Columbia ©nitJer^ttp intljfCitpofllrttigcrk LIBRARY \-- > , ijiB^irisia^ MINISTRY, RITUAL, AND DOCTRINES PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, ADDRESSED TO THE REV. WM. E. WYATT, D.D. Associate Minbter of St. Paul's Parish, Baltimore, and Protessor of Theology in the University of Maryland, 3n replg to a @)ennon ETtHIBITIIIG SOME OP THE PRINCIPAL DOCTllINES OF THE PIIOTESTANT EPISCOPAli CHURCH IS THE UNITED STATES. BY JARED SPARKS, A. M. HINTSTEH OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF BALTIMORE. 'Baltimore: PUBLISHED BY N. G. MAXWELL, NO. 140 BALTIMORE STREF.T. 1S20. JOHN 7). TOr, PRINTER. C/^^r h LETTER I. Oh the ministry of the episcopal church. R-easons for discussing the subject — Our Saviour gave no instruc- tions respecting any particular mode of church government — Said nothing of three orders of ministry — The first church at Jerusalem was governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren — Deacons — The ceremony of ordination was performed by any of- ficers of regular standing in the church — Paul and Barnabas were ordained by "prophets and teachers" — Opinions of Kui- noel, RosenmuUer, Hammond, and Le Clerc — Episcopalians fond of quoting the Fathers — Authority of the Fathers — Opi- nions of Milton and Jeremy Taylor — Ignatius' epistles— Testi- mony of the Fathers against episcopacy — Opinions of Paley, fiocke.the bishop of Lincoln — Ecclesiastical government essen- tially a government of the people. p. 5 LETTER IL On the ritual of the church. Baptism — Church form not scriptural— Sign of the cross — Con- firmation — These forms nearly the same as in the Catholic church — Ordination service — Expediency and utility of forms of prayer — Their disadvantages — Origin of Saints' days — Bos- suet, p. 53 LETTER m. On the authority of the church in controversies of faith. Our Saviour gave no authority to any man, or body of men, to judge others for their religious opinions — Christians have no other rule of faith than the Bible — Chillingworth — Athanasian creed — Historical sketch of the first conventions of the Ame- rican episcopal church after the revolution — Injurious ten- dency of creeds and articles, both on the clergy and the people —Many christians cannot conscientiously worship according to the liturgy of the church — Inconsistency of holding to the au- thority of tradition, and rejecting infallibility— How creeds keep schism out of the church— Milton's opinion. p. 79 .nc; 8 IV LETTER IV. On the doctrinal character of the thirty-nine articles. The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism fully set forth in the ar- ticles and homilies — Ninth article — Homilies — Seventeenth ar- ticle — Bishop Burnet's exposition — Opinions of the first re- formers calvinistic — Nowel's catechism — Latimer's sermons — Bishop's Bible — Oxford theses — Ridley's letter on election and predestination — Lambeth articles — Heylin — University of Cam- bridge — Synod of Dort — English delegates were all calvinists— Strange doctrine of the eighteenth article — Arminian mode of interpreting the articles indefensible — Proposed summary of faith. p. 109 LETTER V. Doctrine of the trinity as held by the episcopal churc h. Litany — The worship it inculcates — Doctrine of the trinity contained in the articles — Opinions of learned episcopalians — There is one true God — The Lord Jesus Christ is not this one true God, but a subordinate being — Doctrine of two natures — The Holy Spirit is not the true God — Jews had no conceptions of any threefold distinction in the Deity — Nor had the disciples of Jesus — Nor did the apostles preach any such doctrine after the ascension of Christ — The christians of the first century were principally, if not entirely, unitarians — Origin of the doctrine of the trinity. p. 142 LETTER VI. Exposition of certain texts of scripture supposed to favour the doctrine of the trinity. Objections answered — Use of reason — Mysteries — Bsrgh's Reply to Lindscy — Jones on the Trinity — His singular mode of inter- preting the scriptures — All the texts considered in which Christ is called, or supposed to be called God — None of these prove him to be the Supreme Being — Texts, which are thought to ascribe such properties or powers to Christ, as could belong only to God— How Christ and the Father are one— Christ possessed, the attributes of God in a limited degree — God the only object of religious homage — Form of baptism — Commu- nion of the Holy Spirit — Concluding remarks. p. 195 a.IS^^I]3IB H; Revekend and dear sir, When your late discourse on the ministry and doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church first ap- peared, I enj^aged with much interest in its perusal. The design you proposed of explaining at large the principal doctrines, and distinguishing characteristics of this church, led me to anticipate much pleasure and improvement from the execution. If I have been disappointed in some of ray expectations, I could not fail to be gratified with the spirit of candour and good intention which pervades your discourse; and I hope I have not read it without profit, if I have without conviction. In the remarks I am about to make, I have no de- sign to point out intentional misrepresentations, or to question your motives. Nor is it so much your owa private opinions with which I am concerned, as the doctrines and principles you have attempted to ex- plain and defend, and which you represent as form, ing the most striking features of the church to which you belong. Among these I cannot but think there are many errors; and not a few, which can have no other than an injurious tendency on the cause of truth and a pure religion. As you have thought it your duty to undertake a public explanation and defence of these doctrines, you cannot be surprised, that 1 should think it mine, to adopt a similar mode of ex- pressing my opinions, and of stating my objections. I propose first to consider what you have said on the MINISTRY of the Episcopal church; and afterwards to examine its ritual and doctrines. I confess I was not entirely prepared to find, at this advanced period of moral and intellectual im- provement, any member of a protestant religious so- ciety, and especially in this country, who would se- riously engage in the attempt to establish the divine origin of any particular form of church government, and claim its lineal descent from the apostles. I had thought the long agitated controversy, about the dim vine right of episcopacy, was generally allowed to be at rest, even in those countries where the civil, as well as ecclesiastical interests are intimately concerned ia the result. In more scholastic times, when the w orld was busied in visions and dreams as unprofitable as they were imaginary, this was a theme sufficiently obscure to interest the lovers of speculation, and suf- ficiently pretending to engage the ambitious. Few at this day, 1 supposed, could be found, who would not at least consider it a doubtful cause; and still fewer, who Avould think it of sufficient importance publicly to engage in its defence. The termination of the con- troversy, which was carried on a few years ago in New-York on this subject, was not such, one would think, as to warrant in the friends of episcopacy a desire for its renewal. In my estimation the subject in itself is of very little importance, because I am convinced, that the grounds which you and some others take are unscriptural, and consequently untenable. Yet in its consequences it is by no means unimportant. If any order of men can prove to the satisfaction of the people, that, as an order, they are lineal descendants from the apostles, and inherit a right to their office by virtue of this de- scent, they will almost necessarily possess an in- fluence over the minds and opinions of the weak and credulous, which, unless their pretensions are well founded, they ought not to possess. In religion, if in any thing, the mind should be left unshackled. The right of private judgment should be held sacred, and no improper means should be used to restrain inquiry, or enlist credulity. As we are all accountable beings, and accountable only for ourselves, it is our duty to judge for our- selves. But when we are made to believe, that any man is endowed with a portion of the inspired intel- ligence of the apostles, and is, from the nature of the office he sustains, more holy than other men, shall we not be in danger of forgetting our obligations to our- selves, and be likely in our religious concerns to yield up the highest prerogatives of our nature — those of thinking, and reasoning, and judging? What merit can we claim for thinking and acting right, if we do not think and act from our own understanding and freedom? To believe articles, because others tiave be- lieved them, can scarcely be called a religious faith. That faith can be worth very little, and have little efficacy on the life, which is not built on personal knowledge and conviction. 8 Another evil conspquonce of beJievin^ in a divine- ly protected succession of olficers in the church, is the perpetuity of error. Anioni; protestants 1 believe there are no advocates for infallibility. In the chris- tian church, as in every thing else, error has always been mingled with truth, and it does not appear, that the edicts of emperors, the decrees of councils, or the mandates of popes have been able to preserve a pure, a uniform, or consistent system of faith. If such a system had been transmitted without change from the primitive ages, and it were certain, that it is the one now adopted by your church; then I should say, your scheme of episcopacy is a good one, and the notion of its divine origin would add to its value. It w ould be the best means, that could be devised, for perpet- uating such a form of faith, and fixiug it in the minds of the people. But is it not obvious, that such a system would have a tendency equally strong to perpetuate any form of belief, whether false or true? And are not all articles of faith, which are not expressed in the lan- guage of scripture, subject to be more or less clouded with error? If episcopacy be of divine origin, why has it not preserved a pure and consistent faith. The Greek church is episcopal, and so is the Roman, and still they differ in many essential points from each other, as well as from the En2;lish church. And does not the episcopal church of the United States reject some parts of the old book of Common Prayer, which are thought so important in the English church, as to be commanded by the laws to be publicly read at stated times? Why are the Athanasian creed, and some other parts of the liturgy left out, unless it be^ that they are thought unsrriptural? The creeds of episcopal churches have changed essentially from time to time, and at present tliey differ essentially among themselves. It is evident, then, that these churches have many errors in their articles of helief, and my position is, that the scheme of episcopacy is peculiarly calculated to perpetuate these errors. There is another consideration of some importance to me, and to all, who do not agree with episcopa- lians on the subject of church government. If you are right, we are all wrong. If, as you say, "to the order of bishops alone belongs the power of ordaining ministers/' then no ministers out of the pale of episcopacy have ever been ordained. They have usurped an office, which did not belong to them; they have undertaken the discharge of duties, for which they were not qualified; they have been guilt}'- of a rashness, which nothing but their obstinacy could account for, or their ignorance excuse. The positive ordinances of the church, administered l)y them, have been invalid, and unaccompanied by any of those good effects for which they were designed. Baptism per- formed by them has had no efficacy; and the celebra- tion of the Lord's supper, although done in com- pliance with the express commands of our Saviour, has been rather a dishonor to hi^ name, than a means of procuring spiritual comfort, and the rewards of obedience for his followers. These, you will allow, are serious considerations, not only to ministers, but to the people of their charge, who, if your statement be correct, are ignorantly entrusting their spiritual concerns to an unauthorized and unprolitable min- istry. 10 It certainly cannot be thought strange, that any clergyman, who is implicated in this charge, should feel it his duty to assert and maintain what he con- ceives to be his just claims, and show the fallacy of such pretensions, as arrogate to any class of men the conclusive character of being descendants from the apostles. The first part of your discourse is taken up in prov- ing, that the episcopal church is the only true church, that its ministry originated with the apostles, and has descended down to the present time, "through an un- hroken and divinely protected successions^' and that ordinations, performed by any other persons than bishops, are '^devoid of every degree of validity and efficacy in conferring spiritual office and power,'' This shall be the subject of my first letter. I agree with you, that "when the gospel enjoins us Ho be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us,' and ^to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints;' it equally obliges us to ascertain and thoroughly understand what the characteristics of that faith may be," p. 10. It is true, if we do not ascer- tain, we believe without knowledge; and if we do not understand, we believe without evidence. Faith without knowledge, or evidence, can scarcely be called a rational faith; and to believe what we do not under- stand, if it be possible, is useless. A religious faith is meant to be the guide to a religious life, and if its objects are unintelligible, it must indeed be a blind guide. The same may be said of the faiHi of preju- dice, or of ignorance. I unite with you cordially in 11 the opinion, therefore, that its characteristics should be thoroughly understood. In the scriptures are contained the only 2;rounds of this faith. No mode of church government can be considered of divine origin, which is not enjoined in the most absolute terms in the scriptures, and no ar- ticles of faith can be considered of divine authority, which are not there explicitly stated. Possible de- signs, and probable inferences are not here to be taken. We must have plain arguments, positive proofs, di- rect conclusions, before we can venture to pronounce any scheme of government, or any summary of arti- cles, to be built on divine authority. The decrees of councils, and the traditions of the church can be of no weight, and ought not to be quoted on these points, while we have the scriptures in our hands. In dis- cussing this subject, therefore, I shall not think it important to resort to any other authorities, than such as are contained in the word of God. The plain truths of scripture will always remain the same, what- ever may have been, or may still be, the opinions of men. Your first proposition, in regard to the ministry of the episcopal church, is as follows. "This ministry consists of three distinct orders, bishops, priests, and deacons. From the promulgation of the gospel by Jesus Christ, these three orders were apparent, de- signated by different names, and possessing and ex- ercising different powers," p. 11. These orders you represent to have consisted of our Saviour, the apostles, and the seventy, who were sent forth to preach. Now, is it not a little remark- able, if Jesus intended the ministry of his church to IS consist of three ortlors, and to be transmitted in this form throuu;h all succeeding ages, that he should not have given some directions on so important a subject? Is it credible, that, if he intended a particular class of persons only should be qualified for administering the ordinances of his religion, he would not have given some positive instructions in regard to the nature of their qualifications? But what is the truth? Not a hint is found in the whole four gospels, that he de- signed either to establish or perpetuate any such form of church government, as the one you have mentioned. His last commission to his disciples is given in the fol- lowing words; *'Goye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'' Matt, xxviii. 19y 20. He never mentioned three orders, or any number of orders of priesthood. He never spoke of bishops or deacons. He pointed out no particular modes of ordination, nor designated any description of persons by whom this ceremony should be per- formed. What is the natural conclusion, except that he did not think it imj)ortant what mode his followers should adopt to preserve the outward forms of his religion, provided they were careful to embrace its doctrines, imbibe its spirit, and live by its precepts? Whatever conclusion we may draw, we must rest in this cer- tainty, that our Saviour left no instructions respect- ing any particular form of church government. We have no other scripture authority on this subject, than what we derive from the writings and example of the IS apostles after the resurrection of Christ. I will next examine your statements as drawn from that source. You go on to observe, *^vhen our Lord had as- cended up on high, the apostles ordained the seven deacons to discharge the inferior offices of the minis- try, and to preserve the system inviolate,^^ What system had been broken? Our Lord had not mention- ed any system. And even, if he had commanded his disciples to preserve the three orders, which you sup- pose he established, would they not have chosen some one to supply the place, which had become vacant? Would it not be most rational to believe, if it were intended they should keep the '*'system in- violate," that they would have appointed some person to constitute the order, which had ceased, when Christ ascended to heaven; and to take charge of the general concerns of the church, as he had done while on earth? How else could the orders have been regularly preserved? But what is the fact respecting the seven officers, whom you call deacons? For what purpose were they chosen? Instead of being appointed to su- perintend the concerns of the church, or indeed to supply any order of the ministry, their office does not seem to have been designed even for an ecclesiastical purpose. The reason for this appointment is seen in the fol- lowing text. "And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a mur- inuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministra- tion." Acts vi. 1. Here the Gentile, or more proper- ly the Hellenistic converts complain, that they were neglected by the Hebrew officers, whose duty it was 14 to provide for the poor.* The apostles immediately advised them to choose a certain number of persons, to whom this duty might be entrusted, intimating that it was not an office, with which, in the exercise of their more important calling, they ought to be trou- bled. The people accordingly chose seven from among themselves, who were approved and appoint- ed to theoffice by the apostles. But this office did not constitute a new order. They were chosen to aid others, who had neglected to do their duty. Their appointment was merely a matter of expediency, or convenience, to afford more extensive relief to the poor, and to prevent the jea- lousy and complaints, which had begun to spring up among the Hellenistic and Hebrew converts. It was in no respect an office for spiritual purposes, and cer- tainly cannot be considered as forming a part of the christian ministry. One of them, Stephen, is repre- sented as <'a man full of faith, and of the Holy Spirit;" and Philip, in another place, is called an evangelist, but in no connexion with this office. Why you call them deacons, I cannot tell, as no such name is given * The "Grecians," or Hellenists, mentioned in the text, were probably proselytes to the Jewish religion from among the Greeks, or the descendants of such persons, who had embraced Christiani- ty. See Kenrick's Exposition, vol, iii. p. 109. and Newcome, in loc. It is well known, that these proselytes did not enjoy the same civil privileges in Judea, as the native Israelites. This caused prejudices to be kindled among them, which were not en- tirely removed after their conversion to Christianity. We may hence see the reason of the complaint in the text. The Hebrews attended to their own poor, and neglected those of the proselyte converts. This is the more probable, as Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven officers, was a proselyte. 16 them. Neither is the word used in the whole book of Acts. Let us proceed to your next statement of the orders of the ministry. After the appointment of the seven officers just mentioned, you say, "there were then the apostles and those associated with them, as Titus, Timothy, &c. being the first order; the seventy, bi- shops, elders, or presbyters, as they were promis- cuously called, being the second order; and the dea- cons, the tJiird order:*^ p. IS. Do you mean to consi- der Timothy and Titus on an equality with the apostles? If a line of distinction existed any where, between the different officers of the ministry, could any be more sti'ongly marked, than that which separated those persons, who had been the companions of our Lord, and had been the special messengers of his gospel, from all who were afterwards chosen or ap- pointed by them? Were Timothy and Titus ever called apostles? Why then should you assign them the same rank? If being <^associated" with the apos- tles entitled them to a place in the first order, why were not all bishops, or elders, equally entitled to this place? They were all associated with the apostles in the great work of preaching, and teaching, and ex- tending the kingdom of Christ. In this respect they all composed but one order. As you allow the words bishop, elder, and presby- ter to be used promiscuously for the same thing, I should not stop to prove so obvious a fact, were it not denied in the book of "Festivals and Fasts,'^ which is a manual in the church, and which you re- commend very highly to your readers. In remark- ing on the testimony of Ignatius, the author, or editor*. 16 observes, "from this unequivocal testimony it fully appears, that in the apostolic age, there were three or- ders in the ministry, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, distinct and subordinate, deriving their commission from God, and claiming; the reverence and obe- dience of the people y^^ p. 33. And the American editor also states, in a note, that this "testimony is express and decided in support of the superiority of the bishops to the presbyters." If you adopt this statement, in connexion with your own, you must allow at least four orders, instead of three, namely, apostles, bishops, presbyters, and deacons. That elders, presbyters, and bishops were the same, is evident from the twentieth chapter of Acts. In this chapter, Paul is said to have *'sent from Mi- letus to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church;" and among his directions, after they were collected, he told them, "to take heed unto them- selves, and to all the ilock over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers,^' or, as the word is every where else rendered, bishops. In the iirst chapter of Titus the words bishop, and elder, arc used in diflPerent places for the same person. Ac- cording to Macknight, the name elder {■^r^ae-vTe^oi) was applied in the primitive age, as a general term, to all who exercised any sacred office in the church.* They seem to have been called elders, because they were chosen from among the first converts, or perhaps from among those, who were more advanced in age, and whose experience and gravity of manners gave weight to their character. * Macknight oa the Epistles, vol. iv. p. 245. 17 We do not read in the scriptures of any distinction of rank among these officers; but we are often told of their acting in concert with the brethren, with each other, and with the apostles. In the discussion about circumcision, *^Hhe apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter." And when ^•chosen men" were sent with Paul and Barnabas to A.n- tioch, they received their commission from the ^^apos- tles, and elders, with the whole church." The letter, which they took, commenced as follows; "the apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting to the brethren, which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia."