist, the Jew, and the Mohammedan. But the differ- ence between these religionists and Christians, lies in some- thing that is superadded to all this ; something which they only admit, and must admit and practise, in order to be Christians. What then are the peculiarities which distinguish them, and which render it proper to say of them that they meet in the name of Christ, or on account of him ? A very interest- 284 CHRISTIANITY ing and a very delicate question; one which, however, my text leads DM to make an attempt briefly to aii>wcr. It' I am not fully, I am at least in some good measure, aware of t he responsibility and the difficulty of the ease, lint 1 am not Qg to dogmatise. I -hall appeal to no councils ; no father no creeds; do catechisms ; no works of tlie schoolmen | no labours of acute and metaphysical divines ; in a word, to no human system whatever. All — all — of these an- made by frail erring BOOB* They are not of any binding authority; and we have a warrant that is sufficient, not to receive them, or any of them, as possessing such authority. I advert to the warning of our Saviour, whieh bids us call no uia/i master upon earth ; fat there is one who is our master, that dwelletk i/i J * To mi: law and Te> Tin: TESTIMONY. "What we find there, we may rely upon. All else is uncertain ; to say the least, it is exposed to error. Will you allow me then, my friends, to make such an ap- peal as I have now described? Instead of striving to ph, your fancy, by presenting you with line imagery and poetic pictures, or with ingenious and subtle disquisition, or with dilation whieh might amuse and pleasantly beguile away an hour, will you permit me to carry you along with me over various partfl of the New Testament, the record and statute- book of our holy religion, and see what the Saviour himself, his apostles, and the teachers inspired by him, have taught us respecting the peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of r« al Christians ? While you, my brethren, who are to convene in this house, expect to meet together to worship God, and inculcate the duties of morality, at least as much as others do who bear not the Christian name ; you expect also to come here in the name of Christ, and as his disciples. You intend to prof eu ami to do not only more than the pagan, but more than the naturalist, or the Jew, or the .Mohammedan. I shall not attempt, within the brief limit- assigned to this diseour ii to glanee at all the peculiarities of the Christian sys- i, whieh as the disciples of Christ you are bound to main- \ distiw roioN. tM tain. The most that I can do, is merely i<> present b far particulars, which are prominent among the characterise that distinguish the Christian religion from all others. M than this cannot be reasonably expected, fctm an oecasion like the present. I obserre then, Yoq win) are here t<> meet together in the name of Chrie m! trust in him 0$ the true Messi(th, the 7. fh . . . . shall be saved : hut he that believeth not shall be r/. 1 But what is it to be saved? Another Scripture has answered the question : He that believeth on the Son, hath lasting lif\ i. e. happiness. AVhat is it to be damned? This inquiry also is answered : He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him? Again: He that believeth on him, is not condemned ; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he does not believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God. 2 Thus said the Saviour, on another occasion, to the Jews : If ye be- lieve not that lam He, (that is, the Messiah), ye shall die in your si/ts ; l in other words, remission of the penalty you have incurred, or pardon for sin, can be obtained only through such a belief. John tells us, that the object of writ- ing his Gospel was to persuade men to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life through him J' He tells us again in his epistle, that he who believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; but he that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. What was that record ? He proceeds to inform us : This is the record that God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life is in his Son. 6 What follows? He that hath the So?i hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 1 Mark 16: 15, 16. 4 John 8: 24. 6 1 John 5: 10, 11. 2 John 3: 36. 6 John 20: 31. 7 1 John 5: 12. 3 John 3: 18" 286 OHBXSTIAHIR In full aoeordanee with this, when the trembling jailer pro stra ted himself before Paul and Silas, and said: 8ii what must I do to be saved? they answered: Believe on the Lord Jeetu Christ, and thou shaU be eaveeV Bnt is there no other way of salvation ? May we not be ■ -. if we adhere to some other prophet, some other system of rsJSgion ? No ; not it' Peter is to be credited, who declared to the persecuting Jews: There i$ salvation in none other; for there is none other name given under heaven among m w h e r e by we mutt be eaveeW The claims of the Saviour then are supreme, are exclusive; they admit of no rival with him. The Gospel teaches that there is hut one true religion; one right way to heaven ; one Saviour of sinners. If before the Saviour came Gfod winked at the times of ignorance, he no longer does so where that Saviour is proclaimed. He now cominandeth all men everywhere to repent. 2 But why are we to believe and trust in the Son of God, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world? Because he is the Saviour, and only Saviour of sinners. H%e name was called Jesus, because he was to save his people from their sins, i. e. from the power and penalty of sin. 4 But how save them? Merely by instruction? By exam- ple? If he be a Saviour merely because he instructed the people ; then has Paul a better title to that name than he. Jesus wrote no part of our Scriptures ; Paul wrote the most instinctive parts of all. Jesus never travelled beyond the boundaries of Palestine ; he made but few converts to his religion: Paul travelled almost the world over; converted many thousands ; and built up a multitude of churches. Yet Pan! does nut claim the honour of being the Saviour of men ; neither do other Christians, his fellow men and cotempora- eleSj highly as they value him and his labours, attribute it to him. Was Jesus an example of virtue? So was Paul. That HH metre spotless, does not render his example more 1 A.ts 163 11. J Arts 17: * Ms* l. SI. 2 Acts 4: 13. A DIgl IN* I RELIGION, 287 Unliable by 08. If W6 can 0OID6 Dp to Paul's >tandard, our lalvatioo is a; least secure* Did Jesus die, to seel by bis m! tlh> truths of tli«- holy religion which be taught ? did Paul. Did be exhibit the highest conviction of \\. truths which he taught, by unshaken attachment to them. amid every kind of persecution, Buffering, and trial' did Paul. Did lie work miracles in continuation of them? •lid Paul. Was he a divinely commissioned instructor? waa Paul. Was he taught of God, as to the doctrii which be preached? So was Paul. Nay more; Paul was caught up into the third heaven, and beard unspeakable word-, which it is not proper for man to utter; but this IS nowhere .-aid of Jesus. What then did JesUS perform, which Paul did not ? In the otlice and duty of an instructor, a martyr, a prophet, a worker of miracles, a divinely commis- sioned messenger, a successful reformer, simply considered a- -mli, Paul was in almost all respects equal, in many re- superior, to him. Why is not Paul then — Paul the great apostle of the CI entiles to whom we belong — our exalt- ed benefactor to whom we owe an eternal debt of gratitude ? Why is not he to be hailed as our Saviour ? Why are we not to meet together in his nana Ah, my brethren, it is because there is only one name given under heaven, whereby ice can be saved. 1 Only one has made atonement for sin by his death, and brought in ever- lasting redemption for us. This Paul did not ; Peter did not ; James did not. They all were martyrs to the cause of truth. They sealed their testimony with blood. But it was only the blood of Abel, and not that which '''speaketh better things." But Jesus icas ivounded for our transgressions ; he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our jieace [i. e. by which our peace is procured] was upon him, and by his stripes ice are healed. . . . The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all:- When he made his first appearance be- fore the multitudes, assembled on the banks of the Jordan in 1 Acts 4: 12. 2 Is. 53: 5, 6. 288 ( IKRISl IANITY ()]■«!< or to be baptised by his forerunner John, he was proclaim- ed to them by this inspired herald, aa the Lamb oj uldtpki away As si/us of the worldJ Bat a Lamb it not an instructor, DOT an example of piety; a lamb is . % propitiatory off* ring* When Christians look to Jesus as their Saviour, and - Saviour, they must consider him as Peter did; who tells us that he, his own s>lf hare our sins in his own body on the tree .... and that by his stripes we are />> "led: 2 They must believe with this same apostle, that we h ' been redemAad with corruptible things, as with silver and gold .... but by tkepreoioUi V/OOd of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without sjtot.' 3 This is that Lami; 09 ( »0 1), my friends, to which John the Baptist pointed his followers; thai Lamb which by its blood was to redeem perishing sinners. Christians, who are to worship here in the name of Christ, you must believe with Paul, that 100 have redemption through the blood of Christ, even the foryive nem of sins.* Paul says, too, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, .... and that we are now justified by his blood ; that when we were eiwmies to God, we were reconciled to him by the death of his Son. 5 lie says, also, that Christ was once offered to b> or the sins of many fi and that if the blood of bulls and goats served the purpose of external purification, hom mmdi more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself Without spot to God, purge your conscia from dead works, to serve the liviiaj God. 1 John too unites his testimony with that of other prophets and apostles. Jesus Christ the riyhtcous, says he, is the pro- jritiution, i. e. propitiatory sacrifice, for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole worlds Again, the blood of Jesus Christ dsemetih from all $inJ* Such was Paul's conviction respecting this part of the 1 .Julin 1: 29. * Coi 1: 14. Kph. 1: 7. : Ilr!>. «.): l.>. 1 1. ,J 1 Pet. fc 84. ■ Bom. 5: 8— 10. 8 1 John ^ I, 2, 3 1 Pet 1: 18, 19. ,; He!. .9 9 1 J »hll 1: 7. A DISTIXl i RELIGION. ir's character and work, that he t<*lls tin' Corinthians, he Christ and him a ;' not Christ the proph< i, the traeh- er, the p nplar nwrelyj but Cbeisi i at i hud. And though this doctrine was to //< .A //-.%• a stumbling block and tu th he eontinued to preacl :// w' 6JW^ Mr righteoutm T<> the I »ala- tians, who were inclined to glory in the rites of the Jewish disp ii, the same apostle lays : SW forbid that I a&s in flu* < LardJImu Christ.'* Thus preached and wrote apostles and martyrs, who were ins; if God. Tims you should believe and feel, my Christian brethren, when you meet together in this sacred place. And when you approach, here, the table of your Lord and master, in order to commemorate his dying love, then believe, when you see and taste the symbol of a Sa- viour's blood, that, as he told his disciples when this holy- feast was instituted, his blood of the New Testament was shed for many for the remission of sins A Your thoughts, while you are convened in this sacred place, will often be directed to a brighter and better w r orld. Thither you hope to go, and mingle your song with that of the blessed above. You will remember then, that they, in unison with prophets and apostles and all the redeemed of God on earth, sing: Thou ivast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and peojjlr. and nation.* I will only add, that if, after all which you arc taught re- specting the atoning blood of a Saviour, you reject it, and renounce your hope and trust in it, you will subject your- selves to the awful sentence which an apostle has pronounced on all such : If we sin wilfully, after that ice have received 1 1 Cor. 2: 2. 3 Gal 6: 14. b Rev. 5: 9. 2 1 Cor. 1; 23, 24 : 30. ■ Matt. 2C: 28. 25 CIIKI- I IANITY the knowledge of the truth, there rtmameth no moti nee for st/tjmt a certain fearful looking for of judgment a fiery indignation, which shall devour the add i. He that deepieed Moses' law, died without mercy under two or three uritx of how much sorer punishment, suppa$ all hs be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of ■/. and hath counted the Hood of the covenant wherewith he teas sanctified an u nhol ij thi u/co, and his own life (ds<>< Iw cannot be my discij)le.' A Peter felt the flame of such love glowing in his bosom, when he wrote thus to the Jews in their dispersion respecting Christ: Whom having not 1 1Kb. lo. 20—30. 2 Ilcb. {): 11, 12. 3 Luke 14: 20. A DISTINCT RELIGION. 201 steii, //• in whom, though you now see him not, //*■/ be* v unsp and full of glory ;' and again: / who & \ precious** John also has told us, that iri i ththai Jesus is the ('hrlst. and that every one who loveih him that begat y ither, loveth hint also thai is begotten of him, viz. tin S From Paol we might expect the same testimony, drawn in glowing colours ; and we arc not disappointed. T<> the Ephesians he says: Graa be with all than that love the Lord s Christ, in sincerity.* The Colossians he exhorts to things which are above, where Christ siUeth at the hi hand of tint!, and goes on to say, that their life is hid with Christ in God; and that when Christ, who is their life, shall appear, the// a/so shall appear with him in glory. <> lie tolls the Philippians, that he was in a strait bet wist two, hav- ■r to depart, and to }w with Christ, which is far bet- terfi To the Corinthians lie declare.-, that the lore of Christ constrains him, viz. to labour and suffer, because he thus judg- ed, that if one died for all, then were all dead. 1 And in clos- ing his first epistle to them, such a sense had the apostle of obligation to love the Saviour, that he declares : //" any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema Maran- atha, i. e. accursed when the Lord shall come to judgment. 8 If you say : g All good men, all prophets and apostles, are to be loved and reverenced ;' I concede it cheerfully. But the distinction between the love due to Christ and to them is, that the former is supreme. No created being or thing can come at all in competition with him. 1 But are we to love the Son rather than the Father ? Or more than we love the Father ?' I answer : We are to love the Father in him, and him in the Father .° . The Father has no jealousy in respect to any degree of love which we may 4 1 Put. 1: 8. 4 Bph. Ss U. 7 2 Cor. 5: 14. 2 1 Pet ± 7. 5 Col. .'i: 1—4. 8 1 Cor. lfi: 22. 3 1 John 5: 1. 6 Phil. 1: 23. 9 John 14: 11. 202 CHRISTIANITY betor to the Son. lie himself baa proclaimed him to u his beloved and tndg Son. in whom i< z. 1 lint I deem it unnecessary to dilate on this topic. It i plain a ease, thai Christians ought to love Christ, ami love him ardently) sincerely, supremely, that I do not expect then will be any to gainsay it. Whether we consider Christ in eel to what lie is, or to what he has done, he i- deserving of our highest love and gratitude. (8) Another peculiar trait of Christians, BS drawn in the New Testament, is, that they / j homage to the On this topic, as well as on others, T stand not in thifl cred place to descant as a polemic With human creeds or subtleties, or school distinctions and speculations, I have at eat nothing to do. Creeds judiciously compost d. -up- ported by Scripture, and embracing essential doctrines only, may be useful as a symbol of common faith among churches. But they are not the basis of a Protestant's belief; nor should they be regarded as the vouchers for it. My object now is to inquire simply: What did the apostles and primitive dis- ciples of the Lord and Saviour say and do, relative to the great subject before us? And the evidence of this -hall be adduced merely from the sacred record-. I observe, then, that the primitive disciples did render to the Saviour religious homagb. They made him the object of re- ligious invocation. When tin.' apostles were assembled at Jeru- salem, for the first time after the Saviour'.- ascension to heaven, and were proceeding to elect another apostle in the room of Ju- das the traitor, they made invocation to the Saviour, and said : Than Lord) who hnowesi the heart* of ell men, sh<>w whether of these tiro fhoM host cKosenf The time, the manner, the object of this prayer, and the appellation given to him who addressed, all concur to show that the Saviour is here meant. Stephen, the expiring martyr, who was tilled with the Holy Ghost, and on whom the very visions of Cod were 1 Luke 9 88. Mitt. :3: 17. ■ Acta i Si. A DISTOT* I i;i LIGION. 203 opening, with his last breath invoked the Saviour, and said: Lord J y spirit / J Ananias, when bid by Christ mforl the persecuting Saul who had been sub- dued by the power of the Saviour, uljbi T have heard how ml l<" hath done to thy at Jerusalem ; And I he hath Ityfrom tin- chief priest, to bind the Saviour, as to God the Father. At the close of his epistle to the Hebrews he says: Jesus Ohr whom be glory fon ver and < ver, Amen: 1 Peter says the same thing : Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of <>nr Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ} to him be ylory both now and forever, Amen? In heaven they do the same. Says the holy apostle who enjoyed the virions of God : Every creature which is in heaven, and on t/<>> earth, and such as an in the sea, and all that an them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be nn?<> Him that sitteth upon the throne, ami nnto the Lamb, forever and everJ Here, brethren, is that Lamb of God, who has taken away the si ns of the world, on the throne of the universe ; here he is represented as worshipped by all heaven, in the -aim.' manner as He is, who sitteth with him on the throne. And why should not this be so, if the same apostle who re- lates this, is worthy of credit in his other declarations? lie has said, that in tin beginning was the Word, and the Word < with God, and the Word \va> God; 5 He has told us that aU things wert made by him, and that without him was nothing made, which was tnadefi He has said of the Son of God: This is the true God and eternal life"' Neither the grammati- 1 Rev. r>: 8. 4 Rev. 5: 13. 7 1 John :». 90. 2 Heb. 18: 21. * John 1: 1. B Pet •'*: 18. 6 John 1: 3. A DISTINCT Ki LIGION. tin- idiom of the writer, allows as t<» re- this lasl declaration to any oilier than tin- Sa\iom\ Paul also has given as sufficient reason i<> regard th« \v as tl i of our worship, lie lias declared him to be ' - /-.' 1 1«* lias affirmed of him, that aid the foundation of the earth : that the i of hie hande ; and that while they . 4 Tit. 2: 13. 7 John 1. 1. 2 IK!). 1: 10—12. 5 2 Cor. 5: 19. * John 1: H. 3 Col. 1: 16. 6 1 Tim. 3: 16. 206 CHRISTIANITY hath $een me. hatl, sr< i) tin- Father. 1 And again, lam in the F r, >-> me, he will htep my words. 