* Nothing is more clear, than that the government of the church at this time rested in a mutual council, composed, not only of the apostles and elders, but also of the brethren at large. We hear nothing of any particular grades among the officers. The apostles themselves assumed no au- thority above the elders, or even the brethren. They acted only with their advice, and in concert with them. Letters were written, and ministers sent out, in the name of the whole body of the church. This was the mode of government in the first church at Je- rusalem, and it appears to have been the same, as far as circumstances would permit, in all the primitive churches. Where you find any grounds, in the tran- sactions of this first church at Jerusalem, for the "three distinct orders of bishops, priests, and deacons," I cannot tell. The deacons, who compose your third order, are not mentioned in the proceedings of this church. But * Acts XV. 6, 22, 23. 18 is it probable, if such an order of the ministry thea existed, that it would have been overlooked in pro- ceedings so important as these, in which even the brethren at large were allowed to take an active part? I confess I can discover nothing in the account of the church at Jerusalem, nor in any part of the New Tes- tament, which would lead me to suppose the deacons, in the time of the apostles, sustained any office, which should entitle them to be considered a distinct order of the ministry. The word, in its English dress, is used only three times, and in no instance with refer- ence to any definite office, or duties. In the original use of this word in the New Testament, it has a va- riety of meanings. Its radical signification is ser- vavtj and it is thus used for the most part in the gos- pels. In the epistles it generally means what we un- derstand by minister^ and sometimes magistrate^ Rom. xiii. 4, Paul speaks of himself and brethren being made "able ministers (deacons) of the new cove- nant."' ^^Wherefore I was made a minister (deacon) according to the gifts of the grace of God.'' "Who then is Paul, and who is ApoUos, but able ministers (deacons) by whom ye believed?"* Quotations of a similar kind might be multiplied; but these are suffi- cient to show, that the term deacon, instead of de- signating a particular order of men, was frequently applied to the apostles themselves. The apostles were servants, deacons, or ministers of Jesus Christ. * The word ^ixaovoi is used in thirty places in the New Tes- tament. In eight of these places, it is rendered, in our common version, servant^ and seems to have precisely the same meaning as ^«A«j«. In nineteen places it is rendered minister ^ and in three only it is translated deacon. 19 St. Paul writes to the "bishops and deacous" at Phillippi, as it is expressed in our common version. But the Syriac translator renders it ^^elders and min" isters,''* and this translation is in accordance with the general use of these words, as is seen by the above quotations. In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle describes the qualifications of deacons, but nothing is said in regard to the nature of their office. These qualifications are almost precisely the same, as those of a bishop, which are mentioned in the same place. In the letter to Titus, instead of deacons, he calls them **aged men;" and 1 can find no passage in scripture, from which it would appear, that these men were dis- tinguished, in respect to their office, from the elders, or presbyters. And whatever the office of a deacon may have been, it is evident, that it was not appro* priated to a particular order of men; for Paul, Apol- los, fipaphras, and the magistrates, are called dea* cons. The opinion, which was adopted in some of the earlier churches, and which is still retained in yours, respecting the office of deacons, seems to have origi- nated in a fancied resemblance between the deacons mentioned in the first epistle to Timothy, and the seven officers appointed by the apostles, soon after the ascension of our Lord. But we have already seen what were the duties of those men. We have iseen, that they were never called deaconsy and that their office was wholly of a temporal nature. Among the duties, which you enumerate as belong- ing to the office of a deacon, are the following. <ut not by a regular episcopal ordination. Many others were made bishops from among their converts, but with nothing more than presbyterian ordination. Is it not more than possible, that the English succession is derived from this source? Again, the validity of archbishop Parker's conse- cration, in the time of queen Elizabeth, is well known to be, at least, very questionable; yet this is the ori- gin of the present English succession. Edward the sixth abolished the Romish form of ordination, and substituted a new one in its place, which is still re- tained in the church. The old form was restored by queen Mary, but rejected again by Elizabeth, and that of Edward adopted When Parker was nomi- nated to be archbishop of Canterbury, in 1559, she issued a commission to certain bishops to perform the ceremony of consecration, according to the prescribed form. Some of them refused to comply, alleging that such a consecration would not be valid. She issued 6 38 anoth'^r comraissioti to sue!) persons, as she knew would not refuse, l)f the consecration, by showing it to have been performed according to king Edward's ordinal, which was not consistent with any former usage of the church. 1 shall not pretend to decide on these objections of the catholics; l)ut if well founded, they must prove the invalidity of Parker's consecration, and the weak- ness of all pretensions in the church of England to a divine succession. To my mind, these objections, and others, briefly and clearly stated in the memoir of the Abbe Renau- dot, are convincing. Some of them are partially re- moved in Courayer's elaborate answer, but he has by no means cleared the subject of difficulties; and when it is known that he was an ^^apostate monk,'' as the catholics call liim, who wrote to gain the favour of an English prince; we can have little respect for his can- dour, or regard for his authority. Episcopacy was abolished by an act of parliament, in Cromwell's time. All ordinations were then pres- byterian, and how is it ascertained, that the succes- sion of episcopal ordinations was not then broken, or at least, that some persons were not afterwards con- 39 secrated bishops, wlio, during this period, had re- ceived only presbyteriau ordination? Moreover, it has been the opinion of many of the most eminent divines and learned men of the chnrch of England, that the superiority of bishops to pres- byters was nothing more than a human institution, and consequently, that ordinations by either was valid. To the middle of the seventeenth century, it was the prevailing sentiment of many distinguished di- vines, that bishops had no power of ordination or jurisdiction, except in conjunction with the presby- ters. In an article of the treaty of Uxbridge, (1644) it was declared, *Hhat the bishops shall exercise no act of jurisdiction or ordination, without the consent and counsel of the jpreshyters.^^* Bishop Leighton disclaimed all pretences to the sole power of bishops. One of the articles which he proposed to the dissent- ing brethren, in the conference at Paisley, runs thus; "all church affairs shall be managed in presbyteries and synods, by the free vote of the presbyters^ or the major part of them.^^-[ Dr. Burnet, in speaking of the power of a bishop, says, ^^ordinations ought not to be so performed by him, as to exclude the assistance and concurrence of presbyters, both in the previous trial, and in the ordination itself.'^J And even Hooker ad- mits, that "bishops, in the church of Christ, have such authority, as both to direct other ministers, and to see that every one of them should observe that, which * Bibliotheca Regia, London, 1659, part i. § 4. t Case of Accommodation, 1671, p. 2. t Gilbert Burnet's Conferences, Gla-gow, 167;!, p. 103. 40 \heiY common consent hath agreed on,'^* These quota- lions may be seen at large, with their references, in the fourth chapter of Sage's Vindication. In the same place may be seen references to a great many other authors, of the highest authority, who express the same sentiments. Among others are Andrews, Whitgift, ChillingwortI), Usher, Hall, Barrow, Stil- liugfleet, biherlock, Parker, 'I'aylor, Hammond. Archbishop Bancroft believed in tjje validity of ordinations by presbyters. The following is from Hickman. <'Some that had been ordained by mere presbyters, offered themselves in king James's time, to be con- secrated bishops in the church of Scotland. Dr. An- drews, bishop of Ely, moved this question; whether they should not first be episcopally ordained presby- ters, that they might be capable of being admitted to the order of bishops? But archbishop Bancroft, a most rigid asserter of episcopacy, answered; there was no need of it since ordination hij j)reshyters icas valid/'^ From these facts, it must certainly be admitted, that iu some periods of the English church, ordina^ tion by presbyters has been considered valid; and how is it know n, that the succession of office may not be traced back from the bishops of the present day, to those who had been thus ordained? And how can * Ecclesiastical Polity, b. vii. § 6. t Peirce's Vindication, p. 167. How does the whole mass of testimony, which has here been given, agree with the singular as- sertion in the book of Festivals and Fasts, that "throughout the universal church for fifteen hundred years, no instance occurs of ordination hij presbyters, that was considered valid!" p. 45. 41 you possibly reconcile the citations, which have beeu made from some of the principal Fathers, with your declaration, ^'tliat it has been the faith of the univer- sal church, without exception, until the period of the reformation, that to the or-der of bishops alone be- longs the power of ordaining ministers?" To many it is thought not a little strange, that the English church should set up so high claims to a di- vinely protected succession, and at the same time ex- hibit such unequivocal manifestations of abhorrence and contempt, of the venerable mother church, from which it is descended. Nothing can exceed the abuse, which it has poured out on the church of Rome, ever since the separation. Scarcely a theological work appeared in the English language, for the two j&rst centuries after this period, which did not contain more or less about the horrors and pollutions of popery. The Homilies themselves, which were appointed, and are still required by the articles, to be read at stated times in the churches, are very full and direct on this subject.* The whole three sermons against the peril of idolatry, are aimed at the depravity of the Uomish church. How can they, who have such an opinion of the church of Rome, suppose it to be the true church of the Lord Jesus? What do they find in the ministry of this church, which, according to their own account, can convince them, that it has been from its * According to one of the homilies, "She (the idolatrous church of Rome) is not only a harlot, as the scripture calleth her, bat a foul, filthy, old, withered harlot — the foulest and filthiest harlot, that ever was seen — the great strumpet of all strumpets." There is a full page of this kind of language. Homilies, Fol. ITIS, p. 165, Sermon against the Peril of Idolatry, Third Part. origin iiiidei' a divine influence? Most persons would think it (o l)e a mark of wisdom, to say as little as possible al)oiit a succession which they acknowledge has come through such a channel, as they describe in the church of Rome. Another thing is somewhat puzzling. How can the English clergy claim tlieir authority from the apos- tles, when it is one of the fundamental doctrines of the church, that it is derived from the king? By an act of parliament at the very commencement of the English reformation, it was decreed, that "the king's majesty justly and rightfully is, and ought to be, the supreme head of the church of England ;^^* and ac- cording to the thirty-sixth canon, every person, be- fore he enters the ministry, must acknowledge the ^'king's majesty, under God, to be the only supreme governor of the realm — as well in all spiritual or ec- clesiastical things or causes, as temporal." Has not the king power to suspend bishops, and prohibit them from exercising the functions of their office? Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and one of the most learned of the catholics, has written largely on the English reformation, and made it appear, in the most conclusive manner, that this church can make no claims to any ecclesiastical authority, derived from the catholic church. He has taken his historical facts entirely from Burnet, whom no one can accuse of par- tiality for the catholic religion, and whom no one will deny to have been an able advocate of the reforma- tion, "a distinct narrative of which," he says, ^'makes its apology, as well as its history." Yet from the * See Records and Instruments, No. 2. attached to Courayer's Defence. 43 faithful history of T5uriiet, notliing is more clear, than that the English church, instead of being a stately pillar in the lloinish episcopacy, was raised out of its ruins. In the very outset of the reformation, in the time of Henry A^Ill. it was laid down as a maxim, '^Hhat tlie king was pope in England.". Edward VI. retained the same authority, and the bishops took out new com' missions from him, which were to be "revoked at the king's pleasure." The bishops held only a preca- rious power, which was to be resigned at the will of the king. They had power to ordain and dismiss miuisters, but they were required to do it "in his name and under his authority." In short, it was decreed in parliament, that "no one could have any jurisdic- tion, either temporal, or spiritual, which was not de- rived from the king, as its source,^'* Had the reformers believed in the divine right of episcopal jurisdiction is it possible, that they would thus have taken every vestige of power from the bi- shops, and given it into the hands of kings? But whatever may have been their opinions on this sub- ject, it is certain they did not derive^ nor profess to derive, their autiiority from any ecclesiastical source. * Oeuvres de Bossuet, Tom. xix. et xx. Historic des Variations des Eg;lises Protestantes, liv. vii. Burnet's History of the Re- formation, Part ii. In his concluding remarks on the control of the kinj?, and of the civil authority, over the power of the bishops, Bossuet observes, *'Nul acte ecclesiastique, pas merae ceuxqui regardent la predica- tion, les censures, lalirurgie, les sacremens, et la foi meme, n'ade force en Angleterre qu'autant qu'il estapprouve et valide par les rois; ce qui au fond donne aux rois plus que la parole, et plus que Pad ministration des sacremens, puisqu'il les rend souverains arbi- tres de I'un et de I'autre." Hist, des Var. Liv. 10. 44 If the bisliops were flescendeil from the apostles, then it must have been by virtue of this descent, and this alone, that they possessed spiritual authority. It was not an authority of which kings or parliaments could deprive them, and it showed a deplorable defection of principle, or a pitiable weakness, to bow at the shrine of human greatness, if they were conscious of being bound by the laws of a divine authoriJ^y. These men either did not believe in the divine succession, or their conduct is inexcusable. If their authority was di- vine, it was permanent; and yet they suffered their commissions to be revoked at the pleasure of the king, were ordained by rules prescribed by him, and ven- tured to publish no articles of religion, which had not received his sanction. All spiritual authority was effectually subordinate to the temporal; and how it can be argued, that these bishops were acting as the descendants of the apostles, while the existence of their authority, and the extent of their power, de- pended solely on the will of the king, is a question, which I must leave unanswered. Let us go back still farther. Has not the pope power to excommunicate whom he pleases, and annul their ordinations? If so, what security is there under his authority for episcopal succession, or what is its va- lue? If the power, which it communicates, may be de- stroyed by human authority, why may it not be grant- ed by the same authority? A power, which the pope can destoy, is in the fullest sense derived from him. There is a memorable example of this in the catholic see of Utrecht. All the bishops of this see have been regularly consecrated; but because Dominick Varlet, who a hundred years ago consecrated the first bishop, 45 was at that time under the censure of tlie pope, the whole see has ever since been declared schismatical, and each successive prelate has regularly received a renewed condemnation from the sovereign Pontiff.* A similar example is recorded by Calvin, in the case of Eugenius and Amadeus. When by the decree of the council of Basil, Eugenius was deposed, degraded, and pronounced guilty of schism, together with all the bishops and cardinals, who had united with him in opposing the council, Calvin says, the succession of the ministry was at this tiaie virtually broken, for, **from the bosom of these heretics and rebels, have proceeded all the popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and priests ever since.^f Be this as it may, how can that ministry be said to have a divine origin, and be kept up in a divine succession, which caii be suspended or annulled at the pleasure of a king, pope, or council? I have thus gone through with a patient examina- tion of the evidence, on which the episcopal church advances its singular pretensions to a divine origin and succession. In the scriptures I have found no- thing, either in the commands of our Saviour, or of the apostles, which can justify any class of men in as- suming to themselves the claim of being the only true church. A similar result has followed from the testimony of the Fathers, and the history of the English reforma- tion. First, it can be indisputably proved from the * See the Pastoral Letter of archbishop Marechal, to the Con- gregation of Norfolk, Virginia, 1819, second edition, Appendix, p. 84. t Institutes; Dedication to the King, p. 25. 7 46 Fathers, that the churches in the primitive ages were not uniformly governed by three orders of ministry; hut frequently by two, aud sometimes by one. Se- condly, bishops were parochial clergymen, in many places at least, and nothing more. Thirdly, ordina- tions were performed by presbyters, especially in the case of Irenseus, and for a long time in the church at Alexandria. Fourthly, no particular account can be given of the origin of the church of Rome, or of its first seven bishops. Fifthly, the power of the Eng- lish clergy is confessedly derived from the king, and not from any church. Sixthly^ the informality of ordination in the English church was such, in the opinion of the Catholics, who are supposed to consti- tute the true church, as to destroy all power, that might be transmitted by the episcopal succession. Seventhly, English bishops were at an early period consecrated by presbyters, and at a much later period, ordination by presbyters was considered valid. Fi- nally, the consecration of archbishop Parker, who was the beginning of the succession since his time, both to English and American bishops, was declared^ and is still considered by the Catholics, invalid, and was at best of a very suspicious and doubtful charac- ter. These are diflBculties in the way of your positions, which it can be no easy matter for the most sanguine friends of episcopacy to remove. Taking the whole train of evidence into consideratiou, the arguments in favour of the jure divino pretensions to episcopacy, when arrayed in all their strength, cannot place it on a firmer basis, than conjecture and possibility. Many contradictions must be reconciled, much positive tes- timony destroyed, and much light brought out of darkness, even before this can be done. Is any one willing to accede to the extraordinary pretensions, which the episcopal church makes, to a divine origin and succession, on grounds so slender and feeble as these? To support such claims, nothing should be consi- dered sufficient, but clear, positive, continued, unan- swerable evidence. This evidence is not found in the Bible, or the practice of the primitive ages; it is not found in history, or the common sense of man- kind; nor do I believe it can be found any where. It has not been my object to show, that the epis- copal mode of church government is not a good one, when allowed to stand on its proper foundation. Whether it is well calculated to promote the great ob- jects of the christian religion, and to make effectual the means of salvation in the hearts and lives of men, is not a question with which I am at present concerned. If it is a goveinment with which the people are pleas- ed, that is enough. They are the only proper judges. It may perhaps be doubted, whether it is so well adapted to the genius and spirit of our civil govern- ment and institutions, as some other form; yet while it does not interfere with these, and while it is allowed to be derived from the people, I can discover no rea- son why any one should complain. It is not the form to which I object, but the pre- tensionSf and the improper injQ^ueuce, which the heads of a church, professing to be vested by their official character with apostolical sanctity, will be likely to have on the weaker and more credulous part of so- ciety. It has been my aim to make it appear, that 48 no iuch pretensions are authorized in the scriptures, or sanctioned hy the practice of the apostolic age. Archdeacon Paley, one of the brightest ornaments of the episcopal church, long ago placed this subject in its true light, in his sermon on the distinction of orders in the church. He proves very clearly, that the apostolic usages and directions do not warrant any exclusive form of ecclesiastical government. He observes, "whilst the precepts of christian morality, and the fundamental articles of its faith, are for the most part precise and absolute, of perpetual, univer- sal, and unalterable obligation; the laws which re- spect the discipline, instruction and government of the community, are delivered in terms so general and indefinite, as to admit of an application adapted to the mutable condition, and varying exigencies of the christian church." The reason for this is very obvious. The chris- tian religion was intended for all countries, and all times; and it was necessary that its external institu- tions should be of so general a nature, as to be adapt- ed to the local circumstances, peculiar situation, and established laws of different communities. It was the endf and not the means, which our Saviour and his apostles had in view. Principles of faith, rules of action, the spirit of the gospel, the temper of love, piety and holiness, were to be established in the minds and hearts of men. How this object could best be effected under different circumstances, was left to the judgment and prudence of good men.* The * It is not a little amusing to see with what raptures the editor of Nelson's work on Festivals and Fasts, speaks of Law'i three let- 4<9 bishop of Lincoln advances similar sentiments.* Al- though he labours to [irove episcopacy to be an apos- tolic institution, he does not consider it of divine ori- gin. As God has prescribed no particular mode of civil government, so he acknowledges, that the com- mands and precepts of the New Testament do not en- join any particular form of ecclesiastical polity. Locke, who was also an episcopalian, uses still stronger language. "A church," says he, "I take to be a society, joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the public worship of God, in such a manner as they shall judge ac- ceptable to him, and efl'ectual to the salvation of their souls.'' After having stated the objection offer- ed by some, that no society can be regarded a true church, unless it have in it a presl)yter or bishop, de- riving his authority from the apostles, he goes on to remark; "to those who make this objection, I answer, let them show me the edict by which Christ has im- posed that law on his church, and let not any man think me impertinent, if in a thing of this consequence, ters to bishop Hoadly. He says they form a conclusive answer to archdeacon Paley, "expose his dangerous errors, detect the fallacy of his arguments, and drive him humbled from the strong holds in which he fancied himself secure!" And in what way is this wonderful achievement attained? By taking for granted the very thing to be proved, namely, that the "christian ministry is a di- vine, positive institution," and that the form of this institution was originally episcopal. Starting with these premises, it re- quires not much skill in logic to infer, that episcopacy is of divine origin, and therefore unchangeable. And this is the amount of Law's argument. * Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 376, et seqq. as quoted by Dr. Rees, Cycl. Art. Jiish. 50 I require that the terras of the edict be very express and positive."'* It will be well for all persons, who believe in the divine institution of any particular order of ministry, and that this order still remains, to search carefully and find such an edict before they are very positive, or begin to seek for arguments from foreign and unauthenticated sources. As no rules are prescribed in the scriptures on this subject, we have reason to think, that all denomi- nations of christians are fully authorised to form such regulations for the government of their churf hes, as they may think best calculated to promote the great interests of religion. While every thing is done "de- cently and in order,'' while they endeavor to imbibe the spirit of the gospel, and acquire the temper, as well as copy the example of the apostles, they will be conforming to the will of God, and the precepts of our Saviour. All the duties requisite for personal holiness, and acceptance with God, are clearly enjoined in the scrip- tures; but nothing is said about the manner in which ministers of the gospel shall be chosen, or the form in which they shall be initiated into their office. We know the apostles, and their immediate successors, were not guided by any uniform rules in this respect, and we have no reasons for supposing, that any such rules were intended to be applied to christians of after ages. There is not a single positive direction in the whole word of God on the subject. Every well or- dered christian community has a right to establish such religious institutions, as may be best suited to * Letters on Toleration. 51 its coiulition. The people of such a community have a right to institute such a form of ecclesiastical go- vernment, and appoint such officers, as they shall deem expedient. The government of the primitive church at Jerusa- lem, was essentially a government of the people. If we are to foUovy^ example, we certainly can have none of higher authority than this. It was a church to which the apostles themselves belonged. If such was the example of the apostles, we cannot be in an error, if we make such our practice. As the church was governed by the people then, why should it not be governed in the same way now? Let the people adopt such a form of government as they choose; but still, let it be understood as resting w ith them, and not be considered as imposed by any pretensions to di- vine authority. If Ihey are pleased with the episco- pal form, let them quietly enjoy it. If they prefer to be governed by associations, assemblies, synods, councils, or consociations, let them have the liberty of making this choice. If they think it more con- sonant to the usages of the first christians, and more consistent with the principles of religious freedom, to unite in separate societies, and form such regulations as are suited to their circumstances, let them not be disturbed, or called schismatics, because they think this a preferable mode. Civil governments, and the conditions of society, will no doubt, in some degree, affect ecclesiastical in- stitutions. The form of church government, which is best in one country, may not always be the best in another; yet in no country, and under no circumstances, can any number of christians justly be prohibited 58 from uniting to worship God after such a form as they think best, provided they do not disturb the peace of society, or encroach on the civil power. All ministers appointed by the consent and appro- bation of the people, whom they are to teach, are re- gularly appointed; all ministers ordained according to such forms, as the people shall think consistent with the general instructions and tenor of the scriptures, and best calculated to give interest and solemnity to the occasion, are regularly ordained And such per- sons have as high a commission to administer the or- dinances of the christian religion, and to discharge all the duties of the ministerial office, as they could receive from any authority residing in the archbishop of Canterbury, or the incumbent of the Holy See at Rome. iLisssiia m Reverend and dear sir, The present letter I shall devote to a consider- ation of some of the ceremonies and forms contained in the ritual of the episcopal church. You profess it to be the principal object of your discourse, to let your hearers* know, *^why they are Protestant Episco- palians," in distinction from other denominations of christians. In discharging this duty, however well you may have succeeded in convincing your hearers of the true grounds of their faith, and of the propriety of the forms which they adopt in religious services, you have passed over many things, which, I am in- clined to think, the public in general, to whom you have submitted your discourse, will not readily un- derstand, or receive, without a further explanation. You have omitted entirely the ritual of the church, which, by many, is thought to contain things not altogether conformable to scripture, or calculated to ensure a holy practice. Good men, and pious chris- tians, have seen in some of the ceremonies of the church a strange leaning to the practices of darker times, when infallibility, papal supremacy, and the 8 decrees of councils, were among the first articles of the believer's creed. They have seen an unaccount- able departure from the simplicity of the gospel, and the usages of the first christians. Two positive ordinances only are enjoined in the scriptures, niimely, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. It is to be observed, that in neither of the-^e, are any particular forms prescribed, in which it is required they shall be administered. We are to baptize with water; to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Christ. We have no other directions. Nothing is said about time, place, or manner. As these ordi- nances were to be perpetual, and were intended for all the followers of Christ, it was necessary they should be such, as could be complied with in every age and country, and in every condition of civil so- ciety. But had any specific forms been* pointed out, there might be circumstances under which they could not be followed. W henever baptism is administer- ed vi^ith water, in the name ol the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and whenever the communion of the Lord's Supper is partaken with sincerity, in remem- brance of Christ, the command of our Saviour will be obeyed, and these ordinances will be valid, what- ever external forms it may be found expedient to adopt in their administration. One of the mysteries in the ritual of the episcopal church, which needs explaining to my understanding, and probably to that of most of your readers, is the form of baptism. In this ceremony, by what authori- ty, except the superstition of the dark ages, is the minister required to make, on the forehead of the per«? sfln baptized, *^the sign of the cross?" This relic of 53 ancient superstition is not sanctioned by a single text of scripture, and wliy should it still be preserved? Bishop Burnet says, in speaking of the origin of this practice, ^*with the use of it, the devil was adjured to go out of the person baptized;" and Lactantius, ^^nor can the devils aj)proach to them, on whom they see this heavenly mark; nor can they hurt those, whom this heavenly sign, as an impregnable fortress, de- fends."* Whether such is the present belief of the church I cannot say, but it is certain, there is nothing in the Bible, which can warrant this singular appendage to the ceremony of baptism, and the only effect, which so unscriptural a practice can produce, is to perpetu- ate error and superstition. Another singular part of this ceremony in the bap. tism of infants, is, that persons, who are not the pa- rents of the child, are allowed, and indeed, by a canon of the English church, such are required to be- come sureties or sponsors for the child. f The Ame- rican convention improved upon this canon, and agreed that '^parents shall be admitted as sponsors, if it be desired." But when there are parents, let it be seriously asked, why should any other persons be allowed to take upon themselves this important charge? * Lact. Instit. lib. iv. c. xxvii. and Peirce's Vindication, p. 157. It was formerly the custom for the priest to exorcise the persons to be baptized, "by laying his hands on their heads, and breathing in their faces, to expel the devil, and inspire them with the Holy Spirit." See Edinb. Encyc. Art. Baptism. t Canon xxix. "No parent shall be admitted to answer as god- father for his own child. ' 56 The niinistei' says to the sponsors, *Hhis infant must faithfully for his part, promise by you that are his sureties, (until he come of age to take it upon himself) that he will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments.'' This is a very serious and solemn engagement on the part of the sponsors; and when circumstances prevent their hav- ing any influence over the child, as must often happen,, how are they to keep it? They are required, also, "to provide that the child may learn the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments." As there is no authority in scripture for this practice, why should the church expose any to the danger of violating en- gagements so solemn as these, or of promising what they cannot perform?* But the part of the ceremony which is the most ex- ceptionable, and which, indeed, cannot but be produc- tive of dangerous consequences, is that in which are declared the nature and objects of the institution. The minister prays, that the child, ^^being delivered from * In the time of the apostles, all persons were baptized as soon as thoy were converted to the christian religion. In the second century, some particular qualifications began to be thought necessary, as a preparation for this ceremony. Persons were then first appointed to give such preparatory instructions as were required; and these persons were called sponsors. This practice does not appear to have extended to infants till the fourth centiirif. About the same time, as nearly as can be ascertained, the sio-n of the cross began first to be employed. See New Edinb. Encyclopsed. vol. iii. p. 236. It appears, therefore, that for a long time, it was tlie duty of sponsors to prepare persons for baptism, and not for confirma- tion. 57 the wrath of God, may be received into the ark of Christ's church," and that he ^'may receive remission of sin by spiritual regeneration.^^ From these ex- pressions it seems, that before baptism, the church considers all infants under the wrath of God, and guilty of sin, although they have never done a single action with the consciousness of an evil intention. It is furthermore implied, that the mere ceremony of baptism takes away the guilt of sin, and appeases the wrath of God. After the ceremony is performed with water and the sign of the cross, the minister says, ^Hhis child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church." The same expressions are used in baptiz- ing persons advanced to maturer age. The above quotations are from the Book of Com- mon Prayer, authorized by the American convention. The following is contained in the English prayer book, but was omitted by the convention. In the ser- vice of private baptism, after the baptismal words are pronounced, the minister is made to say, "this child being born in original sin. and in the icrafh of God^ is now by the laver of regeneration in baptism, re- ceived into the number of the children of God, and heirs of eternal life." Why this was left out of the American prayer book we are not told. The language is a little stronger, than is used in either parts of the baptismal service, but the sentiments ar& precisely the same. It is the doctrine of the episcopal church, there- fore, that the simple act of baptism washes away all former sins, restores the persons baptized to the favour of God, and makes them heirs of salvation. 58 This is clearly stateJ in the twenty-seventh article^ which says, "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, anri mark of dift'erence, wiierehy christian men are discerned from others that he not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneratiov, or new births whereby, as by an instrum«MU, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of the for- giveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, are visibly signed and sealed " In the cate- chism, which is to be repeated by every child before confirmation, baptism is said to be ^'a death unto sirif and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by na- ture born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace." The bishop of Lincoln has written a chapter to prove, that "the words regeneration, and born again, are in scripture applied to the one immediate ejfect of baptism once administered, and are never used as synonymous to repentance or reformation of a christian."* He says further, that such is the doctrine of the "Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies." It is scarcely necessary to remark on this doctrine. Every one must see its dangerous tendency. No- thing is said about the sincerity, the moral character, or religions intentions of the person baptized. He may be a hypocrite, he may be wicked and abandon- ed, without any actual change of heart, or any desire to change, and yet the ceremony will be equally ef- fectual in taking away the guilt of sin, and making him heir to the promises of eternal life. Hence, a man, who has lived to an old age, in every excess of wick- * Refutation of Calvinism, seventh edition, p. 87. 59 edness, and has never been baptized, may obtain a a pardon of all his past sins, and secure the reward of salvation, by having the ceremony of baptism per- formed in his dying moments. What other tendency can such a doctrine have, than to encourage men in wickedness, and to deceive them with false hopes?* It was no doubt this doctrine of the church, which led Mr. Dodwell to the very strange positions, that he has advanced in his Kpistulary Discourses. He maintained that the soul is naturally mortal, but is immortalized by its union with the divine baptismal spirit; and that ''none, since the apostles, have the power of conferring this immortalizing spirit, except^ ing only the bishops." * The case of Constantine the Great is a memorable one. AI- thous^h he made pretensions to much warmth of zeal in the cause of Christianity, he delayed baptism till a short time before his death. After a life stained with wickedness and murder, and du- ring the time ofan alarming sickness, he resorted to the ceremony of baptism, as an expiation of all his sins, and a full preparation for heaven. This example was often followed. Many persons thought it prudent not to hasten a ceremony, which had the power of washing out the stains of former guilt, but which could not be repeated. It was the opinion of Chrysostom, that baptism took away the guilt of all passed transgressions, but did not secure the person against future sin. "Car bien que ce sacrement emporte les crimes passes, la source de ces crimes n'est point tarie." "Le bapteme lave le pechcj mais etouffez, s'il se peut, dans votre ame I'inclination au nial." Les Homel. des Chrysost. Trad, par Maucroix, Paris, 1671, p. 3S3, 334. This agrees very nearly with the opinion of the church, as ex- pressed in the Book of Common Prayer. 60 It must he acknowledged, that the entire form of baptism, as practised in the episcopal church, is a wide departure from the simplicity of the gospel. No particular form is there prescribed. Nothing is said about sponsors, or the sign of the cross; "renouncing the devil and all his works," or learning a creed. Why then should we darken and encumber this cere- mony with these unscriptural additions? And above all, nothing is said, from which it is safe for us to infer, that the mere ceremony of baptism will wash away our sins, and purify our natures. We are there told, that the conditions of salvation are faith, repent- ance, and a good life. Some persons, aware of the consequence of this doctrine as received by the church, have endeavoured to modify it, and have reminded us, that the contem- plated effects will follow only on condition of the baptism being "rightly received." But no such con- ditions are mentioned in the baptismal service. The persons to whom baptism is administered are never told, that it will be ineffectual if they do not receive it rightly. They are made to understand by positive declarations, that they are "regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church." Infants, in parti- cular, have no volition in this ceremony. Whenever they receive baptism, they cannot but receive it right- ly; and if the effects above mentioned are not always supposed to follow, the words in which they are ex- pressed are unmeaning, and should not be used. But the truth is, it is evident from the article in which this condition is found, that it does not refer to the disposition, or spiritual state of the person baptiz- ed, but to the manner in which the ceremony is per- t5l fi)i'med. To receive baptism lii^htly, is to leceive it at the hands of a proper person, and according to the established forms of the church. The consequences of this ordinance, as it is required to be practised in the baptismal service, will not therefore, in any sense be done away by this clause in the twenty-seventh article.* Another ceremony in the episcopal church, and on6 which has no direct scriptural authority, is conjivma- tion. All persons, who have been baptized when infants, are required, after they have learnt the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments, t) be brought before the bishop, and to be confirmed^ before they can partake of the communion of the Lord's Supper. Did our Saviour make any such conditions, when he instituted this rite? Where does he say, it is necessary for any to be confirmed by a bishop be- * The (loctiiiie and form of baptism are taken almost literally from the Romish church. The idea, that this ceremony washed away original sin, was early conceived, and has long been an es- tablished doctrine in the church of Rome. In a catechism published by the bishop of Meaux for his diocess, the following are said to be the effects of" baptism. "It frees the person baptized from original sin, and from the other sins, which he may have conwnitted after his birth; — it takes away the sin, which we brought with us into the world, and ;;,ives us a new life." The person to be baptized is made to "renounce the devil, and all his pomps, and all his works." (Ne renoncez-vous pas au diable, et a. toutes ses pompes, et a toutes ses oeuvres? On repond;j'y re- nonce.) Oeuvres de Bossuet, Versailles, 1815, Tom. vi. p. 39. From these quotations it will be seen, that there is no essen- tial difference, in regard to the nature and form of this ceremony, between the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the church of Rome. 63 fore they can become his disciples, and be made par- takers of this privilege. Moreover, this ceremony of confirmation is exceed- ingly exceptionable in itself. In a prayer on this oc- casion, the bishop says, "we make our humble sup- plications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom, after the example of the holy apostles, we have now laid our hands, to certify them, hy this sign, of thy favour and gracious g)oduess towards them." From this it would appear, tliat bishops are to be considered as communicating the same powers, and conferring the same blessings, as did the apostles. la fact, it is making them in this respect, equal to the apostles. We have already seen, that by the ceremo- ny of baptism, they are supposed to have the power of procuring a remission of sins; and here we are told, that by laying their hands on the heads of certain persons, they give a sure sign of these same persons receiving the special grace of God. Do bishops, indeed, imagine themselves to be not only spiritual descendants of the apostles, but endow- ed with the same powers? Let them give some of the evidences, which the apostles gave, of these wonder- ful endowments. Let them heal the sick, perform miracles, speak in various tongues, and confer these gifts on others. When they have done this, I have no doubt, all will acknowledge the reality of their high and extraordinary pretensions, and yield to their au- thority. Until they give some such evidence, they cannot be surprised, that many should reject the va- lidity of their claims, and choose to consult and obey the scriptures, rather than be guided by human forms. 63 which have no other sanction, than the authority of men. Whenever laying on of hands is mentioned in the New Testament, it always implies either a communi- cation of extraordinary gifts, or an initiation into some office. When Peter and John "laid their hands on the Samaritan converts, they received the Holy Spirit."' Acts viii. 17. When the apostles laid their hands on the seven persons, who were appointed to aid in taking care of the poor, cActs vi. 6.) there is no reason to suppose it was any thing more, than a form of induction into office. Nothing is said of their receiving spiritual gijts; nor did the duties of their office require any. Paul writes to Timothy thus, "neglect not the gift, that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, ■with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv. 14*. In this case, the laying on of hands seems to have been a form, by which Timothy was introduced into the ministry, as well as a means of conferring some spiritual gift. As those, who are in- tended for confirmation, are not designed to be intro- duced into any office, if this ceremony means any thing, it must imply a communication of extraordina- ry gifts from the bishop. But no bishop has ever yet made it appear, that he possessed any such gifts himself. How then can he communicate them to others?* *The ceremony of confirmation is taken, without much altera- tion, from the church of Ron»e. It is there required to be per- formed by a bishop, and is said to confer the gift of the holtj spirit, and strengthen the grace, which was received at baptism. The bishop '-places his hands on the persons, whom he is about to 64 Similar remarks may he made on the ordination service of the episcopal church. It implies a power in the hishop of conferrini;; the holy spirit. In one part of the service the hishop says, ^'come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire/' and when he has laid his hands on the head of the person to be ordained a prie.st, he says, ^'receive the Holy Ghost for the office, and work of a priest hi the church of God, now com- mitted unto thee by the imposition of oiir hands;— whose sins thou dost fori^ive, they are forgiven: and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained " This is going many steps farther, than in the cere- mony of confirmation. The bishop not only pretends to communicate the holy spirit, but also the power of forgiving sins, **Whose sins thou dost forgive they confirm, and invokes the holy spirit to descend upon them with its gifts." The Protestant Episcopal Church has omitted the "holy chrism," which the catholics think a very important part of the ceremony. This is a mixture of oil and balm, with which the bishop makes a cross on the forehead of the person confirmed, and is intended "to show, that no one ou£;ht to be ashamed of Christ." Catechisme de Bossuet, Oeuv. Tom. vi. p. 40; et Exposition de la Doctrine de L'Eglise Catholitiue, Oeuv. Tom. xviii. p. 104. The sign of the cross was at first adopted by the English church, according to Burnet, in the "ceremony of confirmation, and in the consecration of the sacramental elements," but it was afterwards suppressed; "Nor can 1 devise," says Bossuet, "why it was retained only in baptism." Hist, des Var. liv. vii. § 90. In speaking of this ceremony. Cave observes, it was "usually performed with unction, the person confirmed being anointed by the bishop, or in his absence by an inferior minif^ter.''