5 On another occasion lid to them : If ye keep my comma ml un mt$, ye sladl abide in my li.re ; and again -S> Ye are my friends, if ye do what- r I command you. 1 The Batte apostle who has recorded this has said : Hereby do n-< know that we khow him, if we hop his commandm IL thai soith I know him. cmdbeepeth nut his co mm timdm is ■ tiinirr fjrmt I \id£ Qnoe more : Tfong wtoM fam ikri I > <7. & now of hi- But there would be no end of citing teatta like these, tVom imrnt. I will only add, on the present oeea- i. that whatever eri dene ei any man may think himself to have of being a Christian, if he have not this, tliat he the eommamlments of the Saviour, his religion is nothing more than profession, empty profession. No matter how orthodox he may be in his sacculations ; if lie be not so in hi- | . it is all in vain. Faith without works is "f. The devils believe and tremble ;* but the devils do not obey. I have now done with this part of my discourse. I have left, and must of necessity leave, many points untouched, which belong to the Christian's system of faith and practice, and which serve to distinguish him from religionists of other names. I designed only to bring to view some of the more prominent and important points, which render this distinction palpable. I must hasten to my II. General head of discourse, which was designed for inquiry respecting the meaning of the declaration, that Christ will be in the ?nidst of those tcho assemble in his name. I shall say but few words in regard to this ; as it needs but little illustration. When Christ says he will be in the midst of his disciples, the simple meaning is, that he will be present to aid and to bless them. It is of the same import as the phrase to be with one. Christ promised his ministers to be with them always, i. e. to aid and bless them always. So he promises Christians, whenever they assemble in his name, to help and to bless them. This promise will be fulfilled. His veracity is pledged for its fulfilment. But when Christians are every day conven- r 1 Rom 6: 2. 3 Rom 8: 9. A James 2: 19, 20. 2 Rom. 6: 15. 208 CHRISTIANITY incr in erery part of the earth, and in a multitude of places widely distant from each other arc meeting together at the same moment) how can his pledge be redeemed, unless Christ ha< a power of omnipresence ? It is difficult, father (I may ) it is beyond our ability, even to imagine the possibility of this, unless the Saviour is invested essentially with divine attributes. You, my brethren, who are to meet here in his name, believe this ; and you have no difficulty therefore in giving full credit to what our text asserts. On this subject, I have no fears of raising your expectations too high. Only perform the conditions required of you as the disciples of Christ ; meet here in his name, on his account, as his humble, devoted, obedient followers ; and he will be in the midst of jfOtf, he will aid and bless you, in all that you are called to do and suffer for his name's sake. It is with the design of so doing, and with the hope you may obtain the precious blessing which the Saviour has promised in our text, that you have associated yourselves into a regular church, and erected this goodly edifice, where we are now assembled. You consecrated yourselves to your God and Saviour, when you first united with his children, in order to approach his table, and celebrate the memory of his dying love. You repeated these solemn vows, before him who searches the heart, and before your fellow men, when you formed the religious association who are here habitually to meet in the name of Christ, and pay their homage to him. And now you come, having consecrated yourselves to him who redeemed you, to consecrate this holy temple, the fruit of your cares and labours, to him whose presence you hope will dwell in it — will be always here in the midst of you, whenever you a-semble. Come then, brethren, unite now with me, whom you have made the organ of communicating your views and feelings on the present occasion, in the dedication of this sacred structure to him. O God, whom the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain; who art worshipped in thine eternal courts above, A DISTIN4 r i;riK,in\. by the 1 assembly and church of the Ural bora ; this . in which we are assembled, with all that belongs to it ; this trni}.!. reared by mortal hands, and designed for thy kte to thee I To thee, Father of our Spirits and framer of our bodies, our kind preserver, our nm- il b nefactor,* crate it I Saviour of sinners, Lamb of God who takes! away the Bins of the world, who redeemeet by thy blood, we dedicate it to thee I To thee, rnal Spirit, our Sanctifier, our Guide, our Comforter, we consecrate iil King eternal, immortal, invisible, only wise Son, and Holy Ghost, forever let it be sacred to th And now Lord God our Saviour, accept this voluntary offering and consecration of ourselves, and ours, to thee ! Fulfil now the desire of our souls, in respect to that gracious presence, for which thy disciples assembling here are en- couraged to hope ! To the latest generation, may multitudes convene here in thy name, and find delightful proof that thou art in the midst of them ! May this goodly structure, which has now been consecrated to thee, survive the vicissitudes of time, and be a soul refreshing place, for those who love thy precious name, down to the period of thy second coming ! Then with the wreck of countless worlds, let it crumble to dust, at the sound of thine awful trumpet ; and let those who have worshipped thee here, in the spirit of the gospel, at thy command shake off the sleep of ages ; burst the bars of death, and rise in thy glorious image, with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads ; — rise and meet with all the ransomed of the Lord before thy throne, to worship in that temple not made with hands, eternal in the heavens ! Ame>~. , L i: T T B R AV I I. L I A H E. C II A N N I XG . J). J). niE m bje( r oj KKLKilOUS LIBERTY. [Pi;im\p< the object of the following Letter may seem to the reader to have !>eeu merely of a temporary nature ; ami inasmuch as the immediate ■sioo of writing it baa long since ceased to operate, it may be deemed more advisable, by some, to omit the piece in question. My reasons for republishing it. however, are not Bhmply those which originally and spe- cially induced me to write the Letter/ It u some nxteen yean mice it was published ; and although three large editions of it were then printed, it has long since been out of the market, and not procurable for those who wished a cony of it The subjects discussed are moss which, in a gene- ra] point of view, can never cease to be interesting in a Republic, like OOT. The truths which I have endeavoured to illustrate and vindicate, are mote which ought to be ever kepi watchfully in view among US, and can never be over-estimated. It will be -ecu. by the Pottscr ip i to this t. (written for the present edition), that reasons for vindicating re- ligious Liberty are not wanting, in the present posture and proceedings >me religious partisans. It i< time to look at tins whole matter once more, ami is it were (k novo. Especially am 1 desirous of bringing this subject before the public, at the present time, because our brethren in England and on the continent of Europe, are beginning, at last, to open their eyes upon the subject of ('larch and State, and to throw off the shackles which civil governments impose upon their consciences in mat- ters of religion. They look to our views, as resulting from actual ex- perience, and are anxious to know our feelings an ! opinions in such cir- cumstances If I might indulge the hope that my feeble voice would he heard across the Atlantic, by those who are Btmggling for the liherties of trtte Protestantism against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high places, I would tain believe, that a Statement of the ground, which we take and vindicate here, may be of some use to them in their inquiries. At all events, we need at home to have our own mind- stirred up in the way of remembrance j for we are yet tiot a little short of attaining to entire and rightful liberty ami equal justice. There are two ways of hindering the enjoyment oi such liberty: the one. open and direct, by oppressive ordinances; the other under the broad shield of law; which, however, when thus employed, is covert and out of public view. We have little or no rea- 2G o02 INI INDUCTION. to fear the former; under the Utter a perl of oar community, as ] believe, sre now Buffering. The position I have taken is somewhat hold: and mere ire not want- in- those who will doubtless deem it assuming. I can only sai n< r or (to modify this a link' in translating it) read first and then judge It' 1 bare exhibited a narrow party spirit, such as the Orthodox air charged with cherishing — then smite; and even more than once, li' I have merely given voice, as a freeman, to th< some hundreds of thousands in this Commonwealth; if, although I may have nothing extenuated, I have ^ti!l not set down aught in main those, who feel that my complaints an- uttered in order to reach their car-, ami who do not rehab tin- ides of discussing such matters before public, will, I hope, take irhat 1 say in good part, anil regard it as the v.»ir,. of/ri / '/'v monition, ami not the obloquy of an enemy. My earthly course is nearly finished; and I can have but little to fear from any in- justice that I complain of. -<• mr a- it respects myself Hut he who knows all hearts, know- that I love my country, ami love this noble ( lommonwealth, and earnestly wish for it- highest prosperity ami welfare 1 feel a- if I were nowgiving my last testimony to the great cause of re- ligious Liberty ; and feeble a- it may be, I <1«> trust that it i> sincere, and animated bj a sense of sacred duty. Every mite may do some good when rightly ami timely contributed; for it helps to -well the aggregate feeling in favour of religious rights and liberty which are absolute and complete. Most sincerely do 1 hope, ere 1 unit the world, to Bee all grounds of Buch complaint, as 1 feel compelled to make, removed, ami this Republic become an example to the whole earth of true religious freedom ami equal justice in their fullest sense. My Brethren in sentiment, in whose behalf I speak, (although not as their constituted representative), will cheer me, as I 'hope, in my arduesu task, by their approbation. To those of whom I complain. J would most respectfully say: It' yon acknowledge me a- a fellow-Citizen ami;; free- man, yon will concede to me the right to speak, so long as I observe the rule- of decorum, of moderation, ami of comity. Such of von it- arc truly Liberal, (ami many Buch there are), will even thank me for turning your attention to matters of serious complaint and uneasiness. To the partisans among those of whom we complain, whose practical maxim tns to he A >t Co nihil) I have only to say, that 1 do not feel myself bound to he silent, because they do net like to hear me speak about BUCh matter-. Sure I am. that they cannot with any truth say, that it i- no concern of mine. Kvery citizen of the State has a d and deep interest in the subjects discussed. If the day of reflection should come, and a change of the course whieh some influential men pursuing should he tin- result of it. they will then thank me for the BUg- gestions I have mad-', however unwelcome the whole BUbject may now I.e. 1 have not uttered one word for the sake of reproach. What may •li at first i iew to look like this, is nothing more than a simple state- ment of fa.t-. or a picture of grievances. While undertaking to admon- ish others of wrong, I ought to he the last to do a wrong, like to that of which 1 complain. — M. S.| L E T T E It. Sib, In* perusing the volume which you have recently publish- ed, entitled ' Discourses, Reviews, and Miscellanies/ and al- so in reading your 4 Election Sermon' recently delivered be- fore the Legislature of this State, I have met with some pas- sages which contain charges, expressed or implied, against the denomination of Christians in Massachusetts who are called Orthodox or Trinitarian*, that seem to me to deserve serious and candid examination. If they are indeed well founded, it is proper that the community should know it ; nor can it be taken amiss, that you have given your name to the world as a pledge that they can be established and made good. But if they have no foundation in point of fact, you will join with me in saying that they ought in justice no longer to p t ass current under the sanction of your name, but that the pub- lic should be correctly informed respecting them. Passages in your recently published works, of the nature to which I have above adverted, are somewhat numerous. But as it is not my object to multiply quotations, or to dis- pute about words, I shall content myself in this place with making merely a few extracts. My first extract shall be from your Election Sermon re- cently published. " You have all heard of the outward evils, which religion, when thus turned into tyranny, has inflicted ; how it has dug dreary dungeons, kindled tires for the martyr, and invented in- struments of exquisite torture. But to me all this is less fearful than its influence over the mind. When I see the superstitions 30-4 RKLieiOUfl LXBBBTT. which it has fastened on die conscience, the spiritual terrors with which it baa haunted and subdued the ignorant and sus- ceptible, the dark appalling views of God which it has spread far and wide, the dread of inquiry which it lias struck into su- perior understandings and the servility of spirit which it has made to pass for piety, — when I see all this, the lire. tb< fold, and the outward inquisition, terrible as they are, seen t<» me inferior evils, I look with a solemn joy on the heroic spir- its, who have met freely ami fearlessly pain and death in the cause of truth and human rights. JJut there are other victim- of intolerance, on whom I look with unmixed sorrow. They are those, who, spell-bound by earl j prejudice or by intimidations from the pulpit and the press, dare not think; who anxiously stide ever] doubt or misgiving in regard to their opinions, as if to doubt were a crime : who shrink from the seekers alter truth as from L&fectipD ; who deny all virtue, which does not wear the livery of their own Bed : who, surrendering to others their best powers, receive unresistingly a teaching which wars against rea- son and conscience ; and who think it a merit to impose on such as live within their influence, the grievous bondage, which they hear themselves. How much to be deplored is it, that religion, the very principle which is designed to raise men above the judgment and power of man, should become the chief instru- ment of usurpation over the soul. M h it said, that, in this country, where the rights of private judgment, and of speaking and writing according to our convic- tions, are guarantied with every solemnity by institutions and laws, religion can never degenerate into tyranny; that here its whole influence must conspire to the liberation and dignity of the mind Y % I answer, we discover little knowledge of human nature, if we ascribe to constitutions the power of charming to Bleep the spirit of Intolerance and exclusion. Almost every Other ba at perilous and pal* pr to the intellect as the Inquisition. h thi minister as efiectuallj as the sword The present age is notorious!] sectar rian, and therefore hostile to liberty." — pp. 85 Again, in the newly printed volume of your DlSCOQl ty : u We do not deny, that our brethren have a right to form s judgment as to our Christian character. Bui we insist that we have a right to be judged hy the fairest, the most approved, and the most settled rules, hy which character can he tried ; and when these are overlooked, and the most uncertain standard is applied, we are injured ; and an assault on character, which rests on this ground, deserves no better name than defamation and persecution. " I know that this > suggestion of persecution will he indignant- ly repelled hy those, who deal most largely in denunciation. But persecution is a wrong or injury inflicted for opinions ; and surely assaults on character fall under this definition. Some per- in to think, that persecution consists in pursuing er- ror with fire and sword ; and that therefore it has ceased to ex- ist, except in distempered imaginations, because no class of Christians among us is armed with these terrible weapons. But no. The form is changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution has given up its halter and fagot, but it breathes venom from its lips, and secretlv blasts what it cannot openly destrov. — pp. 561, 562. In the same volume, when speaking (as in the preceding extract) against a " system of exclusion and denunciation in religion," you make the following remarks : •• Inothei important consideration is, that this system of ex- cluding men of apparent sincerity, for their opinions, entirely subverts \\-cq inquiry into the Scriptures. When once a particu- lar system is surrounded by this bulwark ; when once its de- fenders have brought the majority to believe, that the rejection of it is a mark of depravity and perdition ; what but the name of liberty is left to Christians ? The obstacles to inquiry are as 26* 30C RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. real, and may be as powerful, as in the neighborhood of tlio In- quisition. The multitude dare not think, and the thinking dan not speak. The right of private judgment may thus, in a rVo- testant country, be reduced to a nullity. It is true, that nan ; to the Scriptures ; but they are told before thej 1:0. that they \\\\\ be driven from the church on earth and in heaven, mi- le-- they find in the Scriptures the doctrines which are embodi- ed in the popular creed. They are told, indeed, to inquire R>1 themselves ; but they are also told, at what points inquiry must anise ; and the Sentence of exclusion hangs over them, if they happen to Stray, with some of the best and Wisest men, into for- bidden paths. Now this ' Protestant liberty,' is, in one respect, more irritating than Papal bondage. Jt mocks as well as en- claves u& Jl talks to us courteously as friends and brethren, whilst it rivets our chains. It invites and even charires us to look with our ov\ n e\es, but with the same breath warns us a,L r ain difficult But among Congregationalists, the tribunal be- fore which die offender is to be brought is the whole church, consistinir partly of men in bumble circumstances, and of un- improved minds: partly of men engaged in active and pressing business : and partly of men of education, whose studies have been, directed to law and medicine. Now is this a tribunal be- fore which the most intricate points of theology are to be dis- CUSSed, and serious inquirers are to answer for opinions, which the) have perhaps examined more laboriously and faithfully than all their judges r Would a church of humble men, conscious of their limited opportunities, consent to try, for these pretend- ed crimes, professing Christians, as intelligent, as honest, and exemplary as themselves? It is evident, that in the business of excluding men for opinions, a church can be little more than the tool of their minister, or a few influential members ; and our churches are, 111 general, too independent and too uptight to take this part in SO solemn a transaction. To correct their RKLIOIOUfl LXBEI 307 il to quicken their zeal on this point, we are now threatened with ne* tribunals, or Consociations, whose otlice it will he t«> n\ ministers for their errors, to iasped tin' churches, and to advise ami assist them in the extirpation ol* * heresy/ \\ hil.M the laity air slumberim:, tin' ancient and tier cmMitu- tion of our church: leutly undermined, and is crumhlini: awny. Bioee argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of opinion, se muat be had to more powerful instruments of miction; [ mean, to ecclesiastical coumrs, And are this pie indeed prepared t* submit to this most degrading form of _«• : a vassalage, which reaches and palsies the mind, and imposes On it the dreams and fictions of men, foi the everlasting truth of God I" — pp. 565, 56& Once more, in your preface to the same volume you say ; k - It is due to myself to say, that the controversial character of I part of this volume, is to he ascribed, not to the love of dispu- tation, but to the circumstances in which I was called to write. It was my lot to enter on public life at a time when this part of the country was visited, by what I esteem one of its sorest scourges ; I mean, by a revival of the spirit of intole- rance and persecution. I saw the commencement of those sys- tematic efforts, which have been since developed, for fastening on the community a particular creed. Opinions, which I thought true and purifying, were not only assailed as errors, but brand- ed as crimes. Then began, what seems to me one of the gross immoralities of our times, the practice of aspersing the charac- ters of exemplary men, on the ground of differences of opinion as to the moot mysterious articles of faith. Then began those ults on freedom of thought and speech, "which, had they succeeded, would have left us only the name of religious liberty. Then it grew perilous to search the Scriptures for ourselves, and to speak freely according to the conviction of our own minds. w that penalties, as serious in this country as fine and Im- prisonment, were, if possible, to be attached to the profession of liberal views of Christianity, the penalties of general hatred and scorn : and that a degrading uniformity of opinion was to be imposed by the severest persecution, which the spirit of the age would allow. At such a period,! dared not be silent To op- se what I deemed error, was to me a secondary consideration. My first duty, as I believed, was, to maintain practically and re- solutely the rights of the human mind; to live and to suffer, if to suffer were necessary, for that intellectual and religious liber- 303 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. t\, \\ hirli I prise incomparably more than my civil rights. I felt myself called, not onlj to plead in general for freedom of thought and speech! but, W hat was moiv important and tr\ ing, to aaact l this freedom by action. I abould have fell myself disloyal to truth and freedom, had I confined myself to vague commonplaces about our rights, and forborne to bear m\ testimony expressly and special!) to proscribed and persecuted opinions. The times required thai a voice of Btrengtb and courage should be lifted up, and 1 rejoice, thai I was found among those by whom it was Uttered and sent far and wide." — (>}>. vii. viii. On the tenor and spirit of these accusations throughout, (which however only accord with a multitude of other pas- 9 in your writings), it is not my purpose here to remark in a particular manner. I reserve what I have more special- ly to Bay respecting these, for another part of the present Letter. I trust you will have the ingenuousness to avow at once, that it was your intention in these passages, and in others of the like nature, to characterize the efforts, the arguments, the designs, and the cause of those who are usually denomi- nated Orthodox or Trinitarians in this Commonwealth. You will permit me, in the following pages, to name the of men Orthodox, to whom I here advert, and to call their liberal opponents Unitarians, I do this merely for the sake of convenience and brevity ; not for the sake of making any claims for one party, or of casting any odium on the other, by the use of such appellations. In the above extracts then, (as often elsewhere), you have charged the Orthodox with a settled, steadfast, unrelenting purpose to suppress all free inquiry respecting matters of re- ligion, to cover with reproach those who may differ from themselves, to drown the W-rc expression of opinion by de- nunciations of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude by joint and perpetual menace. In addition to all this, you represent them as Baying: "Since argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of opinion, recourse must be had to powerful instruments of conviction, to E< i LI masti- CAX Coi ki B. M ULI0IO1 - i.ir.r.KTV. 309 If there could be an y doubt whom you mean to charac- . in the | x.tracted from your Election Sermon, l from the preface lo the volume of your Work-, the dee- hrations in the Appendix to this volume, in the pieee which nmences on page 557, put the matter beyond all contro- 1 will not therefore expend any time in labouring to itdiah a point bo perfectly dean 1 take it for granted that you yourself are altogether too frank and ingenuous, D to protend that you did not mean to eharaeterize Ortho- dox Christians in general throughout this State, and in par- ticular the clergy who belong to this denomination of Chris- tians And 1 take this for granted, beeause I cannot help believing that no Unitarian who reads your writings, has ever once suspected, or ever will suspect, that you meant to characterize any other than the Orthodox ; and no Orthodox man who reads the whole of your works, can possible suppose otherwise. You aim at real existences, not imaginary, future, fantastic ones ; I mean those which you believe to be real. The friends with whom I am accustomed to think and act, do not once suspect you of laying out your energies, in be- labouring what you believe to be u a man of straw." For myself then, as one among the denomination of the Orthodox, I take my full share of all the remarks which you have made against them. One and all of my brethren, with whom I am united in sentiment and affection, feel, so far as I know 7 , in the same manner as I do, with respect to the design of your remarks. We understand you to aim these accusations directly at us ; for it does not signify to go round and round this matter, as afraid to look at it or to touch it. We know that the accusation and reproaches are intended to strike us ; and we stand up, without a blush or a trembling nerve, before the tribunal of denunciation where you have arraigned us, to hear our sentence with that fortitude, we would fain hope, which it becomes those to exercise who sin- cerely believe that they are in the right. If we now take the liberty to move an arrest of your judgment, we hope you will not refuse us a hearing. It is natural, you know, for 310 i [QIOI a LIBEB men who are accused of crimes that are as to reputa- \{ not as to life, to appeal, in case of condemnation, to a higher tribunal, if such appeal be lawful; and if not, to move an arrest of judgment, when the verdict or sentence does not agree with facts and evidence* Above all will they do this, when they know the accusations to be wholly unground and that they are truly innocent of the matters laid to their charge. I acknowledge, indeed, that a few solitary passages are found in your writings, in which you seem to manifest a little relenting on the subject of the severe and high wrought language with which you reproach me and my brethren. You sometimes say, that you aim not at Oah'inists, but at (hlvinism ; that there are men among the party whom you Oppose, whose hearts are better than their heads, and whose religious character you feel bound to respect ; and other things of the like nature. But such declarations are "few and far between." They seem most evidently to be the result of mere constraint, when they do appear ; constraint arising probably from a sense of decorum, and apparently too from an apprehension, that a strenuous advocate of liber- ality does not appear altogether to the best advantage, while he is uttering indiscriminate condemnation against more than one half of the community in which he lives, and which, if it be well grounded, falls with more justice still and with heavier Wright, on the blessed Pilgrims who laid the founda- tion of his country's happy freedom and greatm It is my most serious conviction, arising from a perusal of your writings as a whofe that no one can justly affirm us to be under obligation to you on the score of benevolence and kindness, because of the exceptions to which I have just re- ferred. A native Fellah of Egypt, being in company with a recent European traveller there of great spirit and intelli- . was asked by the latter, (who had been expatiating in prai.M' of the Ta-dia of Egypt, and on the happy, nourishing, and safe condition of the country), whether he did not . with him as to the munificent and generous character of his i ; i i tOIOt I i ir.n 311 :n. To this the Fellah replied, witb I most signifi- •k. and elevating his hands toward heaven ; u God Is ii ! Our lord, the Pasha, gives with one hand, ami tal awav with tir ." Bo it 18, my dear Sir, with your praig In some solitary passages, you allow, far decency's sake and in order tppearance of liberality, that there are mong us who have a share of common sense in re- •t to most subjects, and afew that have a little smattering of what the world deems learning; possibly two or thr Orthodox individuals may he found, in the whole State, that havt ee of cultivated taste. But in other pa- ges almost without number, you rank the whole together, and iessly avow that none hut bigots, and those who have bid adieu to what little understanding they possessed, can be found in the ranks of Orthodoxy. And what is more than all, some of your partial friends applaud this, and call it bold and fearless declaration of the truth, and the development of high and commanding genius. I cannot say, however, that I feel any gratitude for such concessions. It lies on the face of your writings, that they are against the tenor of your habitual feelings and views, which (in respect to us) are most manifestly those of scorn, of indignation, and of unsparing severity. You give with one hand, but take away with two. For one, I am unable to bring my mind to an attitude, in which such gifts can be gratefully accepted. If it be my fault, may heaven forgive me for it ! But I am as yet ignorant of its being a fault. I have been accustomed to suppose, and do still believe, that in a land of religious freedom, the Orthodox have as good a right to maintain the doctrines of the Pilgrims, as Unitarians have to assail them ; and that the time has not yet come, when any one individual, however exalted in his own view or in that of his party, can by sweeping denunciations and accusations crush all who venture to oppose him. Sir, you could not have committed a greater mistake than to assume the place of that individual ; to consign us over to the ranks of those, who are plotting against the dearest rights of all who 312 RELIGIOUS LIIJKRTY. haw any respect for religion ; to hold us up to the world as combined to oppress and to enslave (in a religion et) our fellow citizens ; and then to deliver us over to tl; oration of all honest men, who prize Christian liberty and social freedom. There ifl no denying that you have done this. It standi in high relief in the preceding extracts, which you cannot disavow. More especially you cannot disavow them, 1>< most of them are not the hasty effusion of moments when excitement was urging on the thoughts and the pen and the press, but they are declarations reviewed and republished to the world after a series of years, in which, as one would naturally suppose, anger had time to cool and resentment to be disarmed. They are written in characters so large and plain, that k he who runneth may read.' Nor did you, when you penned them, believe or expect that Unitarians would misinterpret them. I cannot refrain from believing that you did bond fide mean them to speak, what they plainly appear to apeak. And now, when called before such a tribunal, and loaded with denunciations which if credited would forever blast our character and ruin our influence with the community, we do not confess the justice of our sentence, nor acquiesce in it as passed by a court which has the legitimate and ultimate power of deciding. We have a right to appeal, and we do make the appeal, to the public, to honest and candid men of all plaofles and panics, we care not what their name may be, from the accusations that you have so often and with such a&exainpled severity proffered against us, and from the sweeping judgment of excision, (excision as to all respect or affection or confidence due to us), which you have so often pronounced. I say '•' here, not because I am deputed by my brethren to perform the task of writing this pamphlet, (for this is not the . lull becaofte J know their sentiments and feelings on these subjects. None of my brethren had even any know- ledge that I was engaged in this work, until it was completed. RE] U.I01 - 1 li'.l K I V. it be accused of acting in i . or of being urged on by the calls of parly. Bert knowing them as I do. I \en- tmv here to speak in their behalf as well ai my awnt What* r is wrong in this letter, they and the public mast put to my account alone. Whatever i> just and true, may be con- sidered -ken in behalf of all my injured brethren well a< myself. We are aocused of a Bettled design to invade the religious liberties of this community, and to force upon them, sooner or later, a creed Which was framed in the dark aires, and is worthy only of them. We are charged with an intention to erei Meal courts, which, like the Inquisition of old, are by terror and compulsion to bring this whole Common- wealth to one uniform system of religious doctrine. Such allegations it is proper that we should meet ; and in order to do this, I shall begin with an open declaration and avowal of our sentiments on the subject of religious liberty. I cannot indeed vouch for it that every man in this State w r ho is named Orthodox, will subscribe to the following sentiments. But this I can say fully, that all among the Orthodox with whom I am acquainted, whether of the clergy or of the laity, do for substance agree in the principles of religious freedom that I am now to propose. With most, against whom I sup- pose the denunciations in your works are specially directed, I have the pleasure of being acquainted ; and I know well their feelings and views. I venture therefore to say ice ; and I am fully confident, that the avowal made in this manner cannot be contradicted by any credible evidence whatever. Let us come then to the sentiments of the Orthodox, in re- gard to religions liberty. I will be as brief as the nature of the case admits. You will pardon me, however, for being somewhat particular and specific, because J wish to be defi- nitely understood, and to allow of no room for misinter- pretation. (1) We hold that every individual has a perfect right to examine and decide for himself what his own religious senti- ments or creed shall be. 27 314 RELIGIOUS LIl We meaa by this, thai no law of the land, no public tlioritv or tribunals, and no private combination or men tO which lie hflfl not voluntarily attached him-elf, -hall liavc any power n> demand from him any religious whatever, i. e. no power .-hall compel him to or- ny en ted, by civil penalty either in respect to his person, his property, or bia civil or Bocial rights. We are far from I Keying that religion has no connection with the prosperity and stability of government. We do fully believe that no good • eminent en earth can be long maintained and be stable, without piety among its Bttbjeete. But this is an influence of religion on government and t connection with it, which are i/u/trrcf. We do not hold to the expediency, or propriety, or safety, of Committing in any sense to the civil government the disposal of religious matter.-, in respect either to faith or mo< of worship. The only power which we wish ever to see them possess, is, that they may cheek what is indecent, or hurtful to the public morals, or dangerous to peace on account of the injury which it does to others. But this we would alwa de-ire to see ellccted, rather as an oil'ence that is indictable common law than by statute. We wish always to see civil government protect all its citizens in the peaceful enjoyment of their religious privileges : to do this, on the same ground that WC .-hould wish to see it- subjects protected with respect to any other rights that arc dear to them. AVe mean that i Mohammed— even, and the dew, and the Dei-t. as well a- the Christian, should have the liberty of Worshipping in his own way among 08, M long as they demean themselves peaceably, and do not invade the rights of others. We know of /to - taptian to participation in civil and $ocud righto, and tie right of worshipping in aw awn way, or of even not worshipping any way, under a government that is free in the m use that we would have it : ami all this without any abridgement of the rights of citizen.-, without any civil disabilities. At 1 1 . < know of only 0HC Case, to which an exception can be m. on the ground of religious opinion. This is, where a man de- nies the existence of a God, or of a state of future rewa Rl r.IGIOl - I ! and punishments. In Bach a cai bowtboob*- licrntion of an oath can have any binding force at all; and therefore we cannot see the propriety of administering one to him, either as a witness or a- a magistrate. We cannot help on it a- a mere mockery of this solemnity, to admin- ister an oath in such eases.* Wt - aware how much hm been said, and may he said, in t. Mho State having some established form of religion, and some particular religious test of office, lint wo are fully persuaded, that the evils which Derail from such an arran. ment very much outweigh all the good that can ho derived from it. Religion, all true religion, is a volustfary offering on the part of man to his Creator. A forced freed is no creed. Belief , from i?s Own nature and the rery constitution of the human mind, nest be free, epovU ane ous, induced by grjwmowf , not compelled iff fear or by tin-eats. All professed belief of this latter kind, is utterly unworthy of the name. It is an ob- ject of abhorrence to God, and of loathing to men. And whether an attempt is made to force it on our minds, by the terrors of an Inquisitorial tribunal, or by the milder penalties of additional taxation and loss of civil rights, it matters not with us. We will not say that both of these ways of enforc- * Recent decisions of the Supreme Court in this State, seem to have settled this matter on the basis, that a denial of the truth- in question ild be regarded as affecting the i!it;i rather than the competency of the witness. This will at least save the Courts much time and many invidious decisions about character. Plainly it is the easiest way of man- aging this difficult matter. But whether it is compatible with the gene- ral principle, among all Courts in Christian countries, and (as I believe to be the fact) in the Supreme Court of the United States, is another question. Practically, as it will operate in most cases, the difference "be- te ami other witnesses will he done away. Juries will not l>e apt to concern themselves with a matter of this kind. But the Supreme Court seem to have fend a kind ofjbresiahi as to the times which are coming upon OS. For what could thev do. unaided hy their recent rule, with the // e/iaos, and other like philosophers ' It would seem necessary for them to tit for office bj going to Germany, and attending courses of Lectures on Philosophy, in order to he ahlc to settle the questions : What is atheism f Who is tm 31G RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. inu it ought to receive equal disapprobation from us ; but we do truly Bay, thai both receive our unqualified disapprobation. We arc the more confirmed in our views of religious liberty thus explained, because we see wvy plainly, that the re- ligious opinions which the civil power may sanction to-day, it may proscribe to-morrow. Jt has often done so. But be- lieving a< ire do, that religion is a matter of immeasurably greater interest than everything which pertains to the present world, we should he among the last men on earth to commit ■ disposal of our faith to tin 1 civil magistrate, who might on > day exaJi the Christian religion, and on another trample the cross beneath his feet* We set too high a value on this pre- cious gift of heaven, ever voluntarily to commit the keeping of it to hands which may thus desecrate and abuse it. I have only a word to add here, in order to prevent being misunderstood, respecting a special obligation which one may voluntarily contract, to a religious society who cherish a par- ticular belief. If we enter such a society, professing the same belief with them, and understand it as a condition of membership or good standing among them that we continue to cherish the same belief, then, in case we do change it, it is plainly lawful and proper that the society should withdraw' from its connection with D8 as a member. l>ut all this is a thing merely of volun- tary obligation. And in no COM whatever do we believe that civil disabilities, or penalties, should be connected with any tmmunication by a Christian church. (2) We not only believe that all men >hould be left free to form their religious opinions, without any civil penalties or disabilities, but we maintain most fully, that when the religions of any one arc formed, he has a right to propagate them. t<> defend them, a/a/ to Support them, by his efforts, his J* or his influence* In all this we understand of course, that in so doing he does not .