^ Cave's Primit. Christianity, chap. x. p. 208, seventh edition, London, 1714. From this account it appears, that confirmation was sometimes performed in ancient times by the inferior clergy, and with unc- tion, neither of which is at present allowed in the Protestant Epis,- ropkl Church. 65 are forgiven.'^ Can there be a hi;i;lier stretch of hu- man presumption? It is assuming the character and authority of our Saviour. He empowered his apos- tles to forgive sins. Do bishops, indeed, think tliera- selves, in their official capacity, not only equal to the apostles, but to the Siviour of tlie world? Where will this end? Every minister of the episcopal church, who believes there is any meaning in the forms of ordination, must think he possesses the power of forgiving sins. No matter what his character may be, lie possesses this power by virtue of his office. This is expressly acknowledged by Nelson, in his Chap- ter on the Festival of Whitsunday. ^'Though all men," says he, "that are in holy offices ought to lead holy lives, yet a failure in duty is not a forfeiture of authority.^^* What doctrine could more effectually promote a spirit of pride and presumption in the min- ister, and immorality in the people? The wicked man has only to resort to his minister to soothe the achings of a guilty conscience, and receive the as- surance of divine forgiveness. It is well, that people of the present day have too much good sense, and too little credulity, to be deceived into so dangerous an error; but it would be better if such forms as are cal- culated to deceive, and have an immoral tendency, were abolished. In the English Book of Common Prayer, the min- ister is required, when he visits sick persons, to ab- solve them from their sins, "if they humbly and hear- tily desire it." After imploring the Lord Jesus to forgive the offences of the sick person, the minister * Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, New York, ISIT", p. 213. 66 is directed to say, ^'by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This form of absolution was omitted by the American convention. But it is not easy to tell the reason; for if a bishop can empower a minister to forgive sins, the same minister can certainly exercise this power for the benefit of sick persons, as well as others. All that part of the Book of Common Prayer, which relates to baptism, confirmation, ordination, consecration, and visiting the sick, carries with it the supposition, that bishops have the power of commu- nicating the holy spirit, and ministers of forgiving sins, which few persons of the present day, who read the scriptures, consult their understandings, or re- spect the principles of common sense, will be ready to allow. I have dwelt the longer on these topics, as they have an intimate connexion with the subject of the preceding letter. The unscriptural parts of these ce- remonies have evidently grown out of the notion of the apostolical cliaracter of the ministry. They af- ford a comment on that doctrine, which is well worthy of notice. As the ministers descended from the apos- tles, it is taken for granted, that they possess the same qualifications; and the rules of their office seem to have been formed on this supposition. When it is recollected by what a precarious tenure the episcopal clergy hold their claims to the apostolical dignity, it will be seen how singularly inappropriate and pre- suming are many parts of the ceremonies, w hich have just been considered. That such errors should have crept into the church iu the days of ignorance and 67 darkness is not so wonderful; but that men should still be found in an enlightened and free community, who defend and cling to them, is not less unaccount- able than surprising. Your remarks on the expediency and utility of forms of prayer are not without weight. If we ever give utterance to our feelings in chaste, appropriate, and solemn language, it should be in our addresses to the Deity. If we ever suppress the vain ambition of using lofty phrases, high sounding epithets, and an unnecessary abundance of words, it should be then. We cannot study too much to make our language simple, plain, forcible, and direct. In those reli- gious exercises, in which large numbers unite, and where the prayers are intended to express the wants, and petitions of the whole, there can certainly be no impropriety in using a preconceived form, composed in such general terras, as to be adapted to a promis- cuous assembly. No prayer in a public assembly is appropriate, unless every individual present can unite in every part. It may sometimes happen, that the feelings of the speaker, and his want of aptness in ar- ranging and combining his thoughts, may lead him into irrelevant expressions, and such as are not adapted to the occasion. This is the only inconvenience, that can arise from extemporaneous prayers; and, to pre- vent this, it may be expedient sometimes to have stu- died forms. It should be remembered, however, that forms in religion are useful, as far as they promote a virtuous conduct, and vital godliness; but beyond this they are injurious. It is rightful and good to have order and system in our religious institutions and services. But 68 we must take care not to neglect the reality for the form, the substance for the shadow. There is dan- ger, that by treading in the same steps from day to day, we sliall at length persuade ourselves, that we walk in the only true path. We must be careful not to let the feeling grow upon us, that when we perform a ceremony, we necessarily do a religious act. Reading a prayer is not always praying, any more than the simple act of spending two hours in a church is religious worship. If the soul be not drawn out to God, and impressed with a consciousness of his pre- sence; if the heart and affections be not warm with a lively sense of his goodness: if all the faculties be not humbled with a feeling of reverence and submission, there is no devotion, however much ceremony there may be in standing and sitting, repeating forms, read- ing, or chanting. And the sincere, humble, penitent soul, can offer up praise and thanksgiving to God, ac- knowledge his dominion, implore his mercy, and render him an acceptable service at all times, and in all places, in such terms, as the overflowings of a de- votional spirit may dictate. The scriptures have not informed us what precise acts shall be considered worship. Tliey have assured us, that sincere wor- ship must spring from the heart, but they have pre- scribed no particular mode in which we shall express our emotions of gratitude, thanksgivings, praise, de- pendence, and submission. This is left to the dis- cretion of every ciiristian. It is only demanded of us, that we be sincere. Is it not a principal object of prayer to express de- votional feelings? And what is devotion without fer- vour, earnestness, and an impressive sense of the pre- 69 sence and inspection of God? Is it not much better, that we should have the life, the spirit of prayer, than the form? God looks into the heart, and regards the sentiments we cherish there, and not the modes we use in disclosing them. These modes should be such, as to enable us to retain the most lively emotions of a pious and holy temper, at the same time we use our best endeavours to offer up our devotions in appro- priate and expressive language. To speak words without feeling their full force, or being warmed by the sentiments they convey, is not devotion. Prayers repeated every sabbath from year to year in the same / church, must, in the nature of things, lose much of their interest. Habit will diminish the irksomeness of re- petition, but it is to be feared, the words will too often pass through the mind, while the thoughts are wan- dering. There is another objection, which lies heavily against most forms of prayer, and from which the Li- turgy of the church, with all its acknowledged excel- lencies in many respects, is by no means free. No address should ever be publicly made to the Deity, in which every christian, of every denomination, can- not cordially and devoutly join. It is not an occasion which should be employed to introduce dogmatical theology, or abstruse metaphysical distinctions. All the worshippers of God should assemble before him, "in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace." Names should be done away, and the distinguishing tenets of sects should be forgotten. Is this true of all the prayers of the episcopal church, and especially of the Litany? Are there not many conscientious and devout christians, whose minds revolt at the kind of worship 10 70 there rendered, when they recollect the command of our Saviour, ^Hhou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve?'' This ohjection, which arises from the Iiahit of conforming prayers to the views of a sect, bears equally strong against extemporaneous prayers, which partake of this character. An important dilFerence is, that when forms become established, and are often repeated in churches, they are likely to produce more extensive injury to the cause of truth and piety. When you say, that ''with respect to social wor- ship of every description, the doctrine and practice of the church universal are decidedly in favour of pre- conceived forms,*' and speak of the ''lawfulness of forms being established by divine appointment ^^^ I hardly know how to understand you. If, by the "church universal," you mean all the churches of Christ, your statement is of course incorrect, because a great portion of them do not use set forms. If you mean those churches only, which hold to three orders in the ministry, I know not why you call them the "church universal." Or is it to be understood, that you consider all those denominations of christians, who do not adopt this mode of government, as being without the pale of the church? To prove forms of prayer to have been ^'establish- ed by divine appointment,'' you quote the general practice of singing psalms and hymns in churches, and say, "the Book of Psalms, was inspired by the Holy Ghost for the use of the congregration." This may be true, but it affords no proof in regard to forms of prayers. Did our Saviour use a form in the gar- den of Gethsemane, or the apostles in their public or 7i private devotions? There is no evidence of such a fact; and if forms of prayer are to be defended on any ground, it must be that of utility and expediency, and not of divine authority. While we pray from the lieart, and lift up our souls to God in spirit and truth^ our prayers will be heard, in whatever words they be expressed, or in whatever forms they may be of- fered. I cannot forbear saying a word on another topic, which you connect with the part of your discourse, which I am now considering. 1 mean the privilege of women to associate for religious exercises. In speaking of this subject, you were certainly betrayed into a warmth, which is not quite in accordance with the mild and equable spirit discoverable in almost every other part of your sermon. These are your words. ''My brethren, when I con- sider that our God and Saviour has appointed a min- istry especially to serve in religious assemblies; that this ministry exists in every church in this city; — when I mark the retiring, the humble, the docile traits of character, which the sacred writings attribute to christian women; when I read the words of St. Paul to a church he had himself planted, 'let your wo- men keep silence in churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church;' — when I consider these, and other express declarations to the same eflfect, I cannot hesitate about the inexpediency of those meetings, in which females meet together, not to use the authoriz- ed prayers of the church, but publicly to utter their own extempore eflfusious. The spirit of the church institutions, prescribing and providing a preconceived 7S form, frowns vpnii them. The language of St. Paul seems explici-ly to discountenaiice them." p. 3i. This language you must allow is very warm. Sup- posing there were reasons why the apostle sliould write as lie did, respecting the Corinthian women; does it follow that the s.\me reasons exist at the pre sent day, and in a totally diiferent state of society? Besides, if women were never to speak in religious assemblies, even in those times, w hy did St. Paul, in the same epistle from which you have quoted the above text, intimate that *'they should not pray or prophecy with their heads uncovered." This text is a proof, that women were not excluded from speak- ing. Mr. Locke explains this subject much more favour, ably and consistently, than the learned authors whom you have quoted.* He considers the directions of the apostle to have reference to order in public assem- blies. To prevent disturbance and confusion, the women were required to yield precedence to the men, and not to speak while they were speaking. Some disorders, it would seem, had arisen by not having this point settled. This construction is rendered in the highest degree probable, by the manner in which the apostle speaks in the context. He first says, ^"God is not the author of confusion, but of peace," and after giving the directions about women's speaking, he concludes, "let all things be done decently and in order." 1 Cor. xiv. 40. It is evident, therefore, that the apostle did not intend to prohibit women from taking an active part in religious exercises on proper occasions. And even if the contrary were proved, it * See Locke's Notes on 1 Cor. c. xi.v. 5. 73 would not follow from any just principles of reason- ing, that the same prohibition was to be extended to women of all ages of the world. Where there are stated periods of public worship, and a regular ministry, I allow it would be more likely to promote the good order of society, and the happiness of individuals, if all christians could think they have done their duty, when they have punctually and conscientiously conformed to established usages, than it would to neglect the necessary and important avocations of life to assemble at irregular times for reli- gious worship. Yet our religion is a religion of free- dom. All persons have a right to worship God in such a way, and at such times as their feelings and consciences dictate. If we have a natural right, this is one. It does not depend on any compact, civil obli- gations, or the sanction of laws. Women have their peculiar sphere, as well as men, in which custom and the rules of society have placed them; but these do not interfere with their religious privileges. These have no power, and ought to have none, to control the con- 6 ience, or restrain devotion. 1 would not have women , officiate publicly in churches, because it would be vio- lating custom and introducing confusion, and not be- cause it would be contrary to any laws of nature or re- ligion. In this respect the sexes are on an equality. Whatever is a natural or religious right to one, is so to the other. It is hard indeed, if women cannot be allowed the privilege of exercising this right, and as- sembling together when they choose in a becoming, orderly, and peaceable manner, to offer up their devo- tions, and encourage one another in their christian course, by a rational interchange of pious sentiments, 74 and sincere endeavours to serve God. "Why should they be deprived of the advantages and delights of social worship? No one will deny, that they are ca- pable of feeling and estinialing these advantages, and even in a much higher degree, than the other sex. You censure them for not using "the authorized prayers of the church'' on such occasions. But is this reasonahle? How many are there who think it their duty not to use forms of prayer? How many, to whose spiritual condition none of the church prayers are applicable? Would you have such persons violate what they consider their duty, because the "spirit of the church institutions /roM'7?s itpo?? f/tem," and forego the propriety, as well as comfort, of addressing their Maker in the genuine language of the heart? And is not a woman as capable of expressing this language, as a man? In making these remarks, I am very far from wish- ing to defend any irregularities or improprieties in the mode of religious worship. I only wish to state, that "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" that it is the sincere, and not the formal worshipper, with whom God is pleased; and that no individual of either sex, can justly be restrained from a free and rational exercise of every privilege, which is derived from the laws of nature and of religion. I hope you will pardon me for introducing here a short extract from a sermon of one of the most elo- quent preachers, enlightened men, and pious chris- tians, whom this or any other age has known. The subject of the discourse is, "The influence of the gos- pel on the character and condition of the female sex." The passage, which I am about to select, has refer- 7.5 ence to the teatlency of the female mind to religious sensibility, and its proneness to receive religious im- pressions. After speaking of the tenderness with which our Saviour always treated women, and of their devotedness to him, even after he had been for- saken by his disciples and all his friends — of their fol- lowing him to the cross and watching at his sepul- chre — the preacher addresses the female part of his audience in the following words. "It is iniinitely honourable to your character, that you ever feel a secret sympathy with a religion, which unlocks all the sources of benevolent affection, which smiles on every exercise of compassion, and every act of kindness. We may say too, perhaps, that your hearts, not hardened by the possession of power, the pains of avarice, or the emulations of public life, are more alive to the accents of pardon by Jesus Christ, more awake to the glories of the invisible world. The gospel came to throw a charm over do- mestic life; and, in retirement, the first objects which it found, were mothers and their children. It came to bind up the broken hearted; and for that office wo- man was always best prepared. It came to heal the sick; and woman was already waiting at their couches. It came to open the gates of life on the languid eye of the dying penitent, and woman was every where to be seen, softly tending at the pillow, and closing the eyes of the departing. "With this superior susceptibility of religious im- pression, and aptitude to the practical duties of the gospel, I know, there are evils associated, against which it is sometimes difficult to guard. Sensibility degenerates into weakness; and religious awe into su- 76 perstition, in your sex, oftener, perhaps, than in ours; yet, with all these dangers and inconveniences, I be- lieve, that if Christianity should be compelled to flee from the mansions of the great, the academies of the philosophers, the halls of the legislators, or the throng of busy men, we should find her last and purest re- treat with woman at the fireside; her last altar would be the female heart; her last audience would be the children gathered round the knees of a mother; her sacrifice, the secret prayer escaping in silence from her lips, and heard, perhaps, only at the throne of God."* I will conclude this letter with one or two observa- tions on the Festivals and Fasts of the episcopal church. In Nelson's book on this subject, it is said, "these are of ecclesiastical institution, and conson- ant to the practice of the primitive church. "f In the same book are enumerated, besides the sabbath, forty-seven days of public worship, to which are at- tached the names of saints, angels, and other titles of no very obvious import. Let me ask what authority there is in the Bible for commemorating saints and angels, and especially for incorporating forms of such a commemoration into a church service, and connecting them with the wor- ship of God? You can find neither precept nor ex- ample in the word of God, in which the vestige of such a practice appears. What is meant by its being an "ecclesiastical institution?" It originated in the strong inclination of the Gentile converts to adopt the * Buckminster's Sermons, first edition, p. 388. t Festivals ancL Fasts, p. 63. "ill forms of christian worship to tlic rites and ceremo- nies, to which they had been accustomed when hea- Uiens. Saints and martyrs were substituted for hea> then gods. This has been fully sliowu by Caasobon, Whiston, and especially Mr. Mede, in his "Aposta- cy of the Latter Times." He cites a striking pas- sage from Theodoret. "Our Lord God hath brought his dead (martyrs) into the room and place of your gods, whom he hath sent off, and given tlieir honour to his martyrs. For instead of the feasts of Jupiter and Bacchus, are now celebrated the festivals of Peter and Paul, and Thomas, and Sergius, and other holy martyrs."* Since this is the origin of these festivals, it would seem the duty of the churcli rather to abolish, than perpetuate them. There is no evidence in history of any saints' days being observed, till after the se- cond century; and yet we are told "this institution is consonant to the practice of the primitive churcht^^ Such broad assertions without proof will satisfy those, and those only, who think credulity a christian virtue; free inquiry, a crime; and submission to the authority of the church, a compliance with a divine command. f I have thus pointed out some of the particulars in the forms of the episcopal church, which distinguish * See Peirce's Vindication, Part Third, c. xi. t The celebration of saints' days is taken entirely from the church of Rome. In speaking of Burnet's account of the views of the church of England on this subject. Bossuet observes, "he every where, and in all things, justifies us; and they, who object to us that we follow the commandments of men, may bring the same objection against the English church. This chiirch will vindicate us." Hist. des Var. liv. vii. S 9t. 11 78 it IVom most other Protestant churches, and some of which I do not find warranted in scripture. It would have been gratifying to see these explained and vin- dicated in your discourse. It will be a difficult thing for any of your readers to tell why they are "Protes- tant Episcopal Churchmen," till they can see remov- ed the formidable objections, which rest against these parts of the church service, and be convinced from clear evidence, that the whole is built on the simple truths of the gospel. iLss^iaia aait^ Reverend and dear sir, I PROPOSE next to consider that part of the twentieth article, which asserts, that ^Hhe church hath authority in controversies of faith.^^ This you pass over entirely; yet, if I am not mistaken, there is no one thing in which the episcopal church differs more essentially from Protestant churches in general. Few churches, I believe, assume, as a fundamental doc- trine, the right and authority of deciding in matters of faith. Some of your readers, I am sure, would have thanked you, if you had have told them, whence the church derives this authority. To the present episco- pal church it must have been communicated by the ^^archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy,'' assembled in convocation in the reign of king Edward the Sixth. But from whom did they receive this unusual power? From the king and parliament on the one hand, and the church of Rome on the other. AVhat authority had the king and parliament over the faith, and conscience, and spiritual concerns of men? None at all. What au- 80 tliority had the church of Rome? One of the articles framed by this same ''convocation'' declares, "the church of Rome hath erred, not only in her living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." You would not be willing to allow, that any authority to decide in controversies of faith could be derived from a church, which had already departed from the faith, and which you say, in your discourse, had adopted "ceremonies and doctrines neither taught in scripture, nor consistent with its purity." Although you have attempted to prove, that the true order of the ministry descended through this church, which had so far receded from the scriptures, you will scarcely speak with equal confidence concerning rules of faith. The episcopal church has derived no au- thority, then, either from kings, parliaments, or any civil institutions, or from any other church. Let us go to the scriptures. Where has our Sa- viour, or his apostles, given authority to any man, or any number of men, to prescribe articles of belief, and judge men for their opinions? Why should it have been a command of our Lord to "search the scrip- tures," to "hear and understand," if others are to search and understand for us? If he intended the task of examining, thinking, deciding, and judging, should be confined to a few favoured persons, who should fix on themselves the name of the church, why has he given no intimations of such an intention? This would have secured much peace and comfort to many anx- ious inquirers, who have thought it their duty to search with prayerful earnestness for the true meaning of the scriptures, and to adopt from knowledge and convic- tion the principles of their faith. 81 All doubts and anxieties on this sulrject might thus be easily removed; for as soon as it were believed, that the church has authority to fix the true meaniui^ of scripture, nothiui; would remain but to "believe as the church believes.-' Instead of searching the scrip, tures, it would only be necessary to search the arti- cles and creeds. The Bible might be laid aside; for why should it be read, if all its important truths caa be found in a much smaller compass? But our Saviour has given no authority to any man, or to any church, to decide on the meaning of scrip- ture, and impose their decisions on the conscience and understanding of others. Wherever such an author- ity is set up, it is assumed; and wherever it attempts to enforce its decrees, or influence, either directly or indirectly, the opinions of others, it makes an un- warrantable encroachment on the freedom of chris- tians. For what reason did our Saviour, with great earnestness, ask the question, "why even of your- selves judge ye not what is right," if we are to re- sign the exercise of our judgment, and rely on the authority of the church? I know it has been maintained by many episcopa- lians, who are unwilling to admit the construction, which this article naturally bears, that it is not to be understood as it is written. They would not have it mean any thing, except when compared with another part of the same article, which says, *'it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing, that is contrary to God's word written.'' From this it is argued, that although the church has authority in controversies of faith, yet it cannot impose any thing, which is not contained in the scriptures. But it is important to inquire, who is to be the judge in this case? The church has been care- ful to settle this point. What is it to ^^have authority in controversies of faith," but to liave authority to de'^ terniiue what is the true faith? The amount of the whole, then, is this; — the church is not to impose any articles of faith, which are contrary to the word of God; but the church is to determine what is, and what is not, contrary to the word of God. On any occa- sion of controversy, there can be only two parties, of which the church is one. They both appeal to the scriptures, and the church assumes the authority of deciding what the scriptures mean; and thus becomes a judge in its own cause. If this were not obvious from tlie nature of the thing, it is abundantly proved by direct evidence con- tained in the articles and canons of the church. In the eighth article the church affirms, that "the J\ricene creed, and that which is commonly called the apos- tles^ creed, ought thoroughly to be received and be- lieved; for they may be proved by most certain war- rants of holy scripture.^' Now there are some things in one of these creeds especially, which, so far from being proved by ^'certain warrants of scripture,'* many christians think are directly contrary to scrip- ture, and subversive of its simplest and purest doc- trines. Yet the church has passed its judgment, and by this all its members must abide. If you will examine the decisions of the church in all controversies of faith, both with the Catholics and Puritans, I believe you will find it has always enforced the doctrines of its articles and creeds, not- withstanding the saving clause in the twentieth arti- 83 cle, that ^'it is not lawful to ordain any thing contra- ry to God's word written." The spirit of this doctrine, respecting authority in matters of faith, is clearly illustrated in the canons of the English church. The candidate for ordination, among other things, is required to subscribe to the following words, namely, *'that the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of bishops, priests, and dea- cons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God; and that he acknowledgeth all and every the articles therein contained, to be agreeable to the word of God."^ After this acknowledgment, it is hardly necessary to inquire what will be his deci- sions respecting the import of the word of God in any controversies of faith. The American form differs a little from this in words, but not in substance. By the tenth article of the Ecclesiastical Constitution, the candidate makes the following engagement; "1 do solemnly engage to con- form to the doctrines and ivorship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States.'' From these terms of subscription, it appears, that ministers at the time of ordination, not only profess a present belief in the doctrines of the church, but "so- lemnly engage to conform^^ to these doctrines. In case of any controversy on these subjects, therefore, they must either violate their solemn engagement, or decide in favour of the standing dijctrines of the church, whatever may be the actual sense of scrip- ture. It is in effect making the articles the criterion, by which the scriptures are to be explained. If a doubt can longer remain, as to what is meant by the church; when it professes to have authority 84 in controversies of faith, it will be removed by recur- ring to those canons of the English church, which re- late to excommunication. According to the fifth canon, ^'Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that any of the nine and thirty articles agreed upon— ^br avoid- ing diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent, touching true religion, are in any sort su- perstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto; let him be excom- municated ipso facto." I do not say, that the American church is so severe in its denunciations of those, who, after tliey have joined the church, may be so unfortunate as to change their opinions in regard to some of the articles; yet so far as relates to the point in question, there is no dif- ference. This is evident from the eighth article, and the form of subscription above quoted; and also from what is stated in another place, namely, that in the judgment of the church, "there be not any thing in the Liturgy contrary to the word of God, or to sound doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a good conscience subscribe uvto.^' It is not necessary to seek any further to know, in what sense the church considers itself to have authority in controversies of faith.* * The following extracts from Daubney's Guide to the Church, will serve furtiier to illustrate this subject. Daubney's work is written with much good temper and apparent candour, and I be- lieve is of high authority in the church. It is among those books, which were recommended by the "house of bishops in the conven- tion of 1804," to students in theology. The author says, "Ever since the era of the reformation, the church of England has been considered to be the firmest bulwark 85 If we must have some creed, or fixed formulary of belief, distinct from the plain letter of scripture, be- fore we can have a regular church, it is worth while to inquire from what source it is to be obtained. If we are to rely on authority, how are we to determine what shall be that authority? Shall it be some par- ticular person in whose intelligence, honesty, and judgment we place unlimited confidence? But this person depended on a third, and this third on a fourth. Where shall we stop? Shall we go back to ecclesiastical assemblies, synods, and councils? But of Protestantism, So far as the dissenter agrees with her in protest- ing against the errors of the Romish church, so far he may be said to be at unity with her; but when that right, which justifies the dis- sension, in common with the church of England, in separating from a corrupt branch of the christian church, is extended to jus- tify his separation from a branch of the church confessedly not in the same state of corruption, and of whose members, no unlawful terms of communion are required; and to authorize his setting up a church of his own, independent of episcopal government, — the dissenter quits the ground of Protestanism, and places himself upon that of schism; and in such case he becomes a scliismatic^ grafted upon a Protestant." p. 134. We see from this account, in what estimation the Protestant Episcopal Church holds itself, and what judgment it passes on those, who dissent. What are those unfortunate christians to do, who find many corruptions even in this "branch of the church," and many "unlawful terms of communion," with which they cannot conscientiously comply? Are they to put conscience, the sense of duty, and religious principle, out of the question? Or sliall they retain these, and run the fearful hazard of being branded by the church with the charitable name of schismatics. But this advocate for the ciiurch has not the most profound re- spect for the freedom of conscience, or the right of private judg- ment. He tells us, that "the idea, which has for some time pre- vailed, that christian liberty gives every man a right to worship 13 86 these all differed one from the other. One revoked, altered, or annulled what another had decreed. What articles of faith, among the multitude of contradictory ones, which have been sent out under the authority of great names, shall we adopt.* Shall we take a creed of the third, tenth, or eighteenth century? Until tliis point shall be settled by some fair course of reasoning, had we not best be contented to receive our faith from the Bible? Why should we have a greater fondness for wandering away after the doc- trines and speculations of men, than for consulting and confiding in the words of Jesus Christ and his apostles? What more do we want? Can we go to a purer source? If the systems of faith, which men have drawn up, contain any thing more or less than the scriptures, they will deceive and mislead us; if they contain precisely what the scriptures contain, we do not need them. God in his own way, appears to have been admitted'tf if/touf suf- Jicient examination^'^ p. 116. And again; "we do not scruple to aftirm, that every man is not qualified to form a judgment for him- self in religiotis matters." p. 138. From these extracts it is perceived, that the ground, virhich this writer takes, is in perfect accordance with the views given above of the doctrine of the church, in regard to its authority in matters of faith. If he is to be considered a faithful interpreter, all men who separate are accounted schismatics in the estimation of the church; they are incapable of judging for themselves; and have no right to worship God "in their own way," whatever may be the dic- tates of their understanding, or conscience. * In the second part of King's Constitutions of the Primitive Church, may be seen no less than twelve diSerent creeds, which were in use before the end of the third century. S7 Oil this subject, Chillingworth has some excellent remarks in his controversy with the Catholics. "The Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants. I see plainly and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves, a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but only of scripture, for any considering man to build upon."* Such were the sentiments of one of the ablest men of the age in which he lived, who, although he did not believe in the divine right of episcopacy, was a powerful de- fender of the Protestant cause, and a firm supporter of the English church. Why we should choose to go to the ancient Fa- thers for our religious opinions; why we should adopt the decrees of factious councils, or the dogmas of the dark ages, while w^e have the treasures of divine truth in our possession, are questions not easy to be answered. ^ The episcopal church in the United States thought it necessary to have only two creeds, the Apostles' and the Nicene. Why the convention left out the Athanasian creed we are not told. In regard to doc- trine it differs in nothing from the Nicene. It has, also, generally been thought to contain a more ex- plicit statement of the doctrine of the trinity, as held by the church, than is any where else to be found. The three uncharitable, or as they have been called, * Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, &c. chap.vi. § 56. 88 "damnatory '' clauses, might have been omitted, with- out injuring it as a summary of faith. And if the doctrines set forth in these two last mentioned creeds, be actually the vital truths of scripture, the more clearly they are stated, and the more strongly they are enforced, the better.* If we may judge from the journals of the different American conventions, no little diflBculty was expe- rienced in settling this affair of the creeds, as well as in altering some other parts of the Book of Common *As the Athanasian creed is a curiosity not often to be met with, since it has been left out of the Book of Common Prayer, I doubt not that some persons, into whose hands these letters may fall, will be gratified to see it at full length. I insert it the more readily, because it has been considered a mas- terly exposition of the views of the church, in regard to one of its most important doctrines. Archbishop Seeker observes, in speak- ing of this creed, (Works, vol. iii. p. 434) "the doctrines are unde- nialily the same with those, that are contained in the articles of the church, only here they are somewhat more distinctly set forth to prevent equivocation" ATHAVASIAN CREED. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary th^ he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this, That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. 89 Prayer. It was laid down as a fundamental princi- ple, that the apostolic succession could be kept up only through the English bishops; and, therefore, whatever alterations might be made in the church service, they must be such as would be sanctioned in England. In this way, the members of the conven- tions were trammelled and constrained, and actually deterred from making such alterations as their good sense induced them to think necessary. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eter- nal; And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three un- created; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the christian verity, to acknow- ledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but be- gotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 90 The first convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church was held at Philadelphia in September, 1783. It consisted of clerical and lay delegates from the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina. By this convention, the thirty-nine articles were re- duced to twenty; the Athanasian and Nicene creeds were rejected; the clause in the Apostles' creed, "he descended into hell," was omitted; and various other omissions and changes were made in different parts of So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co- equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess. That our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sou of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God, and perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting; Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood. Who although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God an d man is one Christ; 91 the Liturgy. A committee was appointed to publish the Prayer Book with these alterations.* The convention also agreed to an Ecclesiastical Constitution for the government of the church. The following was the eighth article. "Every clergyman, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of the convention in the state to which he belongs, so far as relates to sus- pension or removal from office; and the convention in each state shall institute rules for their conduct, and an equitable mode of trial." It was also resolved by the convention 'If to bring a numb and chill stupidity of soul^ an un- 107 active blindness of mind upon the people by their leaden doctrine, or no doctrine at all; if to persecute all knowing and zealous christians by the violence of their courts, be to keep away schism, they keep schism away indeed; and by this kind of discipline, all Italy and Spain is as purely and politically kept from schism, as England hath been by them. With as good plea might the dead palsy boast to a man, 'it is 1 that free you from stitches and pains, and the troublesome feeling of cold and heat, of wounds and strokes; if I were gone, all these would molest you.' The winter might as well vaunt itself against the spring, *I destroy all noisome and rank weeds, 1 keep down all pestilent vapours;' yes, and all wholesome herbs, and all fresh dews, by your violent and hidebound frost; but when the gentle west winds shall open the fruitful bosom of the earth, thus overgirded by your imprisonment, then the flowers put forth and spring, and then the sun shall scatter the mists, and the ma- nuring hand of the tiller shall root up all that burdens the soil, without thanks to your bondage."* These remarks are but too applicable to fixed for- mularies of faith of every description. They are made and imposed without authority; and any at- tempt to force them on the minds of men is an en- croachment on the liberty, and an insult to the un- derstanding of christians. The apostles took upon them no such power. St. Paul enjoins the Galatians to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, and not to be entangled again with * The Reason of Church Government uri^cd against Prelaty; Prose Works, vol. i. p. 63. 108 the yoke of bondaj^e.'' And to the Corintliians he writes, ^*\Ve have not dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand." 2 Cor. i. 24. — Not by faith in creeds, for this would be giv- ing up our liberty, taking upon us a yoke of bondage, and submitting to the dominion of others; but by faith in the word of God, which all persons are free to consult, — and this freedom all must be allowed to enjoy, before they can be required to believe or obey. ILll^FiPISSB Tf, Reverend and dear sir, The second part of your discourse is taken up in showing, that you are not a Calvinist, and in at- tempting to show, that the articles of the church are not calvinistic. I have no wish to go into a contro- versy, which has been so long agitated by different parties in the episcopal church itself, and which has been already more than exhausted; yet I cannot but think, that your conclusions on this subject are feebly supported by facts, and at the same time so broad and positive, as to lead some of your readers into mis- take. I propose to do little more, than to quote cer- tain passages from the Liturgy, Articles, and Homi> lies, and see whether they are not strikingly incon- sistent with the sentiments you advance. After making various selections from the Confes- sion of Faith, to exhibit what you consider the most offensive doctrines of Calvinism, and assuring your readers, that such are not the doctrines of the church, you make the following remarks. "Explicit as is the language of the articles and services of our church on this head; and strong as is 14 110 the claim, which they make to consistency, nothing is more frequent, notwithstanding, on the part of the advocates of doctrines peculiarly styled ^calvinis- tic,' than the assertion, that sucli doctrines are main- tained in our ninth and seventeenth articles. Never Avas there a more groundless charge. Those articles do not in tlie remotest degree, allude to the funda- mental and essential tenets of Calvinism.'' p. 27. Let us inquire, in the first place, what are the ^'fundamental and essential doctrines of Calvinism." I helieve Calvinism is usually summed up in what are called the Jive points, namely, total depravity, election, particular redemption, eflectual calling, and perseverance of the saints. Whatever language may he used in the Confession of Faith, the Institutes of Calvin, or any where else, to express and illustrate these doctrines, and however unscriptural such lan- guage may be, I suppose the substance of the whole is contained in these five points. The minor doc- trines of Calvinism, such as salvation by grace, justi- fication by faith, special influence of the spirit, are to he referred to these as their original stock. If we examine these points of Calvinism, we shall find the two first only to be fundamental doctrines, of which the three last are necessary consequences. If all men have originally a corrupt nature, which ren- ders them worthy of divine wrath and condemnation, and if God in his mercy have decreed, according to ^'his everlasting purpose," that a certain number of his creatures shall be rescued from this deplorable condi- tion and finally be saved; it is a natural and neces- sary consequence, that all such persons are redeemed by a particular redemption, are effectually called, and ill will persevere to the end. The decree of election ex- tends only to particular persons, and therefore the re- demption it procures is a particular redemption; it is an absolute decree, and therefore all whom it calls, are eft'ectually called; it is an immutable decree, and therefore all whom it restores to the condition of saints, must retain this condition. The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism, then, are total depravity, and election; and if these are found to be contained in the articles and homilies, I suppose it may be rightly inferred, that such are the doctrines of the church. When an established church is built on a code of laws, articles, and formularies, which have been fixed by convocations and conventions, where shall we look for the tenets of this church but in this code itself? Interpretations and commentaries, to make articles understood, are very suspicious. Erudite researches, to find out what the framers of the articles meant, are useless. It is to be presumed they meant what they have expressed. If the church fancy it has grown wiser and improved since the days of Cranmer, and find doctrines contained in some of the articles, which it cannot receive, let it re- ject such articles, and not resort to conceits and para- phrases to explain away the meaning, which they irre- sistably force upon every unbiassed mind. Let us see what the church teaches in regard ta these two principal points of Calvinism. A single reading of the articles, I am persuaded, would con- vince most persons, that these doctrines are iii sub- stance taught there, with as much emphasis as in any calvinistic formulary, I will bring forward a few lis passages, which, if they do not imply the total de- pravity of our nature, and the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, it will be no easy task to tell what they do imply. The ninth article has generally been thought to be of itself decisive on this point, although you are resolved it shall countenance no such doctrine. The following are the words of the article, as it stands in the Book of Common Prayer. "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk,; but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the off?>pring of Adam, whereby man is very Jar gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lust- eth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world it deserveth God^s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated." Where will you find the calvinistic tenet of original sin, and the total depravity of human nature, ex- pressed in stronger terms than these? The "vain talk" of Pelagius consisted in maintaining, that the sin of Adam was not imputed to his posterity, and that we are born as free from guilt, as if Adam had never transgressed. This was called a heresy, and to guard against it, the article takes care to tell us in terms, which it is presumed no one can mistake, what the church understands by original sin. And as it respects depravity, what is "that corruption of the nature of every man, which deserveth God's wrath and damnation," if it be not what the Calvinists call total depravity? It will be difficult to form a defini- 113 tion of such a quality, if it be not contained in these words.