-lander or abuse his neighbor, nor deny him any civil or ud right as a member of the community, nor hinder him in the lawful exercise of it. Of the former of these faults the i:iin. i i.ii:iv. 317 oi\il law justly may I gnisano tinsl the latter, the law if love ami of doing as uv woiiM l»c done by protests. w believe most fully, thai men have ■ right to propagate ir religious sentiments, if they confine then ' nd persuasion, and do n<>i il to abase, which is a crime in i of the civil law, it being manifestly against the peaee of the community. A\ » are ivell aware, ndeed, of the mischiefs which may result from a free light to propo- or rather irreligious, sentiments of any kind. A\ e IviM-w too well, what incalculable evil the publication of - as the Age of Reason, the works of Boulanger, of Voltaire, ami of Fa Mettrie, have occasioned. We shud- der at it as one of the most dreadful of evils, inasmuch as it takes hold on eternity and not merely on time. But dread- ful as it is, we regard as a still greater evil, the power of civil government, or of any ecclesiastical tribunal, to suppress the publication of books at its option. To-day it may choose, as Frederic the Great did. and the French Directory after him, to circulate widely Voltaire, and D'Alembert, and Rousseau ; or to-morrow it may spread wide the poison of some heresy lurking under a Christian name ; while, at the same time, it inhibits all antidotes to these tremendous evils. The liberty of the press, the unreserved liberty of it, is in our view funda- mental to religious liberty. If the press be, as it doubtless ■tmotines is, a most terrible instrument of doing evil, it is also one of the most efficient of all instruments in doing good. We would forever leave it open and free to do good ; and if the liberty to do evil must come along with this, (and we do not see how it is possible to prevent it), why then the friends of truth must trust to argument, to reason, to con- science, and to God, for triumph over the powers of darkm And this they may do, without peril to the cause in which they are engaged. If I have not liberty to propagate my religious sentiments, provided I do it by reason, and argument, and persuasion, and with decorum, then I am not free. Liberty in its high- est and most precious sense is denied me. As an immortal 27* 318 KKLIolOl'S LIBERTY. being, I look forward to the time when myself and all around me arc to cuter on the M recompense of reward," a final and t tenia! one. It' I am serious in my religious views : if I am well persuaded that they are true, and this after and protracted and patient examination; then I must be utterly destitute even of the spirit of -common humanity, if I do not desire others to participate with me in this por>ua>ion. Were it a matter pertaining merely to their temporal inter- -. most of my fellows beings would pronounce me destitute of humanity, in case I should not warn those around me whom I thought to be in danger, and should not excite them to escape from it. l>ut (J the never-dying soul ! The awful tribunal of' 4 eternal judgment!" "The tearfulness of falling into the hands of the living God, who is a consuming lire!" It' I believe that there are unequivocal declarations in God's word, (as I truly do), in respect to these tremen- dous subjects : if I believe that the impenitent are surely ex- posed to endless misery ; that those who reject the Saviour as he is offered in the gospel, "shall not see life, but that the wrath of God will abide on them p can I as a man of any pretensions to benevolence, refrain from telling all this to others, from urging it upon them, and from warning them of the danger in which 1 sincerely believe them to be? Truly, the opponents of our religious views must halt here, and candidly avow, that if such are our real convictions, we ought in all good conscience to urge them upon our neigh- bor^ Say. if you please, that we are utterly mistaken ; that all our convictions are the result of superstition, or prejudice, or bigotry, or of a narrow illiberal education ; yet so long a- we KPt in this plight, what are we to do? As honest men, mast follow the dictates of our consciences. We acknowl- edge the possibility thai these may be blinded, or perverted, Or even u 8eared; M but BO long a- we are not convinced that this is the Case, how can we do otherwise than propagate our Sentiments by all proper methods and with all the earn* Dees in our power ? The liberty of doing this, we vahn Kri .i.;i«m - f ir.i ilTY. 319 wich more than we do no I liberty, as the Interests erf eternity exc< < -1 in value i time. If then it ifl east utial to a lull en joymenl of religious liber- ty, thai ihxndd heme the right of propagating their i ligi . whatever they may be : and that they old be restrained by the laws of the laud, only so Far m the laws guard the reputation of individuals who may be unjustly assailed, and protect them from injury as to their property or rights; it will of course follow, that men should right oj defending their sentiments when they are /. and of showing, if they can do so, that tin- sentiments of those who assail them are erroneous and hurtfuL Here, my dear Sir, is a part of religious liberty, on which it d< mto me that yourself, and some others who have the like zeal with you against the Orthodox, have not suffi- ciently reflected, or that you are unwilling to concede it. We believe, on the part of the Orthodox, that the sentiments of those distinguished men who fled from persecution in the old world, in order that they might worship God in the new one, and in such a way as best agreed with the dictates of their consciences, — that these sentiments do essentially agree with the revelation which God has made in the holy Scrip- tures. AVe believe this ex ammo, from real persuasion, be- cause we have searched the Scriptures and think that we find these sentiments tlterc ; not because Calvin, and the Reformers, and the Pilgrims believed them. The possibility of this, you I trust are prepared to admit. If there are bigots among us, as you so often assert, I may still venture to 8 . that at least we are not all bigots. Such of us then as believe, from investigating the Bible, that the senti- ments of the Reformation are found there, hold fast to the position that we ought to have the liberty of defending these sentiments when they are assailed, and of exposing, if we can, the errors of those who assail them. But here, it would seem, is the very essence of our crime. In your view, it appears to be altogether commendable, that Unitarians should deluge the community with Improved i [f.IOI - l.ll'.l.l. \ - i^'kiih. with the work- of Fellowet, and Belsham, and Priestley, and Cappe. and others of the like character; that they should form themselves into Tract Societies and dis- tribute hundreds of thousands of Unitarian tracts, assailing the .M-ntiments of the Orthodox openly, or secretly undi mining the principles which they regard as of vital impor- tai.ee ; that they should form .Missionary Societies and en- deavour not only to spread their principles among the Hindoos and cooperate with Kaminohun Roy, hut to traverse the regions of the West and South in our own land, and forestal the efforts of the Orthodox there ; that they should hold public meetings, in which not only the clergy, but legislators, civilians, and judges from the highest seat of justice, come forward and excite the multitude against Orthodoxy ; that they should issue periodicals monthly, weekly, and almost daily, in which the public are warned against the Inqwiiitl that is forming among them, and the desperate set of bigots who are forging chains for their religious liberty; that they should declaim against these men and their principles, (their alleged or supposed principles), from one Sabbath to another, (in which you above all others, unless you are very erro- neously represented^ have taken the lead) ; all this, and much more of the same nature, is not only lawful in your eyes, but altogether commendable. In public and in private, from the pulpit and the press, you have not ceased to urge on, with all your eloquence, measures of this and the like nature. But turn now the tablet, and look at the other side of the picture. When the Orthodox publish their books, tracts, and periodicals, they are represented as bigots who are little short of being raving mad. They have neither modesty nor humility. When they assoeiate for the purposes of friendly ferenee and counsel, and in order to strengthen each other's hand-, and to encourage each other to walk in the way of their forefathers, they are plotting in order to enclo the community in the toiU of the Inquisition; they are form- ■ h< i LE8IAST* ai. COI BTS," before which all liberal- in i [gioi - i [beri r. 821 men, that choose to think and invi for them- selves, arc sooner or later to be brought, and b* made tO know that there ifl "»/// MM way of thinking which is to tolerated. And since BUCD high crimes and misdemeanor- the been laid to their charts the public are told, that * the times have required a v *th and ooirauM md you rejoice thai roi are fwmd among , ,itf, red ness ; in order to maintain their own sentiment^ as von and those who are with you have to all these in behalf of rnitarianisni ? It is a lair question, and I do iafltaN on a ■< ■!• answer fto it. Will jroa say, that men have no right to be in earnest, in defending UUjutnj { I know you do say tl. that is. you -ay what manifestly implies this. Jiut then I am not to he diverted from my argument by such an answer. Who, I ask, has made the decision that Orthodoxy is bigot- r\j t i Dr. Channing and his friends allirm it.' Granted; but in a land of Ubertij, there is a freedom of thought to be allowed ; and by far the greater portion of our community have made up their minds, that then is no bigotry in the sen- timents in question. But you, Sir, take for granted the very question in dispute ; and taking this for granted, you decide just as though there was no appeal from your tribunal, and consign us over to the ranks of dark designing conspirators against the religious liberties of our country. It is too late to deny this, or to tread back as to these charges, unless in- deed you recall the whole of them. They have gone forth k - far and wide," and with a a voice of strength ;" and I ap- peal to every honest and ingenuous man on earth, be he Unitarian or Trinitarian, whether they do not fairly imply all that I have understood them to imply. Sir, I repeal it once more, the Orthodox do not understand Why they have not the liberty of defending the opinions which their ancestors held, in case they do sincerely accord with them. That they do sincerely agree, they openly pro- Ifl and avow ; and neither yourself, nor any man on earth, lias a right to call this in question. Why then do you re- proach us, that we are in earnest to defend and to propagate our belief? We do from the heart believe, that the eternal salvation of our fellow beings is connected with a hearty as- i nt to the fundamental principles which we avow. Should we not then be entirely destitute even of common humanity; Ollld we not l»e treacherous to the cause which we pro) t<> believe is infinitely important; should we not iu fact be RELIGI01 9 1 IBER1 V. .j2.'> typo if we did not manifest our earn< in maintaining and propagating our religious sentiment Bat you will i the theory of this principle. You will lay, however, that the r of our defending and ■WMagftlipg oor tontimmtn in what von condemn, and that tliis n the principal Bubjeel of your severe animad\« To \km 1 reply, first, that such is not the case in point of You have represented us m having dark, selfish, ma- lignant pin as d oic w ai oed at all adventures to iatro" duce compulsion into matters of religion, a compulsion C W01 than the terrors of the Inquisition and the chains which it This surely is the blackest crime of all, if i: truly ours ; Mid this as surely has nothing to do with the m* ner in which we defend and propagate our sentiments. Next, as to the manner itself, I have but few remarks to make. I am ready to concede, on my part, that I have seen and read things among the Orthodox, the manm r of which I in some respects heartily disapproved I have never thought, that to rail at our opponents was either Christian or courte- ous. Above all, every reflecting man must say : Nothing can be more improbable, than that this kind of proceeding will be likely to convince those who differ from us. Who will hear us with patience, when we begin our reproof by letting him know that we think him cither a fool or a knave ? I am not blinded to this by party zeal. I have seen some of it among those whom I warmly love and greatly respect. Perhaps I may have shown some of this same disposition in my own writings. If so, produce it, and I will tread that part under my feet, and make my atonement by unfeigned sorrow to an injured public, and to the injured cause of Christ. ]>ut if I have indulged in such a mode of writing, I am unconscious of it to myself. I disapprove it ; I even abhor it ; and yet I know that I am not proof against tempta- tion, and that I am exposed to all the weaknesses and faults of those around me. liut while I thus answer to one part of your complaint by confession, 1 must be permitted to say, that so far as I have 324 RfcLiaKM - 1.11:1 I; been able to form a judgment from reading the periodical! and pamphlets of both parties, I do think that there ia a wide difference between the faults of the Orthodox in this and those rf Unitarians. I know of nothing in any n Orthodox pnblications, whieh can well compare with th< iterated charges against as by Unitarians, from the pulpit and the press, of bigotry, of gloomy superstition, of dark and fraudulent designs on the religious Liberties of our country, of worshipping a God who is a tyrant, of propagating horri- ble and blasphemous ideas of the Divinity, of worshipping a God who is no better than the devil, of an intention to renew the horrors of the Inquisition, of being gloomy, unsocial, illiterate misanthropes, enthusiasts, hypocrites, deceivers, and Other things of the like nature. It were easy to substantiate this charge byabundanoe of evidence; and this too from publications which you yourself patronize by your pen, your purse, and your approbation. J Jut I forbear. The subject is distressing — it is even odious. There are men, I know, among your own denomi- nation, who see all this and look upon it just as I do. You are very far from being agreed among yourselves in rasped to such measures, as you must know ; at least if you do not know it, your friends must have been uncommonly reserved in their communications. There are men among you. and not a few, of high and ingenuous feelings, who take the liber- ty to believe that the Orthodox have the Bame right to " urge hard" as the Unitarians have, and who look with disgust on all the accusations of such a nature as those to which I have adverted. Notwithstanding all that has been done, however, in the way <>f making sueh accusations against OS, 1 do not appear as an apologist for any severity, or for the calling of hard name-, or for ill natured accusations, on the part of myself or of my brethren* If we are guilty in this respect, ire stand condemned. Hut it is to be expected, that when men are charged with a great Crime because they choose to walk, and insist on walking, in the old paths of the Reformers ; and RELIGIOUS LIBBKTT. 32o when tin j sailed ha an angry and bitter and icomful manner for so doing ; thai some of them maybe betrayed ►nd the boundaries which Christian meekness and forbearance and eren self-reeped allow. I Bay this is not Jthough I do not deny that it is wrong. But if it yon, my dear Sir, are one of the last men who have a title to reproach us with this wrongs as I Bhall ha :i to show still farther in the sequel, before this letter is closed. Enough for the present, on the religion* liberty which we avow and advocate, the liherty to defend our own sentiments and to propagate them. No government can properly inter- with this right. Nor can any party justly deny 08 such a liberty as I have endeavoured to defend. I know of no power on earth, which has the right to say to our opponents : 4 You shall have unbounded liberty of speaking, and writing, and acting, in order to defend and propagate your sentiments ; but the Orthodox cannot justly claim the same liberty for themselves.' That men should differ in opinion, is incident to the frailty of human nature, and to the imperfection of human knowl- edge. But still we hold sacred the right to maintain our honest convictions, not by word and writing only, but by the use of our property and influence as well as our tongues and pens. Our Bill of liights in this State assures us of this privilege. We have a right to endow Seminaries in order to furnWi teachers of our own sentiments ; w r e have a risrht to demand protection in this ; the very same rights in both respects as Unitarians have. We have a right to give our property to churches of our own way of thinking, and to be- lieve and maintain that parishes and churches are not one and the same. We have a right to feel ourselves injured when property given to Orthodox churches is wrested from us under colour of the law. We have rights in a University which is the property of the whole State, and was not found- ed or exclusively endowed by Unitarians ; at least we have such rights, so long as we are not absolutely disfranchised. 28 c o'2G BELX6IOU6 LIBERTY. We liav. a righl to expect that the property of th< 5 in h an establishment, should not be appropriated to the purposes of a party; and that the instructors in them should not give tin - to one sect only, which has in /< although not in name, < xclnded all others from any participa- tion with them in these privil We who have childr to educate, in common with our fellow citizen-, feel the I of such rights. We cannot help deeply feeling them; for we are obliged to send our children abroad, at a ex- pense, in order to avoid their becoming parti/an< in the pi sent warfare against OUT own sentiments. We do not CDtn- plain that our sentiments are opposed ; but we oomplain that they are opposed in this way. and at the sacrifice of right- thai we hold dear and deem -acred. We do not com- plain that Unitarians build up Seminaries lor themselves, in order to educate young men to spread abroad and defend their own sentiment- : they have an entire right to build up schools, colleges, or theological Seminaries of this kind, and to coniine their privileges to their own body. The Bill of Rights assures them of this privilege, But tl aid re- member, that it assures us of the same. What we complain of is, that an Institution which belongs in common to the whole State, which was founded and endowed to a large ex- tent by Orthodox men, and consecrated to maintaining th faith, should now be made exclusively a party Seminary, so that from the President down to the janitor, no man of known Orthodox sentiment-, can find access there as an ins^'uetor. "We complain that rights public and common, should be ied by on-- exclusive party, and appropriated to their own purposes \ that teachees, maintained at the expense of the Commonwealth, should be devoted to a seminary exclusively Unitarian, and paid from a fund in which the Orthodox have a common interest of all this we complain; but never .-hall or can complain, that I nitarians manage their oicn Seminaries entirely in their own way; provided always, that they concede to u- the same liberty. Look now lor a moment on this whole ca-e, and put your- BE] - i n-i B n . ild you help feel- ing, that you bad to dial with those*, who being in possession of power forget riulit r And y* . Sir, you are not only look* ing on, but beartily approving of all this, and have yourself a an efficient agent in bringing it about. How can ii that thtiv ifl only one !i a mmunion and worship from Unitarians* Some pour strongest expressions of disapprobation and indigna- Hired out against us lor this. And \vt, when I this matter to the bottom, I am unable to see the justice of this reproof. We do sincerely believe, that cer- tain sentiments are essentuU to the Christian religion. We regard them as being so essential, that true Christianity can- not exist without them. Whether we are in the right or the Wrong m to this, it is not my present purpose to inquire. Enough that we sincerely believe ourselves to be in the right. If so, then how can others deny us the liberty of thinking and acting in a manner that accords with this ? If we should not do so, it would be proof that we were neither sincere nor in earnest, in our religious sentiments ; in other words, that we were hypocrites. You may believe this of us ; and judg- ing by the general tenor of your writings, I know not how to avoid the conclusion that you do think so. 13 ut we still aver, that you have no right to affirm this ; and we must maintain this position, so long as our consciences acquit us in respect to the matter of this accusation. In separating from those who differ from us in religious opinion, (as w T e believe, fundamentally), we are not led on by motives of bigotry or of an exclusive spirit. We are prone to ask a question which is not recent : * ; How can two walk together, unless they are agreed ?" We do not urge these words beyond what we think to be their plain and ob- vious import We do not think that small differences of opinion about non-essentials, are intended to be included in them. We limit the meaning to agreement in things, which in our view are essential Such we do honestly believe to &SUGIOU8 LIBERTY. be the difference between Unitarians and ourselves. And Mich, not a few of the Unitarians themselves have avowed it to be. Mr. Belsham declares that " we do not worship the same Go4»" and Borne of your writers and speakers decla that the God whom we worship is a devil. How can you complain, then, that we separate from you ? Surely you do not wish to be united in the bonds of communion with such worshippers. If you have any conscience on this subj< it must remonstrate against it But who among the Orthodox ever complains that Unita- rians separate from them? I trust none. An inconsistency with the principles that we profess, would lie on the very face of such a complaint. We do not proscribe men from whom we separate in our Worship, either in a civil or social respect We vote for them as our magistrates and legislators. We help to elevate them to the highest offices in the State ; we do so, because there are among our religious opponents men whose civil and social worth we acknowledge, and pay it the cheerful tribute of our regard. AVe do it also, because the State in which we live is so divided in matters of religious opinion, that we fully believe a religious test for civil honour and olhce would be altogether inexpedient AVe rejoice sincerely in the welfare of those whose religious opinions differ from ours, and cheerfully contribute to do them civil honour. All this can- not be denied of us with truth. And when we separate from them in our worship, it is with pain, with deep regret, with ardent wishes that they might cherish the like religious senti- ments with cairselves; but with a consciousness too, that our duty to the principles which we profess, obliges us to follow the Course that we pursue. Such are our views, feelings, and motives, in regard to the painful subjects of dispute now agitated in this commu- nity. Such I am sure are my own ; and such, I have satis- factory evidence are the views of my beloved brethren with whom I have the pleasure to be associated in action and in belief. rOIOl - LIB! H Wk 1 have tin; iew, in regard to our opinions ,it religious liberty and the rights of conscience. In dif- fering from many around us, and in separating from their ligio imunion, we well know, we dd fully recognize the fact, that wo are responsible to th Head of the Church, But fblly believe, that we are responsible onlt to AmH, AY. leny others the right of remonstrating, and of endeavouring to show as that our course is wrong ; but it is aln the ride of Unitarianism, that it d< not 90 much as admit of a single doubt, or rather, that it \i be assumed as a matter of course? Or is this assumption i d founded on cue of the great a priori principles of our moral nature, which it needs no reasoning to settle, and which DO arguments can make plainer or stronger than it is from the very first moment that it i> presented to the mind? So one who rea Is your writing-, would be strongly tempted to sup- pose you deem it to be. What you say and write on sub- jects connected with religious dispute, bears this impress on its very lace. If not, then 1 can solve the appearances in your writings, only by a supposition more disagreeable still, and to which I shall never resort without being absolutely driven to do it ; I mean the supposition, that you have, by the flattery of your friends, and in consequence of dictating to your party so long, at last come to the position of mind, that avtog t-'(fi t is enough; that you expect as a matter of course, that all which you utter will be readily assented to, and that none but bigots will venture to call it in question. I will not, however, believe this either of you or your friends, without better evidence tlran any that yet lies before the pub- lie. I could easily believe that some of the journal and news- paper writers, who employ so many paragraphs in fulsome and bloated eulogies of your works, might belong to the cl supposed above. But as I have no apprehension that you have any concert with them, or even thank them for the lacker which they strive to put on you, I have not a word more to Bay concerning them. What there is in your writi: that deserves praise, (and this is much, and some of it of a very high order too), they seem to me to be so unfortunate not to see; and what is of a different or doubtful character. they are pretty sure to laud in the most extravagant and dis- gusting manner. Having thus explained the \ iews and feeling- of myself and my friends, in relation to the religious liberty which we think to be proper, and which we shall ever strenuously adi EtiLieioi - Lomnrr. and th ared tl, to decide more fatty how little ir apprehensions resp< cling our principles and d are being justified and defended; I now p ro cee d m v to develops, (as 1 intimated near the commencemenl of this letter it was my intention to do)j tk and tpirit of ms against us. In order to present a combined and oendeoaed \ iew of tl I mast beg the liberty of repeating here) not the words in all but the substance and spirit of the passages which the grinning of this letter presents. These, united with other «in your writings which I intend to make, will am- ble every intelligent reader to judge tor himself, whether the complaints which I have brought forward, and which I have still to prefer, are not sufficiently well grounded. I make no hesitation in repeating the expression of my en- tire undoubting conviction, that the Orthodox are the men whom you mean to characterize in these and the like pas- and all proof of this, to any intelligent reader, I must think to be utterly unnecessary. In the first extract just named, you intimate that 'the re- ligion of the Orthodox has been turned into spiritual tyranny; that it has fastened superstitions on the conscience; subdued the ignorant and susceptible with spiritual terrors ; spread far and wide dark appalling views of God ; struck a dread of in- quiry into superior understandings ; and made servility of spir- it to pass for piety. The intimidations [of the Orthodox] from the pulpit and the press have rendered some too timid to think ; made them anxiously to stiiie every doubt or misgiving in re- gard to their opinions ; to shrink from the seekers after truth from infection; to surrender their best powers toothers; and unresistingly to receive a teaching, which war- against conscience and reason. [Orthodoxy] makes chains, that eat more deeply into the soul than those of iron. This espionage of bigotry ctually closes our lips and our hearts, as an armed and hundred-eyed police. This opinion is combined and organized in sects, and swayed by the clergy. A sect skilfully organized ; trained to utter one cry ; combined to RELIGIOUS LIl.l.K cover with repr o ach whoever may differ from themselves; to ilmwii tin* (Sree expression of opinion by denunciations of he resy ; and ID strike terror into the multitude by joint and perpetual menare — such a seel is as perilous and palsying to the intellect a- the Inquisition. It serves the minister a- •■!'- factually as the sword. Tbs pre$ m U ag ■'>rl<>nsh. ruin, n< In the second extract above named, you suggest that i the accusation of a persecuting spirit will be repelled on the part of the Orthodox with indignation. But you insist upon it that it is true. Fire and sword, you allege, are not the only instruments of persecution. The form may be changed, while the spirit lives.' M Persecution has indeed given up its halter and fagot ; but It breathes venom from Its lips, and secretly blasts chat It o emn o t opekkf destroy*" Works, pp. 5G1, 562. A terrible Hydra indeed, which has such a poisonous breath ! And happy for Massachusetts, that she can furnish "a voice of strength" to reach *• far and wide" enough to frighten it back to its native fen, whenever it venture- to appear and .-end forth its venomous and Masting breath! In the third long extract aS mentioned above, t lie //a/itlsi- tl'>i< is again brought upon the tapis. * The multitude [of the Orthodox] dar liiukty. ion, the churcli little more than tl in the busi lusion. So all oomei into the h the ; who, in order to complete the whole plan. formin. s, and en riCALCOUl which ; inijM 1 DMD to l»«Tit >T€ M tin y do. This if mo* _ I the mind the mis and -.lasting truth of God.' Works, pp. 5 tract present- an apology tor your controver- sial This in substance is. that • you saw BSMUdtfl oil dom of thought and speech [by the Orthodox], which would have left lis only the name of religious liberty. It be- came perilous ; a ii the Scripture- for our.->< 1\ es. and to ik our own convictions. The often reiterated idea of penalti 1 as fine and imprisonment is again introduced, [a spectre which seems to have haunted you with more than ordinary obtrusivenes- and pertinacity] ; and then to frighten this spectre away, your strong voice was raised, and it made its retreat/ Works, Pref. pp. vii. viii. Here I might rest my case, having made out proof enough of the ground of complaint which I have alleged, in respect to the treatment that we have received at your hands. But that I may not seem to have fastened on a few paragraphs, and to have dealt unfairly. I proceed still farther to cite from your Works. On p. 215, you speak of Robert Fellows' work, as * a use- ful vindication of Christianity from the grots errors which Calvinism has laboured to identify with this divine system.' P. 210. you speak of the "five thorny points of Calvin- ism, " and say that "f< are more praiseworthy, than to free Christianity from the reproach brought upon it by that m." On the same page you assert, that •• Calvinism owes its perpetuity to the influence of fear in palsying the moral na- ture ;" that it terrifies men so * % that they dare not conf- even to themselves, the shrinking, which they feel, from the unworthy views which this system gives of God ; and by thus RELIGIOUS LIBKB l v. ing their just abhorrence, they gradually extinguish it, fend even come to vindicate in God what would db Ids civatun Josl before the paragraph now presented, you Bay n'7 you say : " Nothing is plainer, than that the leaders of the party called \ Orthodox/ have adopted and force a system of exclusion, in regard to Liberal Christians." On p. b^S, the Orthodox are represented as having fallen into some of -'the grosses! errors." On p. 561, the Orthodox are represented as menacing with ruin the Christian who listens to Unitarians, and as branding him with the most terrifying epithets, in order to prevent a candid inquiry into the truth. 336 RELIGI01 - On p. ■ t, that M it is a melancholy fart, thai our long established form of Congregational church govern*- incut is menaced, and tribunals unknown to our churches, — to be introduced for the very />"rj>osr, tf,ric Christians "<"y ved and punished as i i, a- i k i m i:s/' But where .-hall I end in making extracts of such a nature, when all of these have been taken from three short pieces in your book; and in these I have omitted aa much as I have extracted that i- of the like nature f I conclude the whole task of extracting, by presenting one specimen more of the manner in which you treat that doctrine, which of all that is pemikar to the gospel the Orthodox deem the most dear and red ; I mean the doctrine of atom ment by the suffering and death of Christ upon the CT08& It is thus that you speak of this part of our faith : u This doctrine of an infinite substitute, Buffering the penalty Of sin, to manifest God's wrath against sin, and thus to support his government, is, 1 fear, so familial to us all, that its severe character is overlooked. Let me then set it before you, in new terms, and by a new illustration ; and if in so doing, J may wound the feelings of some who hear me, I beg them to believe, that J do it with pain, and from no impulse but a desire to serve the cause of truth. — Suppose, then, that a teacher should come among you, and should tell yon, that ihe Creator, in order to pardon his own Children, had erected a gallows in the centre of the universe, and had publicly executed upon it, in room of the offenders, an infinite being, the partaker of his own Supreme Divinity; suppose him to declare, that this execution was ap- pointed, as a most conspicuous and terrible manifestation of God's justice, and of the infinite wo denounced by his law; and suppose him to add, that all beinirs in hea\en and earth are re- quired to fix their eyes on this fearful sight, as the most pow < i - fill enforcement of obedience and virtue. Would you not tell him, thai he calumniated his ."Maker r Would you not sa\ to him, that this central gallows threw gloom over the univers that the spirit of a government, whose very acts of pardon were written in such blood, was terror not paternal love ; and that the obedience, w hich licedrd to be upheld by till.- hoirihle Bp . was nothing worth ? Would yda not say to him, that even Rl LIOIOT 9 LIBBB IV. ".'57 in this infancy and imperfection of your being, were capa- ble of being wrought upon b) nobler motives, and of battttg >in through more generous views; and that much more the an- . those pure tlniin's oflow, need not the gallows and ao i ecuted God, to confirm their loyaltj - JTou would all bo feel at such teaching ns 1 have supposed; and yel how does this differ tVoiu the popular doctrine of atonement?" — pp. 123; 124. On this last extract [deemall comment superfluous. II holy apostle who asserts that Christ ha$ redeemed tie church by ki$ blood ; who waa u determined not to preach any thing else save Jesus Christ and him CRUCIFIED f* who " glorr in imtJtimj sat-r in the cross ef Christ ;" and the redeemed in heaven who ascribe talvatiotl to his blood, are the proper arbiters to decide on such an awful paragraph. And now, my dear Sir, I come to the main object of this letter. I have endeavoured to prepare the way, and come at last to the principal thing in view; with great reluctance, in- deed, but still with deep conviction that duty bids me do it. I have complained that you have uttered frequent and severe accusations against us, who belong to the denomination of the Orthodox. I have shown the ground of my complaint. Permit me then to add to what I have said, by making what I deem a reasonable and proper and Christian request of you. You have given your name to the world as the author of accusations, that ice are aiming to subvert and destroy the religious liberty of this Commonwealth ; that ice are combined to put down all free inquiry in matters of religion ; that we are endeavouring, in secret and openly, to introduce an eccle- siastical tyranny worse than that of the Inquisition ; that we are determined to raise up ecclesiastical Courts to try, con- demn, and punish all whom ice deem to be heretics ; and thus to prevent all right of private judgment, and all freedom in respect to religious opinion. I have openly avowed in this letter my own opinion, and what I know to be the opinion of the Christian brethren with whom I have the honour to be associated, in relation to these subjects. I know that what I have said is incapable of being 29 338 RELIGIOUS LIBE&TT* contradicted on any grounds of evidence. / dc huno that th*' arct/s'ttt'o/tS wltirlt ijoh st'tiul pfadffed tO $UpWOt% A.RE No! TRUBi Before heaven and eartfrl aver thai II Li: V ARK NOT TRUE. That they are accusations of a hurt- ful tendency, need not be said. They go to destroy all iv- Ipeol tor 08, all coutidence in us, all prospects of our useful- ncss in society or in the church, just so far as you are be- lieved; and to render B3 the objects of suspicion, of scorn, and of hatred. As injured men, Bfl injured in a manner that is highly unjust and cruel, we call on you either for repara- tion, or else to support your charges. These charges are allegations as to matters of FACT, They are not matters of opinion merely, or the deductions which may be drawn from opinions. As matters of fact, you are hound to Support them. According to all demands of propriety and justice, you have no liberty now to retreat, by professing disdain of your oppo- nents ; none to screen yourself under the allegation, (as you have attempted in the preface to your Works to do), that you dislike controversy. On every ground of equity, you must either support the charges which you have made, as to facts ; or take them back ; or else stand before the public as one who lias abused and maltreated his fellow beings, mem- bers of the same Commonwealth, entitled to the same privi- leges with himself, and having a right to claims that they shall be spoken of with truth and justice ; a right which can- not be violated without responsibility for so doing. Sir, we have borne these charges in silence long enough — so long that not a few of your friends begin to aver, that silence gives consent to the truth of them. You have re- peated them so often and for such a series of years, without being called in question in some important respects for so doing, that you seem of late to have considered the right of doing it as a matter quite beyond the reach of debate. You do not seem to expect, that the objects of your vehement and scornful denunciation, will venture to resist or even to complain. Like those subdued by the irresistible power of the great Assyrian kiiej, 4k not a bird would move the wing, R] i | inn H iv. .