* Compare this article with the following extracts. '*The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God." Art. x. ^'Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to re- ceive grace; — yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin J ^ Art. xiii. ^^•ill men are conceived and born in sin^ and they who are in the flesh connot please God.^^-f It is scarcely necessary to remark on these pas- sages. Their confirmation of wliat has been above shown to be the sense of the ninth article must be ob- vious. What else but a corrupt and depraved state *The bishop of Lincoln has reminded us, that the article does not say we are totally depraved, but only "very far gone from original righteousness." This is a quibble, which few, probably, would have discovered without aid. Whoever resorts to it, needs give no other indication of the impressions he receives from the general import of the article. That a bishop, and a scholar, should decend to this kind of trifling, w^ cannot but wonder; especially when it is considered that the articles were first drawn up in Latin, and that this is a very faulty translation. In the Latin it stands, "Ab originali justitia quam longissime distet;" Gone as far as possible from original righteousness. Bishop of Lincoln's Refutation of Calvinism, chap. i. p. 50. Scott's reply to Tom- line, vol. i. p. 80. The Fathers, Beformers, &c. in Harmony with Calvin, p. 43. t "Baptism of such as are of riper years." 114 of our nature, in as strong a sense as Calvin himself could have expressed it, can render us incapable of having faith, and calling upon God? He must be a depraved being, indeed, who is not fit to call on hi» Maker. Can the good works of any being, who is not totally depraved, be "of the nature of sin, and not pleasant to Grod?" Thus we see this doctrine is most unequivocally taught in several articles of the church. Let us turn to the Homilies. In the thirty-fifth article, these books are enjoined "to be read in churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly," as containing "a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times." The Homilies, there- fore, I suppose to be of equal authority with the ar- ticles, or any part of the church service.* In the second Homily concerning the death and passion of our Saviour, it is stated, "When our great grand father Adam had broken God's commandment, in eating the apple forbidden him in Paradise, at the motion and suggestion of his wife, he purchased * By an order of the convention in 1801, the reading of the Ho- milies in churches was suspended, till a revision of them could be "convenient!}'' made for the clearingof them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from local references." Nothing more seems to have been done till 1814, when the convention "proposed to the house of clerical and lay deputies, to make a standing order to every bishop, and to the ecclesiastical authority in every state des- titute of a bishop, to be furnished, as soon as may be, with a copy or copies, of said work, and to require it to be studied by all can- didates for the ministry within their respective bounds." In consequence of this resolve of the convention, an edition of the Homilies was speedily published in New-York, but without aU teration. It was printed literally from the last Oxford edition. 115 thereby not only to himself, but also to his posterity forever, the just wrath and indignation of God, who, according to his former sentence pronounced at the giving of the commandment, condemned both him and all his to everlasting death, both of body and soul; — he was cast out of Paradise, he was no longer a citi- zen of heaven, but a firebrand of hell, and a bond slave of the devil.'' "Man of his own nature is fleshly and carnal, corrupt and naught, sinful and disol)edi- ent to God, without any spark of goodness in him, without any virtuous or godly motion, only given to evil thoughts and wicked deeds. "* Again, in the second part of the Homily of tlie Misery of Man, we read; '*0f ourselves we be crab- trees, that can bring forth no apples. W e be of our- selves of such earth as can bring forth but weeds, nettles, briers, cockle, and darnel. — Hitherto have we heard what we are of ourselves; very sinful, wretched, and damnable; we are not able to think a good thought or work a good deed, so that we can find in ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh unto our destruction." And again, after describing the deplorable condi tion into which Adam was brought by the fall, the Homily continues; "This so great and miserable a plague, if it had only rested on Adam, who first of- fended, it had been so much the easier, and might the better have been borne. But it fell not only on him, but also on his posterity and children for ever, so that the whole brood of Adam's flesh should sus- tain the self same fall and punishment, wJiich their * Horaily for Whitsunday, Part. J. 116 foreiatlier by his offence most justly had deserved. — As in Adam all men universally sinned, so in Adam all men universally received the reward of sin; that is to say, became mortal, and subject unto death, having in themselves nothing but everlasting damnation both of body and soul; — they were nothing else but chil- dren of perdition, partakers of hell fire."* Quotations to the same eflfect from the Homilies might be multiplied. These are enough. Where is this fundamental doctrine of Calvinism expressed in stronger language? You will search the Institutes in vain to find a parallel. What is the total depra- vity of man, if it be not to be "of his own nature without any spark of goodness in him, without any virtuous or godly motion?" Are we not totally de- praved in the most absolute sense, if "we are of our- selves very sinful, wretched and damnable, — not able either to think a good thought, or work a good deed?" How will you express the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, if it be not contained in the following words; namely, "he purchased not only to himself, but also to his posterity for ever, the just wrath and indig- nation of God?" And again; "this great and misera- ble plague fell not only on him, but also on his pos- terity and children for ever.^' When you consider these express declarations of the Articles and Homilies, how can you imply, as you have done, that "the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his posterity, as the cause of their con- demnation to eternal punishment," (p. 27.) is not a doctrine of the church? On what grounds could Dr. * Homily of the Nativity. 117 How, who has attempted so elahoiately to vindicate the church against the charge of Calvinism, make the very broad assertion, that ^Hhere is not a trace of this doctrine in our xirticles, our Homilies, or our Pray- ers?"* Such assertions will be received by those only, who never read the Articles, or look into the Ho- milies. It is a little remarkable, that any vcriter should venture to hazard them; for if the Homilies should ever be read constantly in churches, as the Articles enjoin, the people must soon discover them to be groundless. In a word, if the total depravity of man, and the im- putation of Adam's sin to his posterity, be not doctrines of the church, it will be impossible to ascertain from its Articles, Service, and Homilies, any one doctrine, which can be called such. On the other fundamental doctrine of Calvinism, the seventeenth article of the church is full and deci- sive. It is comprised in the following words. "Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed, by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they, which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be cal- led according to God's purpose, by his spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only be- gotten son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in * How's Vindication, p. 259. 16 118 good works; and at length by God's mercy they at- tain to everlasting felicity. "As the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well, because it doth greatly es- tablish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fer- vently kindle their love towards God; so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into des- peration, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. "Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth in holy scripture; and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God." He must look with very partial eyes, who will dis- cover this article to be less explicit, less unequivocal, or less positive, on the doctrine of election, than the language, which is usually found in calvinistic books. Let this article be read by any one, who has no knowledge of the explanations, which it has received from anti-calvinistic interpreters, and do you believe he will suspect for a moment, that it is not intended to teach the doctrine of absolute decrees? 119 Compare the first part of the article with the follow- ing words taken from the calvinistic Confession of Faith. "Those of mankind that are predestinated nnto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory."* Do you not perceive a striking similarity here, not only in ideas, but in words? The Calvinists have enlarged more fully, and manfully carried out and defended this doctrine, but the root, the substance of the whole, is as clearly contained in the seventeenth article, as it is in the Institutes, the Calvinistic Confession, or the decisions of the Synod at Dort. You have remarked, with others of the Arminian school, that nothing is said in the article about repro- bation. Why should any thing be said? This makes no pajt of the doctrine itself; but is only a conse- quence. If it has been decreed by "the everlasting purpose of God," that a certain number shall be de- livered "from curse and damnation," nothing is more evident, than that the remainder must be reprobate. You have said, also, that the article "has reference to the general election of the church, as the recipient of the covenant of grace, and not an allusion to the future state of individuals." p. 27. From what part of the article can such an inference be drawn? This may be the doctrine of scripture, but what do you find in the article^ which will give any sanction to such a construction? All, who ai*e elected, are to be ^^deliver- ed from curse and damnation;^'' and is it your opinion^ * Confession of Faith, chap, iii. § 5. 120 that every iuclividual of tlie church is to be of this description? And what is this "curse and damna- tion," but the future punishment of individuals? "\\ ould these terms be used in reference to a whole church receiving the covenant of grace? Can they be used in reference to any thing, but the future state of individuals? The article goes upon the supposition, that all by nature are under a curse, and declares, that a certairj number, by the decrees of God, are de- livered fronl this curse: and it is difficult to tell what calvinistic election is, more or less than this. It is an absolute and arbitrary election; for it is expressly stated to be according to "fAe everlasting purpose of God.^^ Nor is any thing said of its being made in conse- quence of a foreknowledge of conduct. No one can deny, that bishop Burnet has examined this article with the greatest fairness and candour. He has pointed out with precision and acuteness the diflPerent sentiments, which have been held on the doc« trine of election, and although his own opinions were not calvinistic, he says of this article, "It is not to be denied but that the doctrine seems to be framed ac- cording to St. Austin's doctrine. It supposes men to be under a curse and damnation, antecedently to pre- destination." After exhibiting some of the difficul- ties with which they had to contend, who would ex- plain the article in a different way, he goes on to re- mark; "on the other hand, the Calvinists have less occiisiott to scruple, since the article does seem more plidnly to favour them.'^* This is the testim<>ny of a man, who has written more judiciously, and with more * Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xvii. talent probably on the articles, than any other, and whose opinion in regard to the doctrine of election, was actually contrary to the decision of his candour and judgment on the doctrine of the article. In the Collect for All-Saints' Day it is said; < nied."t *See Calvin in Harmony with the Fathers, &c. p. 115, 164. t Electoriim certa est salus, perire non possint. Tola salus electorum est mere gratuita. *in electio sit ex prcevisis operibus? ^eg. — lb. p. 166, 16§. 129 In the time of queen Mary, certain persons, wlio were imprisoned on account of their religious senti- ments, were accused of denying the doctrines of pre- destination and original sin. Bradford, prebendary of St. Paul's, visited them in prison, and endeavoured to convince them of their errors, but without avail. Being "apprehensive that they would do a great deal of mischief in the church, he, in concert with bishop Ferrar, Taylor, and Philpot, wrote to Cranmer, Rid- ley, and Latimer, at Oxford, to take some cognizance of the matter, and consult together about remedying it. Upon this occasion Ridley wrote back a letter Of God^s Election and Predestination, and Bradford wrote another upon the same subject."* Is it probable that Bradford would have written such a letter to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, had it not been well known, that they believed in predestination? The Lambeth Articles are usually quoted as another proof of the Calvinism of the English churcli, and not without reason. Some difficulties, it seems, had arisen among the officers and professors of the Uni- versity at Cambridge on certain points of doctrine, which were referred to the archbishop of Canter- bury. He, in conjunction with the archbishop of York, the bishop of London, the dean of Ely, and other dignitaries of the church, assembled at the ar chiepiscopal palace in Lambeth, November tenth, 1595, drew up a number of articles, which were sent to the University, as "the avowed sense of the church of England." Among these articles were the fol* lowing. ♦Ncal's History of the Puritans, Lonil. 1732, Vol. 1. p. 103. 130 ■^^God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated.'' "There is predetermined a certain number of the predestinate, wbich can neither be augmented, nor di- minished." *'Those who are not predestinated unto salvation shall necessarily be damned for their sins." Heylin says, the queen was much offended at these articles, and caused the archbishop to recal them. But from his own account it is obvious, that her of- fence arose not so much from her disapprobation of the articles, as from the presumption of the archbi- shop iri framing them without consulting her, and in promulgating them without her authority.* Nor was her being offended any evidence, that they did not express the prevailing sentiments of the church. Where shall we look for the sense of the church, if not to the opinions of its highest dignitariesPf * This offence of queen Elizabeth, was consistent with hec imperious temper in regard to all theological concerns. The ecclesiastical court, which she established under the charge of this same archbishopof Canterbury, was little inferior, in its seve- rities and injustice, to the inquisition itself. And after the Com- mons, in a petition to the prelates, had made some complaints of their grievances, the queen reproved them severely for their pre- sumption. In a speech from the throne, "she told them, that whoever found fault with the church threw a slander upon her, since she was appointed by God supreme ruler over it; and no heresies or schisms could prevail in the kingdom but by her per- mission and negligence." — Hume's History of England, vol. v. p. 269. See also Camden's History of the Reign of Queen Eliza- beth, Lond. 1675, p. 454. tSee the Lambeth Articles at large in the bishop of Lincoln's Refutation of Calvinism, p. 560, quoted from Heylin's Quinquar- ticidar History. Also, Hill's Apology for the Doctrines of the 131 Neal says, in alluding to the controversy, which commenced in the University of Cambridge, "AH the, Protestant divines in the church, whether puritans^ or others, seemed of one mind hitherto about the doc- trines of faith, but now there arose a party, which were first for softening, and then for overthrowing the received opinions about predestination, perseverance, free will, effectual grace, and the extent of our Sa- viour's redemption. The articles of tiie church of England, were thought by all men hitherto, to favour the explication of Calvin; but these divines would make them stand neuter, and leave a latitude for the subscriber to take either side of the question.'' And again; "The divines of Oxford, and indeed all the first reformers, were in the same sentiments with those of Cambridge about the disputed points; Cal- vin's Institutions being read publicly in the schools by appointment of the convocation.''^^ Another evidence of the Calvinism of the English church at an early period, is the part it took in the famous Synod of Dort. The express purpose of this Synod was to establish, by the greatest weight of au- thority, the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, and to adopt church of England, in liCtters to the Rev. Charles Daubncy> p. 88. In the letter written on this occasion by the vice-chancellor, and heads of the University, to the chancellor, they say, "we are right sorry to have such occasion to trouble your lordship, as the peace of this University being; brought into peril by the late re- viving of new opinions" &c. — Strype's Annals, vol. iv.fol. p. 229. These new opinions were the anti-calvinistic tenets, which were then beginning to spring up in the University. * History of the Puritans, vol. i, p. 579, 684. 133 cftectual measures for suppressing tlie rising heresy of Arminius, which was found to he iucreasing to an alarming degree. The Synod was composed of nu- merous delegates from different parts of Holland, Germany, from Geneva, and Great Britain. The five points of Calvinism were each separately consi- dered, and judged without a dissenting voice "to be agreeable to God's word.''* They next proceeded re- ligiously to excommunicate all remonstrants, or fol- lowers of Arminius, as persons, who "must of neces- sity be punished with a very severe censure, such as hath in all ages been infflicted by the church in such cases. "t l^h® l^st act of their synodical delibera- tions, was to excommunicate Conrad Vorstius, a pro- fessor of Leyden, and teacher of Arminianism; and to procure a decree of banishment against him from the states-general of Holland.| Is it not absurd to suppose, that this delegation would have beep sent from the English church, if the church itself were not calviuistic? The object of the * In the Title to these articles, they are said to contain a doc- trine, "quam synod us Dordrechtaiia verbo Dei cotisentaneam, at- que in Ecclesiis Reforraatis hactenus receptam esse, judicat.'* Vide Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus Reformandae Ecclesiae editarum.et ceet. Oxon. 1804, p. 369. t See "The Judgment of the Synod holden at Dort, concern- ing the Five Articles; as also their sentence touching Conradus Vorstius," Lond. I6l9,p.90. X Among other heinous offences charged against Vorstius, he was accused of "making bold" with such doctrines "as concerne the trinitie of persons in the godhead — the hypostaticall union — and partly avoching expressly many tilings contrary to the trueth of God — either wholly consorting, or very neere bordering upon the blasphemies of the baleful! heretique Socinus." ~p. 102, 103, 133 synod was well known beforehand; and none of the English delegates dissented from a single resolution that passed on points of doctrine. Nor were they ever afterwards charged with not having properly re- presented their church in this respect. As they were the only delegates present from an episcopal church, some complaint was made after their return, because they did not protest against certain proceedings relat- ing to church government; but they vindicated them- selves on the plea, that they took no share in these proceedings, and felt it their duty to act only on sub- jects of doctrine. They published what they called a "Joint Attestation," in which they explained their motives, and vindicated themselves in a very honour- able and dignified manner. Their closing words are worthy of notice in connexion with the present subject. "As in that synod our special care and perpetual endeavour was to guide our judgments by that sound doctrine f which we had received from the Church of England, so we were far, and ever shall be from usurping our mother's authority, or attempting to ob- trude upon her children any of our synodical conclu- sions, as obligatory to them; yet remaining ourselves nevertheless resolved, that whatsoever was assented unto, or subscribed by us concerning the five articles, is not only warrantable by the holy scriptures, hut also conformable to the received doctrine of our said venerable mot her. '^'^ This was signed by the bishop of Landaff, and the four other delegates, who were sent with him to the * "A Joint Attestation, avowing that the Discipline of the Church of England was not impeached at the Synod of Dort." Lond. 1 6i6. p. 25, 26. iS 134 tSyiiod of Dort. AVe thus have not only the presump- tive evidence, that the church was calvinistic, from the circumstance of its sending delegates to tins synod, hut the positive testimony of the delegates them- selves, that the doctrines of Calvinism, which they had given their voice to establish in the synod, were such as they had 'h'ece.ived from the Church of En gland. '^^ It is a question, which may with propriety be asked, why predestination was introduced in any shape into the Articles of the Church, if the framers of these articles did r.ot believe in this doctrine? It is found neither in the Augsburg nor the. Saxon confes- sion, both of w^hich are said to have been principally from the pen of Melancthon.* It is evident from these Confessions, that the doctrine of election formed no part of Melancthon^s creed. Now the Arminian inter- preters would have us understand, that Cranmer and his associates were much more intimate with Melanc- thon than with Calvin, and that the Au2;sburg Confes- sion was their principal model. This Confession is silent on the subject of predestination, although it is full on all the other important points of Calvinism. It maintains the doctrines of ori2;inal sin, the depravi- ty of human nature, the entire inability of man, justi- fication by faith, salvation by grace, and the vicarioug * Luther could not appear at the Diet of Au^sburn;, because he had been proscribed by tlie edict of Worms; yet he remained du- ring the session of the Diet, in the neighbouring town of Coburg Avliere "his advice was constantly sought." Hence the Augsburg Citnlession contained the sentiments of Luther, as well as Melanc- tlion, and tlie German princes by whom it was subscribed. Cox's Jiife of Melancthon, p. 304. 135 sacrifice of Christ.* If this confession were the mo- del of the Eni^lish reformers, why should they insert an article expressly on election, unless they thou2;ht this doctrine an essential addition? The kind of pre- destination which you describe as being intended by the seventh article of the chuit:h, was probably never thought of as an article of faith. You say ^'it has re- ference to the general election of the church, as the recipient of the covenant of grace, and not an allusion to the future state of individuals.''! Something like this, perhaps, was the opinion of Melancthon respect- ing the scripture account of election, and for this rea- son he passed it over, as having no place in a confes- sion of faith. But do you believe a single instance can be found, in any formularies of faith, in which the doctrine of election is introduced without alluding to the "future state of individuals?" That the sev- enieenth article should have been added at all, is only to be explained on the supposition, that it was to be understood in the usual acceptation of this doctrine, as it w as already expressed in the well known con- fessions of Basil, Bohemia, and others. 1 have been led into this historical detail with a view to trace the analogy between the sentiments of the English reformers, and the plain sense of the ar- ticles of the church. The Arminian interpreters, aware tliat the articles as they stand are cordially re- ceived by the Calvinists, and considered as strong supports of their doctrines, are fond of ^oing back to the reformers, and modifying the articles by w iiat they ' Sylloge Confessionum, p. l"7. t Sermon, &c. p. 97. 