°>.°>9 or open the mouth p." Hut it' you have believed this us, you have erred, ;u least in one point, with re- wb of tin* Orthodox, We have not been ng with fear; we have " held our peace for good." ^ e acknowledge, indeed, that when u we have meditated on the lire has burned within us." Hut it* w« have been trespassers in this respect, kindly put it to the of human infirmity. After nil. however, there times when it becomes a duty to call on those who assail us with hitter reproaches, who endeavour to hold us up to the rn and ridicule of the world, who accuse us of crimes which i conscienHue would be properly adjudged to be frigl n against the religion* liberties of this Common' akk, so long as we profess to be citizens of it, and have sworn to maintain its constitution and its rights. There are boundaries beyond which it is not the duty of the peaceable and the inoffensive to no, in tolerating abuse of this nature without demanding a reparation. AVe have come to those bounds. We allege before the world that we have been slandered and abused by your writings; we appeal to the particulars ; we offer the evidence ; and we now appeal to every honest and candid man of any party, to judge whether we have not supported our charge, that you have made and often repeated such accusations against us. If now you can establish the facts which you have alleged, and which go to make up the charges in question, in respect to the Orthodox as a body in this Commonwealth, confession and humiliation in this whole affair undoubtedly will belong to us. If you cannot prove it of the whole, then the sweep- ing accusations which you have made are to be modified, greatly modified. If you can prove it only of a kw solitary- individuals, called by the name of Orthodox, but who in fact are extravagant and reckless men, this will be little to your purpose, and nothing to ours. We Wash our hands of such orthodoxy. Our orthodoxy bids us to be peaceable mem- bers of the State, true friends of our government, advocates of religious liberty even at the peril of life and property, and 310 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. of this too in its highest and most extensive rational sen AW are Cbngt gyaf iswuftstt, n we p tofe es to be. We have no prejudices, indeed, against the Presbyterian or other forms of church gove rnment, which our brethren of orthodox de- nominations in this Commonwealth, or in any part of our country, see lit to adopt It is our belief that the gospel ha- not pres c ri bed ej-c/usirc/g any particular form of church gov- ernment ; but that this is left to expediency as times and circumstances may require. Nor are those who may ditler from ourselves in respect to the regimen of the churches, therefore to be involved any more than we, in the char- which you have preferred against the Orthodox. They have no such objects in view, as you charge upon us all ; and they would not only disclaim them, but contend most strenuously against them. J >ut in respect to such of us as profess to be Congrega- tionalists, neither yourself nor any man on earth has a right to deny that we are sincere in this profession. How then can we have it in view to erect ecclesiastical judicatories and courts which are to try and jn'/tish heretics as crinu'neds? Why. Sir, the suggestion of such a thing among Congrega- tional ists, is just as if one were to ask, under the present form of our government in this State : i What day is appoint- ed for the coronation of the Governor?' And the fact that you even suggest such a thing, shows, either that you regard us as hypocrites in professing to be Congregationalists ; or — -hall I Bay it — that you make as.-ertions of this nature, with- out even knowing what Congregationalism admits or reje< My belief is, that you cannot make your charges good, atiainst any man in this State who bears the name of Ortho- dox. Still I must be understood as asserting no farther than I have evidence before me. h\ regard to that class of the Orthodox at which you have aimed your accusations, Ifear- t that you cannot jiossihh/ make them good. And in this class, I would comprehend fayt a tn as well as tdmg^ ;/. I have the pleasure of a personal acquaintance sonie- what extensive, among the men who are active in promoting RELIGIONS UT.EKTY. o41 the interest of orthodoxy in Mi-ad <^ r that i have a I them in your charges, and that von are utterly unable to support ikfcM char-- i will ah; nation of ALMIGHTY ( JOD, and of die HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAIL" — I Bay a man who sincerely believes all this, is not altogeth- er the right man to rail at the bigotry of orthodox Congrega- tfonalists in Massachusetts. And if he be not sincere in his profession of being a genuine and dutiful son of his mother Church, but professes to be what he is not, then his sneers or his scolls are matters which we can make up our minds to endure with very comfortable equanimity** 1 This gentleman has, for some time past, had his location in Paris ; where he seems to leave the Puritans in peace, and finds little occasion, RELir.IOT'3 LIBERTY. my dear Sir, can jrou b me, when I de- clare, that in all which I have said above, I hare n<> pmMMri aim at It is true that I have called on you personally ; mid I possibly avoid this, when my whole letter If concerned with allegations that you have made? But as to 1 1 i 1 1 lt a spirit of hostility or bitterness against you as a man, I disclaim openly any such intention ; it would he unworthy which I profess to adv- it would be unbe- ling my place, or the character which I would wish to bear. fa there do separation that can be made by the public, be- •n calling in question allegations and charges, and per- ial malignity towards those; who make them ? I trust there is ; at least, In my own case, I certainly hope there is. lam not behind some of your more sober and judicious friends, in my approbation and admiration of many things in your writ- ings. In all your and my personal intercourse, on the occa- sion of a discussion some years since, I had no personal rea- sons to complain of you. I would hope that you can say the same of me. I am sure that I bear you no ill will ; I am certain too, that I am very far from cherishing disrespect for your talents. I say this fully and freely, because I am anx- ious to be rightly understood. My complaint is, of the injury which your charges are adapted to do us ; of what I believe to be utterly unfounded allegations against our character and designs ; of being held up by you to the public, as conspira- tors against its sacred liberties. Justice, truth, a proper re- gard to our good name and usefulness, all demand that the charges against us should be examined, and that they should either be substantiated or retracted. I could wish the call on you to do this had fallen into better hands than mine. But as the unpleasant task has not to my knowledge been undertaken, I have ventured upon it through a sense of duty. I can only appeal to the good sense, and I trust, tu scoff at the multitude of sermon- which the Clergy there write and deliver. I owe him no ill will ; hut there are some things in his publications, during the time that has now gone by, which, perhaps, 1 dying he would wish to blot.' 346 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. equity, and candour of the community, for a justification of my Murge. If these condemn me, then let me stand condemned. If not, then I shall at leaingcnuou>ness so common at the present day, which, under pretence of main- taining old opinions, so disguises and discolours them, that they can with diiliculty be recognized. " But if such be the fact in regard to your opponents, why not prove this to the world, by adducing legitimate and satisfactory evidence ? In such an age and such a country as ours, where everything may be and must be examined, it is presuming pretty largely on the public credulity, to suppose that assertions will stand for arguments, and high and exasperated denunciation for patient labour of investigating and proving in detail. It is what neither yourself, nor any other man in America, has any right to claim or expect. But besides those doctrines of the Orthodox which have been misrepresented and misunderstood, their' are others, no doubt, which are opposed and denied in the very respects in which we believe them to be true. I proceed, however, with my remarks of a more general nature. In the present state of conviction and feeling among the Orthodox, which results from examination and full per- suasion, it cannot be rationally expected, that we should ac- cede to every contradiction of our principles, or succumb to every tempest that assaults us. There is one way, and o/dt/, t<> annihilate all the OfihodOQCjf of the State; Ondtku to shoir h>j the fair mul utabi 'ish< d laws of interpretation, that the J H hie does not WppoH it. All else will fail of its end. We do in good faith believe that the Bible is the word of 1; and thai it is our supreme, authoritative, infallible, and only guide. We cannot be 0001 inced, therefore, thai it is our duty to relinquish what we regard as its plain and unequivo- cal decisions, in order to embrace what we regard as the specu- lations of men, and the maxims of faahionable philosophy^ AV. Ie the propriety of allowing a priori noti and a to take the place of what the saered writers ha\ acquainted with any man, wl word is law or gospel to ua. We would i no apothegms, auae tl jerted with an air of confidence, and in \ i 1 1 ir and vehement language, or in eloquent strains. A man to enjoy our religious confidence* must give some good that he loves, and reverences, and has deeply studied, Bible. We Bubmit implicitly to Paul, and Peter, and others like them ; but in all other cases, we stop to ask the why and the wherefore. Sir. you have mistaken the Orthodox Community of Mas- sachusetts. They care as little tor bringing in the dark ages you do. They are a great deal farther from commending the faith of those who are laboring to extend the superstitions of Rome in our community than yourself, if the softened tones, in which you speak of the advocates of these supersti- tions, are to be taken as the index of your feelings. Nor are the Orthodox to be diverted from their purpose, by language of severe reproach and unmeasured indignation. The sons of those, who left country and kindred to brave the storms of the ocean in frail barks, to face the gloomy horrors of the wintry blasts and storms in a savage land and in a boundless forest, and who did all this cheerfully that they might hold fast their orthodox faith, and worship God ac- cording to it — the sons of such men, holding to the same principles, and believing them to be the only foundation of their eternal hoped — are not to be diverted from their course by obloquy and denunciation, however eloquent and severe. With them BELIGION is all. The world and all its con- cerns vanish into insignificance, when they come into compari- son with the ;; glory that is to be revealed." It cannot be 30 350 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. expected, then, if they are in any measure what theyprofi to be, that they should be overawed or daunted by denuncia- tion or opposition. No. Sir; these will not accomplish the purpose at which they aim. It is not that the Orthodox are insensible to what their fellow beings think and say of them. Far from this. There is much more sensibility among them on this subject than I could wish. I cannot withhold my hearty commendation, however, of very many of them, for checking these feelings, and putting restraint upon them. But still, they know when they are mal-treated. They know when their rights are denied under cover of law; when they are excluded from the literary and ci\il privileges and otlices of the State ; when they are jeered at in private circles, and pointed at with the linger of scorn in public. With all this they have borne, and borne long; I do not say that they have always done this with such patience and meekness as became them. I am afraid that this is not the case. But depend on it. Sir, there is a secret flame kindled in this Commonwealth, by such measures as I have named above on your part and that of your friends, which, though smothered long, cannot always be smothered. Justice, and fairness, and equality of rights, must at last become the order of the day. Well will it be for the peace of this community, if the season when this -hall take place should not be long protracted. There is always danger in a smothered sense of injustice and oppn sion ; above all, when this is the fact with respect to gr< numbers, who belong to the leading class of men in the com- munity ; danger to those who feel it, as well as toothers. May Heaven avert its consequences from our beloved Com- monwealth ! I -hall be entirely misunderstood, if I am supposed to utter these things in frrr<>r> m. I know well that our opponents arc not men to be influenced in this way. It is the last method that I should adopt, in order to influence them. I the8e things merely as one who loves his country and his Commonwealth, and the happy form of government under which he lives, and who fears the consequences of anything religious limstt. 351 which may have a tendency to distort onr Bui the time has come, when the whole troth should be openly told. end on it. Sir, there is a smothered Bense of < 1 « - « - 1 » injury the Orthodox, both of civil and religions injury, which ta to l»" allayed by a return to the principles of justi< equal rights, and kind discussion, on the part of th< who are striving to crush them. We look to Switzerland ; the wandering exile pastors there thrust out from their ntry, or languishing in dungeons, and their families 1" i their bread, because these dauntless herald- of salvation have dared to preach Christ and him crucified. We cannot help knowing that (Jnitarianism has done this; and conse- quently we are slow to receive professions of liberality, as certain evidence of its existence. W$fear that there are not wanting in our own State, some who would not scruple to walk in the steps of their liberal brethren abroad ; some whose standing argument against our principles is, that Calvin burned Servetus ; but who unluckily have never read the ecclesiastical history of Geneva in the nineteenth century. Far, very far, are we from reproaching the Unitarians as a body, in our State, with such views and wishes. On the contrary, we do verily believe that a few of the more intole- rant among them, are altogether deceived as to the feelings of their brethren. We do not believe that the majority are prepared for those ultra measures, to which they are occa- sionally urged. They would abhor the idea of oppressing and abusing us, would they but candidly and patiently ex- amine the whole matter. We must still hope that they will do this, before they proceed to further measures; and that af- ter all, the present appearances in our State, which are por- tentous of storm and tempest, will be dissipated, and unclouded sunshine follow. At least we hope this. And that this great end may be accomplished, we would earnestly beseech all who love the peace and prosperity of society and the church, to direct their fervent unceasing supplications to Him, who " maketh the winds and the waves to obey his voice," who is 858 KI.Lir.I0U3 LIBERTY. u King of kings and Lord of lords" who is "seated at the right band of the Majesty on high," and is GOD OVEB ALL AND BLESSED FOREVER I am, my dear Sir, notwithstanding any difference of senti- ment and feeling, with much respect, and with the most sin- cere wishes lor your happiness In time and eternity, Your friend and obedient servant, MOSES STUART, An July, 18J POSTSCRIPT. Tm: sixteen yean which have passed away, since the preceding Letter was published, have made some alteration in the state of things among us, although they have not brought about any ra- dical and thorough change. It is my apprehension, so far as I have a knowledge of religious matters in general in this Com- monwealth, that the tone and demeanor of Unitarian ism toward Orthodoxy has, for some time past, considerably softened, and become more urbane. The separation which took place as to ministerial exchanges and intercom man ion of religious services in 1810 — 1816, after being for a long time strenuously resisted, and frequently indeed even loaded with indignant obloquy, has, since that period, been generally acquiesced in with compara- tive quiet, and has come at last to be almost universally consid- ered as a matter Of course. It is only now and then that a soli- tary voice is raised, at present, in the way of declamation against it. Indeed, in looking back upon this whole scene, in which 1 have to some small extent been an actor, I can scarcely realize now, in what way resistance to such a measure should have he- come so warm and impassioned as it once was. When such men as Dr. Chan n in g published to the world, that the faith of Calvinists was a compound of absurdity, superstition, and blas- phemy : when the God whom the Orthodox worship was repre- sented as a devil in his purposes and measuro: when the cross (if ChHM was Bel forth as a galloWfi for a criminal, erected and exposed to the view of an astounded universe; when the wor- PO8T80EU ship of the Son and Holy Qhosl was reproached m idotatrj and enthusiasm ; when, in a word, all the peculiar dodrine$o) named by the Orthodoi . w< re londlj pronounced to be fl- sionnn mul unreasonable an- erty of refecting some opinions, as well as of receiving some oth- ers. Why should another man's belief compel me to relinquish mine, or to regard or treat that which I am fully persuaded is intial and fundamental, as if it were of little or no conse- quence, and a thing that may be dispensed with at pleasure ? On the other hand ; I have never been able fully to under- stand, why Unitarians should have been so zealous and earnest to continue fellowship with the Orthodox. Fellowship with those, 30* 35 1 postscript. who, as the) affirm, gloat oyer the superstitions and conceits of the dark With those who worship a devil instead of the true God ! With those who are virtually guilty of idolatry in worshipping the Son and the Spirit! With those who are >uiv- to subject their fellow men to a bondage worse than thai under the Inquisition ! The old adi a, that - a man is known hij the company be keeps." Had they no fears of being found in fellowship and company with such impiety and bigotry and slavish and degraded superstition.- Jn iiut, considering what they wrote and published respecting the sentiments of the. Orthodox, it is one of tin 1 most inexplicable things in all the history of this Commonwealth, whether ecclesiastical or civil, that they so zealouslv and perscverinuly insisted on the most intimate religioua communion with the Orthodox, and were so indignant at its being refused. 1 have looked in vain for the satisfactory solution of such a problem, to the usual workings of the human mind. I am able to find hut two things, which aid me in any measure to account for the occurrence in question ; and neither of these, it is probable, will he admitted by Unita- rians* The one of these is, that religion is a by-the-by and secondary affair in the business of life, which may be accommo- dated in any way, and therefore need not he made so much of as the Orthodox profess to make of it; the other is. that the Unitarians of that period did not relish the idea of being held up before the public, as differing both from the opinions of the Pilgrim Fathers and from that of the; majority of their fellow citizens, lest it might throw some hindrances in the way of their success. .Most of the Orthodox an; inclined, perhaps, to the opinion, that hoth of these causes were combined, in bringing about the effect under consideration. Under the dynasty of Judge Parsons and Dr. Kirkland, two gacious and very expert leaders, the Unitarian party became Strong, that at la>l their fairs vanished : and since that, they have for the most part gradually and peaceably settled down, on the plan of agreeing to differ* This has saved the public from much useless agitation. I trust thai this tacit and implied com- pact between Unitarians and the Orthodox, will remain undis- turbed for the future, and tin' more so, as they have at last, (for such seems to be the opinion of a predominant majority among them , given birth to and raised up a new progeny of so-named fun firs, although of their own sect. With these truant children they stem at present to he more Occupied and concerned than with us, and they are often more indignant at them. We may P09TSCRH now congratulate ourselves, perhaps, on at least a little breath i I, as I \i\ Mild hope, from the arduous struggles of the arena. [11 the mean time, lefl Un the moment loose peace, ire \\ ill stand quietlj by, and look on to see how fflmt&hj the Liberal i treat each other. We are CUriOUS, Bfl SpOCtatOrS, to know liow aii txcommunicaUon for doctrine*$ woJu can be brought about, where there is not only no creed, l»nt where eternal war is proclaimed and waged against all creeds. Dies mdicabiL Till then, we will thank God Tor OUT Comfortable rest, and take eonr- But — we shall take care to keep our arms in sight. We have no intention to put away, and Stlfief to rust, the pano- pl) that as soldiers of the cross we ought to wear. We confi- dently expect, that, as soon as the revolting province in the do- main of Uoitarianism shall he BVbdued or exscinded, the whole forces of the empire will again he turned upon us; and proba- bly with a skill and Vigour which have been sharpened by con- test Let no Orthodox man then sleep upon his post Theocean that is quite calm where we are sailing to-day, may be speedily visited by tempest and tornado again, and the wa\es roll moun- tain-hinh. But if it must be so, we will humbly hope, and even confidently believe, that there is One who sits at the head of our little barque, who can arise and say to the winds and the waves: 4 Peace ! V^ still!' and they will obey him. A- a genera] thing, I should think that the laws of comity and urbanity, between the two great religious parties, are coming nearer and nearer to a gentlemanly and Christian shape. We are gradually coming nearer to the point of agisting to differ. I Strongly suspect, that the younger part of the Unitarian commu- nity now look back with astonishment on the fellowship battles which their fathers fought, and that they cannot well imagine, why they were not contented to manage their own aflairs in their own way, and to let their neighbours do the same. far so good. But there are some important things that remain, and of which it is time for some one to speak out in earnest. The win sin- scheme of managing Cambridge I'niver- sity as belonging solely to the Unitarians, has become, at last, rter of discussion in the highest Court to whieh this whole concern is amenable. The discussions there have already told some secrets ; or at least, they have brought to light thi; which had long been kept sub rOJO, The result thus far, con- stituted as that tribunal is, has of OOUTSe been in favour of the Unitarian measures. In particular, the last winter witnessed one event, which ought to be the subject of serious reflection to ev- 35G POSTSCRIPT. eiy orthodox man in the Common wealth. Tin- is, the accept mm of a Report, in favour of the permanent connection and un- ion of the University of Cambridge with the Unitarian Theolog cal Seminary there Our leading judges, it seems, have given an opinion, that the donations to this Seminary are so condition- ed, that the two Institutions cannot he legalhj severed. I have I grounds for believing, that this is against the wishe* of many Unitarians, even of some leading persons among them. Hut the leading jurisconsults tell us thai the matter is decided, and cannot be changed without a violation of law and forfeiture of funds. For one, I deeply regret this, Not because I would deny to Unita- rians the privilege of having a Theological Seminary of their own. Par fttHD it. 1 would as readily give to them liberty to do this, as concede it to the Orthodox ; lor in this country they have the same right lo build up Seminaries of their own. But there are other difficulties respecting this matter, and they de- Serve serious attention from the candid of all parties. The University belongs to the State of Massachusetts, Yet if I send a SOD there, he must attend the woiship, at least morn- ing and evening, which is conducted by Unitarian theological Professors or Instructors. 1 It- may indeed by special favour ob- tain liberty, as I understand the matter, to Worship elsewhere on the Sabbath. But the normal condition of collegiate standing obliges him to be completely and exclusively under Unitarian teaching and influence, both scientific and religious. What right, now, in the first place, have the Corporation of this Stoic University, to put it exclusively under the manage* mem of Unitarianiml It would he quite in vain to allege, that there are no other competent instructors. What right have they to oblige an orthodox man to subject his son wholly to this in- fluence, during immeasurably the most plastic period of human lifer What right to suhject the parent in question, who is a member of this Commonwealth, to the expense and trouhle of sending his sons to another State, or to a distant Institution, in order that he may discharge what he regards as a sacred pater- nal duty to his children ? Liberty to worship abroad on the Sabbath 1 Why, this does not involve a tenth part of the influ- ences brought to bear upon the mind of a youth while at Col- lege. Why then oiler us such an inefficient anodyne for our Solicitude, in respect to a matter of such fearful interest'' Noj WS cannot accept it. We know too much of the influence of deraic life, and of the yielding and moldable state of the young, to trust to it. P08TS< KH n full) aware of the usual nuswei to all this, by alleging that the University r> n<»t act the part ofn instruction, opting tnerel) to 1 1 * - » ^ « * students who have finished their pri- mary collegiate course, and have devoted themselvefl t.» the study of theology. But, conceding for tin* moment that this temeui is true, how does it, or can it, relieve our main diffi- cult] - 7" vanlofa i posit iv< 'igious influence, would be an than the positive influence of Unttarianism, and one which a truly pious parent would wish of all things to »id. If", on the other band, there is mors or lees of positive religious influence, (and not to suppose this would be even surd, where all. or nearly all, the officers and instructors art Unitarian), then why is it not the imperious duty of a Christian parent, who sincerely adopts the views of the Orthodox; not vol- untarily to expose bis children to it? How can be be blamed for sending bis sons to another more congenial institution ? Or rather, bow could be be excused at the bar of religious con- nee, it' he did not ? What then is to be done? Or, If I may be permitted to give the question another shape : What OUght to be done ? This certainly is a graver question than most persons seem to be aware of Without any overweening confidence in my own judgment or ability to answer it, I would most respectfully, and with feelings of kindness and good will to all, make a lew sug- gestions. Shall the whole body of the Guardians and Instructors at Cambridge be changed, and Orthodox men be appointed in their place? No; for this would be for us to do tbe very same thing that we complain of in the Unitarians. It would be altogether a party and sectarian measure. Shall nil sects then in the Commonwealth, Fniversalists, Abner Kneeland's men, Fanny Wright's suitors, the Come-out-ers, the Hegelian Transcendental- iats, the Parkerites, the Swedenborgians, ct id genua onme, have their representatives in the University, and at least a place in one of the Hoards, or among the Faculty? 'Why not? it is d, 'for all (ken belong to the Slate? In theory, I readily acknowledge that I find it difficult to answer this question in the negative. J5ut still 1 have an instinctive feeling, that I must divest myself of all respect for the Court of the Muses, before I can give my practical assent to such an arrangement It would indeed be the utter ruin of the respectability of the University; and in my most sober judgment, it would be a crying sin against heaven and our country, to ruin an institution so noble as that. POSTSCRIPT. Here then is sue of tire predicaments, in which ei eon- ir iir man is loth to find himself placed. I argue against the man- agernesn of Cambridge College for the last forty years, that it has been altogether sectarian, while the Institution belongs to the Sivtk. And yet 1 nvoit from my position, when K come to such an exigency as that which I have just presented. Is not this Mowing h«)t and cold with the same breath? Or at best, is not any distinction that I can make, as tenuous as in one of the astronomical demonstrations, which connects important de- ductions or corollaries with the unassignable difference between an infinitesimal portion of a vanishing circle and of a vanish- ing right line, and holds them, at the moment of vanishing, to be a/iuil t 1 frankly acknowledge the theoretical difficulty. But there are at least some farts ahout this matter, Which are plain. Ortho- doxy founded the College; originally endowed it; held exclu- sive possession of it until the last generation, or last hut one; and always considered it as its most important auxiliary in main- taining the opinions and practices of the Pilgrim Fathers. For some half a century past. Unitarians have immensely increased its funds and possessions and apparatus of all kinds, and its buildings. They have on this ground a claim upon it supe- rior to all others. What candid and honest man would deny them their rights in this respect? But what shall be done t What can be done, in a state of things so embarrassing ? This practical question is now the great one. I will not undertake to answer this question for my Ortho- dox brethren. I have no right to do this; for I am not at all their authorized representative. But I will venture to express my own thoughts and wishes, in a brief and respectful manner. Others of course have the same right to express theirs. 1 would say at once: Give up the Fniversity to the Unitarians : for they have the strongest claims upon it, on the ground of endowments. Hut on the other hand, Unitarians should ■_ Up to the Orthodox, all the funds which this denomination have ever contributed, and all the books and apparatus which they formerly collected, or at least the value of them, and also the value of the buildings which they erected, and their proportion of the donations which the State has made to the Fniversity. This seems to me to be a plain demand Of justice and reason. I am well aware; that it cannot be enforced by law; and there are very many other things, just and reasonable, which the law cannot be brought to bear upon and enforce. 1 appeal POSTS* EUJ therefore to the high Court ot Equity, to the common sense of justice; to the principle of doing as wt would hi dom by; and II) to the principle of ity. The Unitariaas tsi Ithy enough to endow a dozen Universities and note, in tin- Commonwealth, and yet in no sensible measure impoverish themselves. It is my belief, that, if they could be led to see tin: Bjency, the} arc liberal enough to do what it requires, If the Orthodox give up the delightful location at Cambridge, with all its associate lear to the sons of Muses, is not this saorif enough on their part, even if they receive all which lias been named aboi I am noi able to see why it is not a great mistake, yea even a folly, to earn on the contest about Cambridge anj longer, after the manner of times that are past. It answers no possible good end. It results in the disappointment and chagrin of many on the one hand, and in somewhat perhaps of superci- lious exultation on the part of some on the other. It is there- fore worse than useless. Give up the whole concern, I would to my Orthodox brethren, to those who are already in pos- 91on of the premises, provided they will deal generously with you. — May I be pardoned for saving this aloud, to all who sym- pathize with me in religious sentiment? I know there are some, on both sides, w ho w ill not relish this view of the subject. Some Unitarians, even of truly liberal feel- ings, would regret to see the College thrown into the hands of only one Sect, believing that it would help to diminish its repu- tation and influence. I honour this feeling; but I cannot be- lieve that it rests on a solid basis. After all that has been said against the Orthodox by Unitarians among us, (as developed in the preceding pages), in respect to their superstition, ignorance, idolatry, and bigotry, and their aim virtually to introduce an Inquisition among us, it is not to be reasonably expected that they will in general send their sons to be educated at Cam- bridge, while under the exclusive influence of Unitarianism. I think they cannot be persuaded to do so, as a general thing ; above all, while such a system of rigid exclusion is there pur- sued in the appointments to office. Then it seems to be ob- vious, that the mixture of two influences there, would either put the College into a state of violent contest, or spoil all positive good influences, by neutral insignificance. I can never think of such a plan with any good degree of approbation. I know that the like has been, and is, extensively done in Germany. But there the human mind is tamely submissive to governmental 360 rosi en i:iPT. arrangements; and then too, where contest has not fierce raged 'm consequence of such an arrangement, Indifferenti become an overwhelming tide, bearing all away before it. \.w Englandera are incapable of such a state of th The mixture in question might indeed answer a part of the claim- of the mere theory of rights, But as a practiced measure, I doubt not thai it would be fraught with mischief, in one or both of the ways already stated. Let us behave then like rational men, and like gentlemen, In such a state of things, and make the bestofit that we can. Let us at least Ogrtt to dilj'ir. Let each ,L r <> his own way, and leave to Providence the disposal of future events. My belief, at least my hope, is, that there are minds generous enough among the Unitarians, 40 accede to >\w\\ proposals. I know not, indeed, how these \ie\vs may strike the pn Head of Cambridge University; for I have not Been him since bis return from Europe, and have in no way any particular knowledge of his own personal views. Of course 1 shall not undertake to state them. J5nt this J Well know, viz. that he po>- SSes the most ample accomplishments of literature, science, and taste, for the station that he occupies, and that his lite is free from any stain. My belief is, that he is of a truly liberal cast of mind, and that hewould not lift up one finger to do sec- tarian violence, or inflict wrong upon the rights and just claims of Others. On some such ground as this, probably, it is under- stood that lie was not originally the favorite candidate for the Presidency among the more zealous portion of the Unitarian community in this quarter. It is quite possible that this por- tion have been disappointed, on account of the decided tone of their own public in his favour. ]$nt they have, as it seems now to he understood, agreed to acquiesce in tin" choice of the ma- jority, probably for a very efficient reason which it would he useless for me to name. So he it ! If the University must re- main in this Struggling and somewhat hazardous condition, I do not think a better pilot could he chosen to steer the ship, than the one she now has. With my whole heart I wish him all cess in steering her through the breakers; and do Bincerely hope, that he will ere long he safe beyond them, and sailing on a quiet sea, with a shining heaven above it. To bring what I have to sa) respecting this great question about Cambridge to an end; more must he said and done than has been achieved by excited speeches at the meetings of Over- rs, and contests about elections to office, and the like. All . RIPT« H this sinkes no approach to a radical ours of the e\ il. Ju.