136 conceive to have been the opinions of their original I'ra- ' mers. They have never informed us, however, what reasons they have for supposing that these persons took pains to write ambiguous articles, or to clothe them in a langua£;e expressing opinions, which they did not entertain.* The view, which has just been taken, must certainly free them from any such charge, and leave them at least the merit of consistency, fair- ness and honesty, of which they would be entitled to a very small share, if they did not write as they be- lieved, and if their opinions were not calvinistic. We have not only their 0'>vn declarations, but the ample testimony of cotemporary, and numerous succeeding writers. I cannot close these remarks on the articles with- out noticing one, which is so uncharitable and un- scriptural, that it is truly astonishing it should ever have been admitted into a system of christian faith. I refer to the eii:;hteenth article, in which it is said, ^^They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame • '' Gilpin thinks it probable, tliat Cranmer in constructing; the articles was "intentionally ambiguous," and that "lie thought it prudent on this occasion to use such well timed ambiguity, as might give as little offence as possible!" Gilpin's Life of Cranmer, p. 155, 156. This was a singular motive, indeed, to guide a man in forming articles of religion, which were to be the rule of a na- tion's faith, and to which the whole body of the clergy were re ;uir- ed by law to subscribe. Would it not have redounded (juite as much to the edification of the church, to let the people follow the perspicuous rules of scrip; i^re, as to confound them in the dark mazes and ambiguous piiraseology of mystical divinity? 137 his life according to that law, and the light of ua ture." Is it, then, the doctrine of the church, that all persons vvi/o lived before Christ, and all who shall live after him, without receiving a revelation, and hearing the glad tidings of his religion, are to have no part in the promise of salvation? Is this just? If they act according to the law and light they possess, what more will a righteous and merciful Gud re- quire? Had the framers of this article forgotten the parable of the talents, and the express language of the apostle? To the Romans St. Paul writes, <^When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.'' ii. 14<. This is the law of conscience and reason, and when the man, who has no other law, acts in strict conformity to this, what authority have we to say, that he will not secure the favour of God? The christian will be judged by the law of the gospel; the heathen, who never heard of the gospel, by the law of conscience. "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation^ he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.'' Acts x. 35. The article not only implies, that no individuals of any nation, which has not been visited with the light of gospel truth, can be saved; but declares that they are to be had accursed, who even presume to say, that they can be saved. It is much to be lamented, that such an article as this should be admitted into any formulary of christian faith. Nothing can be more contrary to tiie spirit and temper every where mani- fested by the blessed Jesus, and every where incul- cated in the writings of the apostles. 188 After the examination, which has been made, how can the conclusion he resisted, that the sentiments ad- vanced in your discourse, respecting the doctrinal char- acter of the articles of the English church, are strik- ingly inconsistent with the church service, the ho- milies, and the plain, natural sense of the articles themselves? If the tenets of the reformers were not calvinistic, it will be difficult to prove any thing from written testimony; and it is not manifesting much re- spect for their memory, to charge th'-m with writing articles, and teaching doctrines, which did not accord with their sentiments. It has not been my aim, to attempt a confutati:^n of your religious opinions. In many of these I agree' with you. It is your manner of adapting the articles of the church to your opinions with which I am at variance. The system, which you pursue, I am per- suaded is calculated to deceive the understanding, to obscure the truth, and to divert the mind from the only proper channel of religious knowledge. If re- port is to be credited, a very large portion of the Ame- rican episcopal church is Arminian. All the mem- bers of the church, who range themselves in this class, pursue the same course of interpretation as yourself. 1 have had occasion to examine the con- struction, which several writers on this side of the question have put on the articles. The conviction has been perpetually forced on my mind, that the writer was not so much inquiring into the actual meaning and force of the articles, as devising inge- nious ways of turning ambiguous phrases to his own account, and in making all general expressions have a particular bearing on the doctrine he is engaged to 189 support. One cannot but feel, that the writer, instead of making the articles his guide, takes ins own course and compels them to follow. Even in the learned and popular work of the bishop of Lincoln, this feel- ing too often obtrudes itself, and in a great measure destroys the force of his arguments. If Scott's an- swer discovers less learning and good sense, it is, nevertheless, as far as the doctrines of the church are concerned, full and satisfactory. Whoever examines this controversy, particularly as it has been carried on by the Arminian party, must perceive how forcibly it illustrates what has already been said in regard to the inexpediency of all fixed formularies of faith. Why should articles, expressed in language not found in scripture, be retained, when their inevitable tendency is to cause dissentions and controversies in the church? Not one Calvinist, we are told, was present at the general convention of the American episcopal church, when the articles were adopted.* Why did not this convention reject the articles, which are so clearly calvinistic as to require volumes of explanations and paraphrases, even to show that they are not contradictory to the Arminian scheme. This point is the most that is pretended to be gained. To prove ihem favourable to this scheme, would require many more volumes. The American church, at least, could have no motives for resorting to *^*a well timed ambiguity" in teaching the doctrines of scripture, however -such motives might have com- ported with the "prudence" of Cranmer. ' How's Vindication, p. 278. Festiyals and Fasts, p. 14SI, Note. 140 But instead of thinking it possible, that any new light could have been attained in two hundred years, and instead of acting on the broad principles of gos- pel liberty, the American episcopal convention, in a free country, where no man, or body of men, dares encroach on the civil rights and privileges of a single individual, determined authoritatively, that no per- son, who does not believe in the supremacy of bi- shops, and who is not ordained by a bishop, can be an authorized religious teacher. And, as if to pre- vent the possibility of inquiry, the exercise of private judgment, or a free examination of the scriptures among its members, it fixed a criterion of christian faith, and a code of spiritual laws, to which all per- sons must conform, who would have any part in this true church. These things were done, let it be re- membered, in a country, which had lately triumphed in the cause of political liberty, and thrown oflf the yoke of civil bondage, which it had too much spirit, and too much virtuous independence to bear. If the members of the convention had actually settled it in their minds, that there could be no true church without some established formulary in addition to the Bible, they might have greatly im- proved upon the old articles, and spared them- selves much trouble, by passing a resolution some- what like the following; — That whereas, we believe the Bible to be the word of God, and to contain a revelation of his will in every thing essential to salvation; and whereas, we believe all men to have a natural right to worship God according to the dic- tates of their own conscience, — we a2;ree to make this book the only rule of our faith and practice, and in to allow every one individually the privilege of study- ing, and receiving it in that sense, whicli he sincerely thinks it conveys. Had tlie convention suhstituted such a resolution in the place of the articles, it would be no longer necessary for a large number of the church to he wasting their time in proving their opin- ions not to be contrary to tiie articles; but it might be much more profitably employed in searching the scriptures to know What opinions they ought to re- ceive. If there happened to be any in the convention, who had been so long attaciied to old customs, as to think forms of faith an essential part of religion, something- like the following, for the sake of accommodation, might have heen adopted. "I believe there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things." '^1 believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.'^ I believe "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.'^ I believe, that "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto right- eousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."* If it were thought important, there could be no very serious objection to adding something more to this creed, taking care always to use the precise language of scripture. But if it be abso- lutely necessary to have a formulary of faith, which is not expressed in scripture language, perhaps none can be more comprehensive and unexceptionable than this, — / believe in all the scriptures teach. * 1 Cor. viii. 6,— -Acts viii. 37. — 1 Cor. xv. 3. — Rom. x. ?. 19 ILl'JJl'UB 1, Reverend and dear sir, The doctrine contained in the two first articles of the chnrch, or wliat is commonly called the doc- trine of the trinity^ yon pass over very slightly; and yet it may be doubted, w hether any doctrine of the church stands in more need of explanation to make it intelligible or edifying to its mejnbers. So far as it relates to the divinity of Christ, you acknowledge it to be of ^'vital importance," and at the same time, de- clining to consider "the numlier or force of the objec- tions against it," you content yourself with selecting in its support a few passages of scripture, as they are contained in Jones' work on the Trinity. Should your readers not be satisfied with these, you refer them for further information to the same source. The remainder of what I have to say shall be de- voted to this subject. I propose first to inquire into the scriptural grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is stated in the articles of the church, and in other parts of the Book of Common Prayer; and after- wards to examine the import of the texts you have 143 quoted, as well as some others, which are usually ad- duced in proof of this doctriue. Before 1 take into consideration the articles above mentioned, 1 have some remarks to make on those parts of the Litany, which are intimately connected with this subject. The Litany commences with the following petitions, wiiich make a part of every morn- iiiig service, and are rendered with an audible voice, both by the minister and people. "0 God, the father of Heaven; have mercy upon us miserable sinners.'' *'0 God, the Son, Redeemer of the world; have mercy upon us miserable sinners." ••Oh God, the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son; have mercy upon us miserable sinners.*' •♦Oh holy glorious and blessed Trinity, three per- sons and one God; have mercy upon us miserable sinners." In these petitions prayer is made separately and distinctly to God the Father, God the Son, God the ~) Holy Ghost, and to the holy Trinity. Here are four ^ distinct objects of worship, addressed as different be- ings, and designated by different characters. How contrary is this to the commands and example of our Saviour. His command was, "thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." He prayed to the Father, and taught his disciples to pray to the Fatuer. "At that time Jesus answer- ed and said, 1 thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth." To his disciples he said, '"^After this manner pray ye; "Our Father, which art in heaven." "In tiiat (lay ye shall ask me notliiug — whatsoevei* 144 yc shall ask the Fathku in my name, he will give it you." "The hour coraeth aud now is, when the true worshippers, shall worship the F'ather in spirit and in truth."* We thus perceive, tliat our blessed Lord considered the Father the only ohject of worship. We never hear of his worshippin;; himself, the Holy Ghost, or a Trinity. He never informed his disci- ples of any such objects of worship. But what is still more surprising in the worship of the church, is, that it is not only addressed to four distinct objects, but these objects are respectively cal- led Gods. A petition is first addressed separately and distinctly to Crorf the Father; next, to GodiUeHon; then, to God the Holy Ghost; and last of all, to the Trini- ty. Let it be observed, that these are not taken col- lectively, but separately and exclusively. The Trini- ty difi'ers only from the three first in being called a God consisting of three persons, whereas the others are spoken of as uncompounded beings. I do not say that Episcopalians profess to worship four Gods, or ttiat in reading the Litany, they have in their minds four distinct objects of worship; but if they do not, it is quite certain their sentiments do not accord with the language they use. At the best, this kind of lan- guage must destroy all just conceptions of the one true God, introduce confusion into the mind, and call it off from that pure and spiritual worship, which the scriptures enjoin. When the minister solemnly makes the following petition, *^0h God, the Holy Ghost, have mercy upon us miserable sinners," and the people respond to it, * Matth. iv. 10.r-xi. 25. — vi. 9.— John xvi. 23 John. iv. 23. 145 what ideas can they have of this being, whom they address as God, but that lie is a being, who posses- ses power of himself, independently of any other be- ing, to grant their petition. The prayer would be un- meaning, if it were not accompanied with such ideas. The same may be said of each of the petitions, which are presented to the other three beings. Hence tijey, who worsliip according to the Litany, actually wor- ship /our beings, each of whom is there called God,* But this is not all. Petition is also made to anoth- er being, who, although he is not, as each of the four above mentioned, distinguished by the title of Grod, is nevertheless addressed as a distinct being. The pe- tition runs as follows, "By the mystery of thy holy incarnation; by thy holy nativity and circumcision; by thy baptism, fasting, and temptation; by thine agony, and bloody sweat; by thy cross and passion; by tiiy precious death and burial, by tliy glorious resurrec- tion and ascension; good Lord deliver us." Now, to Whatever being this prayer may be addres*ied, it can- not be to either of those mentioned above, for they are called Gods. But God is essentially a spirit, and no such properties can be applied to him, as incarnation nativity, circumcision, baptism, fasting, sweat, death and burial. The being here addressed, therefore, must be distinct from either of the others, and cannot be God. I suppose you will say it is Christ in his human * Mr. Jones of Nayland, to whose work you refer your readers for instruction on the trinity, says, "That in the three former peti- tioHS the unity in trinity; in the fourth the trinity in unity is wor- shipped." — Cath. Doc. of the Trin. New- York, 18 13, p. I78. Whether this be a clear and satisfactory explanation of the sub- ject, 1 will leave for others to decide. 146 •nature. But what is lie in his human nature inoie or less than a man. It follows, that if you pray to him in his human nature, you pray to him as man. The con- clusion of the whole is, that in the Litany worship is of- fered to jive beings f four of whom are called Gods; and the iifth is addressed under such properties as belong only to a man. Such is the result to wliich it appears to me every one will come, who examines the Litany without par- tiality, and who suffers himself to be governed, in judging of its meaning, by the principles which usually guide him in ascertaining the sense of lan- guage. If the words are to be taken in their ordinary acceptation, they certainly cannot he received under any other construction. If you have secret ideas, and hidden correspondences attached to them, it will be easy enough to make them mean any thing. But that interpretation is of a very suspicious character, to say the least, which requires such aids to make it con- sistent or intelligible; and if we are any where to h)ok for perspicuity, and a plain, natural use of words, one would suppose it ought to be in a settled form of prayer, which makes a part of the divine service of every sabhath. If it be said, that my conclusions are not just, because no episcopalian imagines himself to worship four Gods; I would reply, that I have not drawn these conclusions from any one's opinions, but from the language of the Litany itself. It is but reasonable to suppose, however, that they, who wor- ship in the language of this Litany, have correspond- ing opinions. To intimate the contrary would be aa implied charge of insincerity, which I should be very unwilling to make against (vny exemplary christi*n^ 147 I will next proceed to a general consideration of the doctrine of the I'rinity, as it is unfolded in the first, second, and fifth articles of the church. Article t. "Tliereis but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infi- nite power, wisdom, and gooduess; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this godhead, there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ohost. Art. II. "The Son, which is the Word of tlie Fa- ther, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father^ took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect na- tures, that is to say, the godhead and the manhood, were Joined together in one person, never to be di- vided, whereoj is one Christ, very God, and very man; who truly suflTered, was crucified, dead, and bu- ried, to reconcile his Father to us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men. Art. v. "The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God:' To these articles it may be proper to add what is said on the same subject in the Nicene creed, as this is a received form in the church service, "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only be- gotten son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, light of light, very God of very 148 God, hesjotten, not maeing, neither of them could be the Supreme Being. God conhl not be tlie only omniscient being, if any other knew as much as he; nor could he be the only omnipotent being, if any other had as much power. If the Son and Holy Spirit be each ''very Gotl,'" they must have the per- fect attributes of God, and be in all respects equal. This is not impossible. There may be three infinitely perfect beings. But in such case, no one would be above or below the other; no one, more than ano- ther, could be called God on account of any pre- eminence of character. There would indeed be three GodSf but not one Supreme God. 3. The great doctrine of the unity of God is, also, one of the most prominent in the scriptures. The first trutli, which Moses delivered to the Israelites, on giving them the law, was, "Hear, Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.'' This was repeated by our Saviour to the scribe, who replied, *• there is one God, and there is none other but he." Mark xii. 29, 33. "The Lord he is God, and there is none else be- * Deus cum summum magnum sit recte Veritas nostra pronun- tiavit, Deus si non unus est, non est. Non qua^i dubitemus esse Deum, dicendo, si non unus, non est Deus; seil quia, quern confi- dimus esse, idem detiniamus esse, (juod si non est, Deus non est, summum scilicet magnum. Porro, summum magnum unicum sit necesse est, ergo et Deus unicus erit, non aliter Deus, nisi sum- mum magnum, nee aliter summum magnum, nisi parem non ha- beas, nee aliter parem non habcns, nisi unicus fuerit. Tertul adv. Marcion. lib. i. c. .1. Vid. Pearson o»i tlio Ciof>d^ vol. ii. p. 21. 100 Allies Iiini." Dent. iv. 35. ^'1 am God, and there io none else; 1 am God, and there is none like rae." Isai. xlvi. 9. ^'Unto us there is hut one God, the Father, of whom are all things/' 1 Cor. viii. 6. It is unnecessary to select other passages. No truth is more constantly urged, than the unity and supremacy of God. II. My next inquiry shall he, whether Christ were this Supreme God. If so wonderful a fact as this be contained in the scriptures, we must expect to find it expressed in the most unequivocal and positive terms. To render it possible, that a being who was born, who had the feelings, affections, and passions of a man, who felt the pains of hunger and thirst, who was aifected with joy and grief, was subject to bodily and men- tal sufferings, and at length died, — to render it possi- ble, tiiat such a being could be the eternal God, re- quires a weight of evidence, in comparison with which, the united testimony of every human being since the world began would be nothing, without a full, express, and positive revelation from God him- self. It is not a doctrine, which any one should ven ture to collect from hints and allusions, or to build up from a few doubtful passages of scripture. If it be a truth, it must be written in characters which cannot be mistaken, and shine forth as the most conspicuous ob- ject in every part of the word of God. In discussing this question we can appeal to no higher authority, than that of our Saviour himself. Let us see if we can infer from his own language, that he was the Supreme God. 1. To those who were disposed to kill him for heal- ing the sick man on the sabbath day* he said, ^^\s the 161 Father hath life in himself, so hath he^u'^w totlie Sou to have life in himself; and haihgiten him authoiity to execute judgment, also, because he is the Son of man/' John v. S6, 27. Do you understand from this* that the same being, who gave life and authority, was the being liimself, wlio received them? Were the jii'cr, and receiver the same? 3. Again, "My meat is to do the will of him, that sent me, and to finish his work.'' John iv. i\^. "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father, which hath serd me.^' v. 30. "Aly doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." vii. 16. "I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment what 1 should say, and what I should speak." xii. 49. "I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent meP viii. 4-2. Here Christ explicitly declares in several places, that lie was sent by the Father, Would this language be intelligible if Christ were God? He came not to do hia own will, but the will of the Father. In what terms can you more clearly define two distinct beings, than by attributing to them two wills? When he says *^my doctrine is not mine," are we to understand directly the contrary, that it was his? When he says ^"he came from God," does he mean that he came from himself? If the notion had prevailed in the days of our Saviour, that he was God, and it had been his special purpose to confute such au error, it were diflBcult to conceive how he could use stronger language than what is contained in these passages. He says, again, '^my Father is greater than I," John xiv. 28^ from wbirh it certainly 16^ does not follow, that he and the Father are the same. >\ hen our Lord told his disriples, that*»he came forth from the Father," and they replied, "we believe, that thou camest forth from God,''* did they mean, that they believed him to be God, and that he came forth from himself? Aud what would l)e the meaning of the passage, ^'he shall know my doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether 1 speak of myself,"t if God and himself were the same beingpj 3. As the Lord Jesus was not God, so he did not in himself possess the attributes of God. He uni- formly ascribed all power, knowledge, goodness, and wisdom to the Father, and repeatedly affirmed, that he derived every thing from the Father. God is omnipotent, and needs no aid from any other being. But Jesus declares, "I can of mine own self do iiothhii^:^ John v. 30. "The Father, that dwelleth in me, he doth the worJcs.