<' must be done: ng/ show, thai theQai- is, while under him, in its true position ai B Slot ln>ti- tution ; and this, liecause forsooth the Unitarians are at wtd& r i- ans ! Tins nuu, I orast c onfes s, m em ef the hi m I should have expected from a man of sense. No testa famt// What thru arc I nitarians doing iu Boo t OO ; and w hat in the ton of Vaud, and at Genera? Yea, might I not ask: What fie himself been doing? The Orthodox, so Auras! know, have in general the feeling, that with not ■ little «>t" professed impartiality and neutrality, there has been Scarcely a man in the Commonwealth, whe entertained a feeling nearoY to that of 11 tor them, than this same gentlemen, so opj>osed to all Sed — de functis officio, nil. I appeal to the honest and generous tninded men of all par- . and specially among tin 4 l" nitarians, and ask: Whether it is hetter to put an end to this fruitless and exciting struggle, before matters have gone too far to let the voice of reason and naederatkm be beard! I do know, that the Orthodox as a body have a ieep sensation that might is made to stand in the place of rigM, in this matter. I know well that they cannot be satis- fied with such logic as Mr. Quincy's: and that they deem it passing strange, that so many men of wealth and generosity and en ligh tened views as to most other matters, should think of ap- propriating the Ilollis' Fund, and other ancient funds, as the Unitarians have done. The money is not worth a moment's con- cern ; but as to the principle concerned — I do truly wonder how conscience can be kept quiet in this matter. Still to persist in the exclusive course of Cambridge (for forty years past) will be certain to bring on at last a serious struggle. The Orthodox have a large majority in the State; and if the trial of strength in this way must be forced upon them, it is my full persuasion that they will be ready ere long to stand up in their places. J Jut I dread !i a contest. What if they should be victorious, and having control of the Legislature should proceed, as theii opponents have practically done, to make the I niversity a party one? How easy to make a test, that would man the Institution through and through with Orthodoxy. Nothing ID OUT laws could hinder such a proceeding. What I fear is, that they may yet be goaded to such a measure, by the doings of Unitarians. I should rue the day when this might take place ; for then the Orthodox 31 3C2 POSTSCRIPT. wmiiM bfl < ! « » i n lt just what is virtually now done by their oppo- nents. And 1 1 itn, tin* peace of the Slate: thr prosperity of its literature; the well being of education ; what is to become of all these great interests in such ■ straggle? It will be well for tie an ho plume themseh es on dexterity of management, to keep these thinirs steadily in view. One tiling, I believe with entire eor*- vietion, they may count u|)on. There are those — and many nre tjirv too — who will never Battle down into a tame acquiescence, that might shall stand for fight, We live in a State that threw the British tea overheard; proclaimed true national liberty in Faneuil Hall; fought the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill ; and led the van in the Morions achievement of national independ- ence. How ran it be expected that we are always to sit down quiet and inacthe spectators, when some of our most sacred privileges are, ss we fully believe, infringed upon 9 With a trembling hand and an aching heart I have penned these paragraphs, Ota calm review I cannot recall them. I do know that they speak the feelings of >cor- Ml of thousands; and imperfectly as 1 have done the duty of gifting these feelings a voice T I ba pe I shall not l>e taxed with exceeding the proper bounds of a fr e eman , a Protestant, and a follower of the Pilgrims. If my feeble voice, moreover, might reach the venerable Halls of Justice, I should venture to say a word even there. I have an almost exees-ive regard for our high Courts of Justice, and be- lieve them to l>e the very lite guard in the temple of liberty. It may be, that this is the result, in pait, of my earlier studies, which would have led me to frequent them; and which at all events have filled me with enthusiasm for the noble science of Jurisprudence. But I think every reflecting reader, who atten- tively peruses the history of England, must come to feel that her Judiciary lias been the bulwark, and the rampart, ami the high tower, of English liberty, and of the permanence of all her civic institutions. And so it is with us. Liberty — right — lives or dies with our Conns. Put a JetlVies of former days upon our Su- preme Tribunal, and what will be the result ? The question needs no answer. Jt is my lull persuasion, that our Judges do in cm* ct make twenty practical laws in reality, where 4 OUT Legislators make one. So it must be; and so, I am ready to say, it sliould be. They must have more skill, than the unpractised ; and they have as little motive to do wrong, as any body of men on earth. But I must now come to a more unwelcome part of my task. I have read witli attention, and with no little interest the decision i -osTscmri. of Chief Justice Parsons in the case of Burr vs. the Inhabitants of Sandwich, Mass. Reports IX. p. *>J77 seq.); of Chief Justice Parker, in the ease of Kiker ct \i. \>. I '.il*s, (Mass. Kep. \\ 1 p. 188 a : : of Chief Justice Shnw , in the ease of Stehbins .li'!i!niii:s Pick. Rep, X. p. 172 seq.); all having one general hearimr, and all settling down on the principle, that a Christian church among us has no jwliticnl existence, except aa connected irith 'rish, and no rights which she can claim Of entoree, (0 prop- crtv or anythinir else of appreciable value, when the majority of a pari>h arc against her, and separate tioni licr. All this loo, not- witbetanding an express Statute, which, long age, made the dea- cons <>f a church a wrprnnk aseSy so far as it concerns the holding and claiming of church property. The last of these Judges lias arirued the I it strikes my mind, by far the most ably ; and if he has not justified his decision under our laws as they . which I fully believe net to be the ease), be has come nearer to it than any of his predecessors. How stands this matter now, in our Commonwealth? Every church to which property has been given, can any day be stripped of it all, by a vote of a majority of a parish to form an- other church establishment* or even another ecelesiastical socie- ty. Such has been the case; and such will agate be the case, in oft repeated instances. How singularly all this strikes one who has just been reading the history of the Pilgrims, and finds that for half a century or more after our State was settled, no man could even enjoy the privi- leges of a freeman, who was not a member of a church ! Church and parish were identical. Now, the church depends, it seems, on the will of a majority who are not members of it, in any par- ticular place, for the rights, or at any rate for a part of the rights, of freemen. It has indeed no legal rights as a church, except in and through a parish. What a change ! As great as that from high Orthodoxy to low Unitarianism. Tempora mutantur ; et nos — jnutamur cum Mis! Never was this more strikingly ver- rified. Our Republic began in the spirit ; it is ending in the flesh. It is impossible for any reflecting man to read history, from the first settlement of this Commonweahh down to the preset period, without emotions of surprise, if not of regret. No coun- try on earth was ever settled by sueh a band of men, as first sought these shores in order to find I refuge from the oppression of the mother-country. There the all engrossing theme was, the established religion — the established religion — the established POSTSCRIPT. religion : the exact counterpart of " the temple of the Lord — the temple of the Lord — the temple of the Lord are lime," in .hi. 7:4. Of ctHirso n mall was deemed a secret rebel, who did not conform to the establish^! religion, and finally was thruM into pillories and jails, and Abridged of some of his highly im- portant ci\il and social rights, for non-conformity. The Pilgiim Jiand could not — would not — hrook this. They sought an a-\- Iiiiii from the O|ipre>>ion and contumacy of their rulers, spiritu- al and temporal, on tin* shores of a new world. BO distant that they indulged the hope, that u f umour of oppression and d« e< it would ne\er reach them inoiv." Here they established a gov- ernment which has grown up, and Income consolidated, and has comprised, and still comprises, a bed] of men. such as all the world besides is unable to exceed, it" they can anywhere equal them, - to intellectual, civil, and social acquisitions and privilei These are tarts which no well-informed considerate man will venture to den\ . K\ery le-i>lative speech, e\ery public oration, iv harangue in Fanned Hall, admits and ! of all this ; and I 'nitarians as much as others. 'Our fathers did this; and our fathers did that f and by their immortal w isdom and ■ j city, and their lofty spirit of freedom, they erected the goodly structure in which their posterity meet to eulogize them, and to exhort one another to walk in their steps, and to ropy their ex- ample. Here now is one of the most singular tilings ever recorded by the faithful Mi\ of history. What sort of men wore they, then, who achieved all these wonderful deeds, worthy of en!' until time shall be no more ? The very class of men, whom Dr. ('"banning, and his admirers, and indeed many Unitarians of all grades, proclaim to be worshippers of a God who has the attributes of a devil ; to be credulous, superstitious, and given to u old wives' tables :" to be zealous for doctrines M which fall far below most of tin' heathen systems of religion ;" to aim at Clamp- ing ami subjugating all freedom of investigation, reasoning, or opinion, in matters of religion ; and to be bent upon lasmn- ing on the necks of the community a yoke more galling than that of the Inquisition itself. For surely, if all these tin- said of the pn iteration of the Orthodox, (and no one will dare deny that they an 1 !, then they are affirmed a fortiori of our fathers, who went much further in fixing lasnl protection to the churches than w e, and were much farther than we now fiMin the true line of entire Christian liberty. But how comes it about that these 4, dc\ il-wor>hipp< sro," and ' k bigots,' 1 and * fob -1-ruirT. 3C5 in the train of St Dominic," erected such n glorious tem- ple to Lilierty, loft) as the heavens, and wide as the domain of the Commonwealth? 1 1 * »w came the moat perfect Republic on tin* Rice of the whole earth, from the hand- of such men as these? If any Unitarian, who reechoes the reproachful words of \)\. Charming and his disciples, will solve me this enigma, I promise him more feme than Oedipus ever acquired by solving the riddle of the Theban Sphinx, It is out of all question. Unitariaji Orators who blazon the virtues and good deeds and glorious achievements of our Pilgrim fathers, feel obliged to throw oll'the shackles w Inch men of Dr. < 'hanninirV stamp would impose upon them — not to say (which would be somewhat in- rjve the lie to all accusations of than nature. Since the* world was created, a higher, nohler race of true Liberty- Min never lived upon it than Cali iicu Where (in the language of one of our most potent orators) Was k * the first considerable Ohorch established in modern times, without a bishop, and State without a fcwur?" Was it not at (Ge- neva, and under the auspices of Calvin ? That little Republic, buih up by his wisdom, and consolidated by his discretion and true love of liberty, has stood amidst the wrecks of kingdoms around it, res p e ct ed by all the world, and the abode of freedom, until Unitarians forced the government of it to be put into their bauds; and since that time, it lias become the abode of oppres- sion and violence. Who does not know, that the English exiles learned at Gene- va their notions of true religious liberty, which they carried borne from thence, and which in the end dethroned the hypo- critical and domineering Charles I., and breathed tin; air of free- dom over the whole kingdom, from John e 1 Groats' to the Land's End? At this eventful period, our Republic sprang into exis- tence. The Liberty-men in question were its founders. A noble. building did they erect. If the Corinthian and the Composite did not pervade its original architecture) it exhibited, and still exhibits, in its grandeur and massive strength, the Doric and the Palmleaf column. Who dares to rail at these men, now, among Mf? I was ready to say: Not even a dog moves his tongue. Hut no ; I find that 1 must recall this. There is at least one man, once I behove a minister of the Gospel in this State, (whether a native I know not), who has published even a volume to show, that the Pilgrim Fathers were actually all which Dr. ( 'banning has so recently affirmed us to be. I un- derstand, however, that he is on his journey to St. Peter's and 31* rosTSCRir in ■ fair way Un' a rapid and prosperous fOyage thither. These loo ]n> will iiK'ct with those choic« spirits, which in I airland have taken up the cowl that Ignatius Loyala bequeathed to all l\t\- ! compeers — with others toe of our own country, whose in- iticance protects them from all exposure to the public. In that joyful throng, which are so SOOO to meet under thatCHM domt, which is the wonder (if not the terror) of the world, tli Mill doubtless raise their voices so high, as to <*) the vaulted Getting with the aOSSS of a Tt Ikum for their wonderful deliver- enee from the bondage (not meielyor principally of sin and Satan, but) of Calvinism and Orthodoxy, and their restoration to the glorious liberty of kissing the toe of St Peter's succssnsjs or at an\ rate, it' they should fail of this, of Uissinir the toe of that statue, which was once the image of Jupiter Olympius in a heathen temple, hut is now coiivrrfu! hy haptismal water into a true and exact representation of Peter himself. All hail ! to those Choicest of the elect of the Vicar of God and St. Dominic! May they live a thousand and one years, and their ifcarfa— PSyef he le»! Live, I would say, in a monastery of their own — sepa- rate forever from the sacred soil of Liberty and of Orthodoxy ! Jhit to return ; nearly all political orators have too much tact to make open and public assaults upon the Pilgrims. S<»me of our pulpit orators and pamphlet and review-w -rit< have less of discretion and magnanimity. The names, indeed, of those venerated fathers are rarely called out in the way of reproach. The art of sagacious management consists, in throw- im: contumely and contempt overall that was distinctive in their religious opinions, without being suspected of such a des ig n. It is only in this way that the descendants of the Pilgrims can be misled. 1 make the challenge, then, openly and fearlessly, to all who tread under foot tin' religious (/reed of our fathers — the chal- lenge to show the consistency of what they affirm of all Ortho- doxy, and of orthodox men as bigOiSj and unrelentimr supei>ti~ tious zealots, and advocates of religious oppression, and enen to all freedom of impiin, and {'wv religious action, with the high encomiums which they foe! obliged to bestow en the civil and •ial institutions of the very men in (piestion. Then IS M wag of meeting this challenge. Pacts — facts that are before the whole world — contradict all which they affirm of the' ten- dencies of Orthodox} to suppress civil, social, or religious liber* t>. I'\ in \ TiiAr this AciisvTiii.v is wot rat If now such matters are not to be decided by experience, by fads, in whal waj m an> question of a practical nam r to I »e decided er to tins ques- tion, il thinking ami tobsc inen. bet m\self in turning aside I n\ heart-felt homage to the Puritan Pilgrims, I must now psjHBJM tbfl - sideration of our present reception in the Halls of Justice with- in our 5! I certain!} believe, that our forefathers acted wisely in that p iff new government, which had re- _ M l fret- 1 nan. lint 1 can easily s* 'bey mistak e ground of ti- 100a and oppression- ungodly ci\il rulers, the legal head- churches in Knglaiid. had indicted upon them. They meant to the civil power, for the future, again:rt oppression and But \r it with their descendants of the sixth and mth generation? The church has no rights now. except as leaning upon and connected with the parish. It is a body un- known to the law. and unrecognized by it. except as a mere ap- pendage to those who are not the church. Truly, I may again, a levolution as great in our civil rights as in our the- If now the u glorious uncertainty ot the law can throw its am- ple shield before our Judges, and protect them from any other ac- cusation at the most than mere error in a legal opinion, (and even from this, in the view of Unitarians), still, I have a p seated conviction that Unitarianism has unconsciously ope- rated on the minds of these same Jurisconsults, and given un- consciously a hue to their thoughts and reasonings on this sub- ject. It is indeed no small matter to disfranchise Christian churches, and make them virtual outlaws, and dependent for their property and their sacred utensils on the will of a parish. One simple principle seems to me to be enough to settle this whole matt r. in the mind of any plain unsophisticated reasoner. This is, that a lawful gift t<> a mm. or to any body of men recognized and ap; .s such by the laws of the ^u.te. is bona fide their property, and t heir's forever. It m ay indeed be wrenched from them I _ lery of legal ratiocination : but the simple ml principles of justice decide the matter beyond appeal. I m.-ikn no accusations of intention to do wrongs on the part of those distinguished Judges. I do not believe they were conscious of any such design. But it is im|>ossible for me to belit the bauful intention of donors to churches 368 postscript. has not been substantially frustrated by the deeisions of our Courts: and t herpft w I must think that it Kfl a |ii>t matter lor hir'ishuive inhr/cnnrr. Kven it' we fully Concede, that the de- cisions in question fan be tec hni cally justified, in the eye of our p res et law-, ni\ convictions would not he changed in tin; least It i< one of those rery plain cases, where I should spontaneous- ly >a\ : Summutn jus, summn injuria. Why should it be a matter of wonder, then, that the Ortho- dox are dissatisfied wit li what they seriously regard as an inju- rious infringement upon their rights ? Nay, I might boldly ven- ture to ask a different question: Do they not deserve gnat eredit for patience and longanimity and aversion to tumult and disorder, since they have Waited in quiet tor redress so long — and 1 fear that I must add, with so little prospect of obtaining it? Yet, after all, I cannot help hoping, that when the excitement Wttich attends the commencement of disputes shall have passed away, Unitarians will return to the feeling, that the denial of just claims to the larger portion of the community, whether under the specious cover of law or in any other way, is not the bam method even of spreading or of establishing their own re- ligious views. A g en e ro sity of feeling will yet, as I am inclined to think, obtain the upper hand. There is surely a large class of men among them, who would look on oppression and injus- tice, in almost any other form, with scorn and indignation. What we ask of them is, to reflect soberly on the wrongs of which we complain. We have no wish, even if it were entire- ly within our power, to abridge them of their right to propagate their own views, or to establish Universities, 'Theological Semi- naries, Academies, Schools, and Churches, when and where they phase. We have no desire to appropriate their funds to our use. They stand in no need of appropriating ours to their use. Above all — to seize upon the little property or the sacra- mental utensils of a country church, and to force the Supreme Court to become an instrument in such an act of spoliation — really looks so undignified, BO grasping, SO oppressive, that I most confess it fills me with unqualified astonishment. It needs no second sight to predict, that in the Hay State such pioceed- ingfl will not be likely to open the way to popular favour and sia-ee<<. The suppressed sense of injury, w inch all thinking men entertain with whom my religious view- associate* me, fbrbodea some future efforts in earnest to secure their religious rights and liberties, unless the hand of oppression is lightened. Host sincerely do I hope that the time may never come, when such efforts must be made. ro t. SCO Tin 1 lofty position which HMHohoa taken, and still takes, in the cause of civil ami social lilierty, renders all the proceedings, which it has !>•• n my painful task to d< the inon Who will ever heli.-ve bc i ealW, that lnHarian- n religion i What has it mi done ben, in lendhag anon enlightened men, w o r thy in other reepecti of all estimation ami booO OT, tO measures SS inconsistent with the prnl ami tin* character of iMs free rcpuhlic - What it not r. Phaiilng sod his friendi ami Me* pour out the risk of their indign ati on npan a large portion <>f their fellow eftiasasjsnd rep roa ch them with the soperstitiew the dark ad attempts to hind the consciema - of men in ehains of an Inquisition, ami the like, WO 1 1 HO delay m make the reply: Mutato nomine, dt te tabula narratur. You arc the ui.'M who oppress, by denying to others their just ami law- ful rights, and in seeking a refage from the consequences of this, by interposing the broad shield of legal technicalities. But Jkmfr the Guardian Spirit of Justice, if we may hearken to the assurance of Aeschylus, though slow of foot. is sure ofpi She will come at last, and speak in language that the very deaf shall hear. END. 1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 022 171 849 5 III,. ilHHH