^' xiv. 10. "The Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do." v. 19. In the discourses from which these texis arc taken, it seems to be his whole design to convince the people, that the miracles and wonder- ful works, which they had seen him perform, were not done by any power of his own, but entirely by the power, which he had received from God. There is no reason why he should wish the people to be de- ceived on this point. If he had done these works by his own power, why should he refer them to another? This would be detracting from the weight of his own character, and would tend rather to defeat, than strengthen his purpose of establishing his divine * John xvi. 80. t John vii, 17. 163 authority. If, as he says, he could not do these things without aid from God, it is evident lie did not possess the same power as God. 4. A,gain, God is omniscient. Every thing is known to him from the beginning to the end. But the Lord Jesus expressly declares, that he has not a knowledij;e of all future events. "As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things '' John viii. S8. If he had known all thinsjs from the beginning, he could not be taught. Whatever is learnt from a teacher is something, which was not before known. After having described many of the signs and won- ders, which should precede the destruction of Jeru- salem, or as it is thought by many, the day of judg- ment, he concludes, '^But of that day, and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." Mark xiii. 32. Here is a positive declaration on the part of our Saviour, that he did not know what the Father knew. His knowledge was limited; finite and not infinite; not the knowledge of God, but of a subordi- nate being. 5. At another time, when one called him ^'Good Master," he replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." Matt. xix. 17. Two things are evident in this reply; first, that he represented himself as a distinct being from God; and secondly, that he did not possess the same de- gree of goodness. It is not important to inquire in how high a degree this attribute existed in him. It is enough, that he acknowledges it to be imperfect, and inferior to the goodness of God. The one is in- finite, the other limited. 164 6. St. Luke bears testimony, that '* Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." ii. 52. How could be increase in wisdom, if lie were God, and had originally all wisdom? How could he increase in favour with God, if he had from the beginning all the divine perfections? The wisdom of God is perfect. According to the scriptures, the wisdom of Clirist was imperfect.'*^- We have thus seen from the scriptures, and mostly from our Saviour's own words, that he was not the one true God, and that the attributes, which consti- tute tlic perfection of the divine nature, were possess- ed by him in a limited and inferior degree. He was a derived being, because he came forth from the Father, and received all knowledge and power from him. He was a subordinate being, because he did nothing of himself, but obeyed the will of the Fa.* ther. It is, nevertheless, the doctrine of the church, that be is ^'God of God, very God of very God." III. I am aware that the church has a way of get- ting over all these difficulties, and still maintaining that the Lord Jesus is God. They, who believe ia * Theodore of Mopsuetia maintained, that Christ had two souls, one distinct from the Word. This he said was necessary to ac- count for many of his actions. Accordin?; to him, it was not the divine Word, which increased in wisdom, and suffered; but the other soul of Christ. Butler's Horse Biblicee, p. 210. Theodore, bishop of Fiiarau, and Sergius held, that although, Christ had two natures, he had but one ivill. This opinion was called a here>y, and condemned in tlie council at liome, A. D fi-lO. Ibid. p. 211. 165 the doctrine of the trinity, have a never failing expe client, to which they resort v. itii equal success in every emergency, — a sort of niau;ical key, which uuiocks with equal ease all the entrances to the difficult parts of scripture. It has been decreed by councils, and settled by convocations of bishops, and other divines, ^'that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the gulliead and manhood, were joined toii;ether in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man." As this scheme of two natures is the chain which holds the trinity together, I hope it will not be thought amiss, if I stop to examine it with some care. i. It cannot be deemed an impertinent question for me first to ask, what proof is found in the scripture of such a doctrine? This is the only test by w bich we ought to abide. I have never been able to find a single passage in which our Saviour, or his apostles, or any other persons speak of these two natures. In all the discourses of Jesus to his disciples and to the people, he never once intimated that he was two beings, and spoke sometimes in the character of one, and sometimes in the character of the other. If he actually possessed two natures, why should he not make it known? How could the pi^ople tell when he spoke as God, and when as man; and what could prevent their being perpetually deceived? To have made his instructions intelligible, or pro- ductive of any profit to his iiearers, it would have been necessary on every occasion to tell them in what character he was speaking. But so far from this, he always spake of himself as one person, and never 23 166 once intimated, that he had more than one charactep or nature. 2. By this scheme of two natures, trinilarians ex- plain without ditficulfy all tlie words of Christ. They take upon themselves to judj^e, when he sjjeaks as God, and wlien he speaks as man For instance, when he says, •''not my will, hut thine he done," they say he speaks as man. That is, the part of hun which is man, addresses the part of him, which is God. They do not recollect, that this is making two wills in him, and one opposed to the other. What idea can you form of a heing, who has two opposite wills? AV hat more clearly designates a distinct heing. than a distinct will? If Christ had not such a will, how can he in any sense, be called one being, or "one Christ?" If he had such a will, how can he be called two? 3. Let those, who believe in this double character of Christ, answer the questions, "to wiiich of these be- ings St. Paul alludes in the phrase, *Our Lord Jesus Christ?' Are we to understand here the *very God,' or *very man?' Does it re(juire two distinct beings for the ^one Lord Jesus Christ, by Avhom are all things?' Have we two distinct beings for the *one mediator between God and men?' Have we two distinct beings for the one 13. From these texts it appears, that this comforter was inferior to Clirist, for it was to be sent by him; and tliat it was not to speak of itself but only as it was instructed. Now this could not be true of God, nor of a person, which was equal with God. All those passages, in which personal quali- ties are attributed to the Holy Spirit, will be per- fectly unintelligilAe, if you consider the Spirit to b6 the "eternal God,'" or to have a substance, person, or being, the same as God. But if you explain them as you do other passages, which contain personifications of different attril)utes or qualities, the sense will be clear, and consistent with all the various uses of the phrase Holy Spirit in other parts of the scriptures. 9. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs is a remark- able personification of wisdom. It may be doubted whether the whole scripture affords so strong evidence of the personality of the Holy Spirit, as this chapter gives of the personality of wisdom. ''I, Wisdom, dwell with Prudence — I love them that love me — I Was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth M'as. When there were no depths, before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I brought forth.'' viii. 12, 17, 23, 24, 25. The whole chapter is spoken in the person of Wisdom, who is represented to have been with God from eter- nity, and to have aided him in the work of creation. Yet no one, I suppose, will argue that wisdom has a distinct personality, and has existed in this character from eternity. Why then should any one draw this 179 conclusion, from weaker evidence, in regard to the Holy Spirit? 10. The reasons why the Holy Spirit cannot be considered as God, or a distinct being, person, or substance, may be expressed in few words, as fol- lows. It is no where in the scriptures called God, nor is it ever made an object of worsiiip. Many things are attributed to it, which cannot be applied to a divine person, or to any person. It was given by measure, or in degrees; it was shed forth, poured out, and given in double portions; persons were said to drink into it; it was quenched, and taken away; it could not speak of itself, except what it should hear; it did not know the Son or the Father, for Christ says, "wo one knoweth the Son but the Far ther, neither knoweth any one the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him." Matt. xi. 27. But if the Holy Spirit had been of *^one substance with the Father and Son," it would of itself have known them both. 11. It may further be added, if Christ and the Holy Spirit be each of them "very and eternal God," then each must have the same properties, and be ca- pable of exercising them in the same way. What you can affirm of one, you can affirm of the other, as also of the Father. You might with as much pro- priety say, "the Holy Spirit shall send the Father or Son," as that the Father or Son "shall send the Holy Spirit." As they are equal "in power and majesty," so their authority one over the other must be equal. 13. It is the doctrine of the articles, also, that these three persons are actually one being, though I know 180 not how such a thing can he conceived. Let it lie taken for granted, that such is the fact, and what will be the consequence? It will be, that all the actions, which are attributed to any one of them, may be at- tributed to either of the others. If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be synonymous terms for the same being, these terms may in any place be substituted one for the other, in tlie same way as Lord, God, and Jehovah may be used promiscuously to signify the Supreme Being; and Jesus, Saviour, Redeemer, to signify the Son. By applying this rule in a few in- stances, we shall see to what results the doctrine of the trinity, as embraced by the church, will bring us. llom. V. 10. <'If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son/^ Now if God and the Holy Spirit be each the same beiu^ as the Son, it will be strictly correct to substitute either of these names in the above passage. It will then read, <^we were reconciled to God by the death of God:^^ or, "we were reconciled to God by the death of the Holy Spirit,^* 1 John iv. 13. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." By substituting the sy- nonymous terras, this will read, "he sent the Holy Spirit, or he sent himself or he sent God, to be a propitiation for our sins. Rom. viii. 34. "It is Chnst that died." "It is God that died." "It is the Holy Spirit that died." These examples are sufficient. If we may believe the church, when it says, tbat Christ was *^one per- son, never to be divided," the same application may he made to all the events of his life. When he eays^ 181 i, myself f me, you may substitute either of the names God, or Holy Spirit. But if we believe what the church asserts in the same place, that this person, instead of never being divided, is actually separated into two parts, or "natures,'' then we must ascertaiu which nature it is that speaks, or acts, before we can make the substitution. 13. It is proper here to observe, that the Holy Spirit was not called God till more than three hun- dred years after the time of the apostles. "It was first decreed in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, that the Holy Spirit was Lord, — neither did the ancients address prayers to the Holy Spirit; and they assigned this as their reason; viz. That a gift was not to be asked of a gift, but of the giver of the gift."* The following are the words of Erasmus, in his Annotations on the first epistle to the Co- rinthians. "No one of the ancients ventured plain- ly to assert, that the Holy Spirit was of the same substance with the Father and the Son, not even when the question concerning the Son was every where discussed with so much warmth. But now we scruple not to declare, that the Holy Spirit is of on& substance with the Father and the Son, very God, of the Father very God, and of the Son very God." In his Preface to Hilary he states the same thing, and in the whole twelve books, which this latter author wrote on the trinity, he never mentions the Holy Spirit as God.f He wrote about the middle of the * Racovian Catechism, translated by Thomas Rees, p. 293> note by B. Wissowatius. t Hilary always speaks of the Holy S|)irit as the ^ift of God, (donum Dei.) In one place he write-s thus; "He coinmatids us to fourth century. Ought we not to be a little surprised at finding a doctrine now insisted upon, as a funda- mental article of religion, which was not known in any church till nearly four hundred years after the time of our Saviour? V. Before I dismiss this part of the subject, I will add, in as few words as possible, two or three gene- ral arguments, which go to prove, that the prevailing sentiments during the time of our Saviour, and also the opinions of the early christians, were in accor- dance with what we have seen to be the plain sense of Scripture. baptise in the name of the Father, of the Soh, and of the Holy Spirit; that is, in the confession of the author, of the only begot- ten, and of the sift" &c. Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti; id est, in confessione et auctoris, et uni- geniti, et doni, &,c. Ibid. p. 292. According to Gregory Nazianzen, when this subject first began to be agitated, three distinct opinions were prevalent. First> that the Holy Spirit was an operation; secondly, that it was a created substance; thirdly, that it was God. T«» ^b x.a6' ■if<,»i o\ S^i SeoK Orat. 37. Vid. Pearson's Notes, p. 387. The Jews held to the first of these opinions. They believed the Holy Spirit to be the energy or influence of God, and they supposed it was by tliis divine energy that the prophets were in- spired. Maimonides, in giving the various significations of the Hebrew word spirit, says it sometimes means a "divine intellec- tual influence," and at others, "a purpose, or volition;" and when it is applied to the Deity, it partakes of both these significations. He thus describes its fifth and sixth significations. Quinto sig- nificat (nil) influentiam illam intellectualem divinam a Deo pro- phetis instillatam, cujus virtute prophetant. Sexto significat pro- positum, et voluntatem. — Vox hsec ni"l quando Deo attribuitur, ubique sumitur partim in quinta, partim in sexta significatione, quatenus voluntatem significat. Mor. Nevoch. r. 40, Ibid p. 591. 183 1. The Jews had no conceptions of any three- fold distinction in the Deity. They had for many centuries been under the peculiar guidance of God, and received an express revelatiou from him in re- gard to the coming of the Messiah, but tliey seem never to have had the remotest suspicion, that this Messiah was to be God himself. All the predic- tions relating to the Messiah, both in the writings of Moses and the prophets, were such as could never lead them to suppose that they referred to the God of Israel. Take for example the words of God, which were spoken by Moses. "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him,^' Dent, xviii. 18. Is there any thing here about this prophet being the second person in the trinity; or about his being God, or equal to God? On the con- trary, is not the declaration express, that he was to be a prophet like Moses; that he was to be raised up, not by his own power, but by the power of God, and was to speak what God commanded him? The prophets allude to his sufferings and death in such a way as to render it impossible, that they should at the same time be speaking of God. The divine unity was a fundamental doctrine of the reli- gion of the Jews, and nothing probably has contri- buted so much to keep them from embracing the christian faith, as the idea, that the doctrine of the trinity makes an essential part of it. They cannot be persuaded to believe in any account of the Mes- siah, which involves a doctrine so inconsistent with; their views of the whole tenor of the Old Testament 184f Their avcr»ioii to this doctrine is so great, that, ac- cording to Buxtorf, they make the following article of belief a part of their daily devotions. *^I believe with an entire faith, that God, the Creator, is one person, and that the unity, or oneness, which is in him, is not in any other.'' It is certainly remarkable, if such a doctrine as the trinity were contained in the Old Testament, that the Jews, for whom the whole book was especially designed, should never have found it out. S. It does not appear, that the companions of Jesus while he was upon earth, or the persons who saw, and conversed with him, believed him to be God. On one occasion, after he had healed a sick man in a miraculous manner, "The multitude marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto MEN." Matt. ix. 8. It would seem from this pas- sage, that the people considered Christ as a man, and that he performed his miracles by a power, which he derived from God; as indeed he had already told them. The way in which Philip described Jesus to Na- thanael was as follows; "We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." John i. 45. From this language would it ever be sus- pected, that Philip thought him to be God? When Mary saw him, after the death of her brother Laza- rus, she said to him, "if thou hadst been here my brother had not died." Would she have spoken thus, if she had believed him to be the omnipresent God? The people are said in many places to have considered him a projphet. After he had miracu- 185 lously fed the five thousand, those present exclaimed, '^This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." The woman of Samaria said to him, after his conversation with her, "1 perceive thou art a prophet J' When he asked his disciples, "Whom do men say, that I, the son of man, am," they replied, ''Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets,'^ Matt. xvi. 14. Here we have the prevailing opinions of the people respecting Jesus, and there is not the remotest hint, that any one considered him to be the most high God. So far from it, that they speak of him in no higher character, than that of one of the old prophets. 3. It is further remarkable, if our Saviour had preached such a doctrine as that of the trinity, that the evangelists should not liave stated it explicitly, and taken some pains to explain and enforce it. No doctrine could be more novel, none more important, and none more opposed to the rooted prejudices of the Jews. But when we come to examine, we find nothing said, in the three first gospels, which can have any direct bearing on the subject, and the intro- duction to the gospel of John admits quite as good an interpretation according to the unitarian, as any trinitarian hypothesis. The strong evidence, which the four gospels contain, that no one in the time of our Saviour thought him to be God, and the entire silence of the evangelists on tire subject of a trinity in any form, are objections to this scheme not easily to be answered. 4. Another argument to the same effect is contain- ed in the preaching of the apostles, after the ascension 186 of Christ. We have a minute account of their preach- ing in the Acts of the Apostles. It is to be suppos- ed, that in promulgating the christian religion among the heatiien nations, the apostles preached all its im- portant doctrines. Yet he will read in vain, who shall expect to find any thing relating to a trinity in a single discourse of theirs, which has been recorded. They preac bed. that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, and that God had raised him from the dead; but they never spoke of his being the '^very and eter- nal God.'' They never intimated, that God exists in a_ threefold nature, or in any other nature than that of the one true God. I will give two or three examples, which will show their manner of preaching in respect to the character of Christ. In Peter's sermon immediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit, on the day of pentecost^ he thus addresses the audience; "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approv- ed of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." Acts ii. 23. Would any one infer from these words, that the apostle meant the people to consider Jesus the same as God, or equal to him? He not only makes him a distinct being, but declares that he performed miracles by the aid of God. The whole discourse of Peter is of the same import. He concludes by saying, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both liord and Christ." v. 36. According to the trini- tarian scheme, Jesus, who was made Lord and Christ, was himself the same being by whom be was 187 made Lord and Christ. If Christ were actually the Supreme Being, it is very strange, that in this dis- course, the whole object of which was to explain his character, Peter should constantly represent him not only as distinct from the Father^ but as subordinate to him. All he says of the Holy Spirit in this dis- course is, that it had been shed forth, and those who should be baptized »'in the name of Christ," should ((receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." I presume no language could be more unlike the articles of the church, than that which is used in this place by the apostle. He does not call the Holy Spirit God, but a gift; and Jesus he calls a "man approved of God." Another striking example is found in Paul's dis- course to the Athenians. "As I passed by and be- held your devotions, I found an altar with this in- scription, to the unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Acts xvii. 23. The first thing to be observed here, is, that the apostle was about to teach the Athenians the character of the true God. If he had supposed God to exist in three persons, he could not but make so remarkable a trait a very prominent part of his ex- planation. But how does he proceed? "God, that made the world, and all things therein, seeing that HE is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in tem- ples made with hands." v. 24. He goes on in the same kind of language through the whole discourse, uniformly speaking of God as one being, and never intimating that he exists in more than one person. After thus explaining to the Athenians the nature of the true God, he speaks of Christ at the conclusion, 488 as follows. ^'And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent; because he hath appointed a day in the which HE will judge the world in righteousness by that man, whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." v. 31. Could it enter the minds of the Athenians, that the God, whom the apostle had just mentioned as having made the world, was ac- tually the *'man" by whom he would judge the world, and whom he had raised from the dead? They must have believed this, if they supposed from the apos- tle's account, that Jesus was one of three persons, which constituted the Deity. We may observe in ad- dition, that in giving this character of the true God, the apostle says nothing of the Holy Spirit. But if the Deity consists of three distinct persons, of which the Spirit is one, is it credible, that he would have passed over this remarkable fact in silence? I need not insist on this argument, drawn from the preaching of the apostles. Any one has only to read the book of Acts, with a particular view to the topics on which they dwelt, to be convinced, that they ad- hered most strictly to the precept of St. Paul in his first epistle to Timothy, '^There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.^^ They never speak of a God in ^Hhree per- sons," nor use any language, which conveys ideas approaching to such a character of the Deity; and yet St. Paul does not hesitate to say to the £phesians, *^I have not shunned to declare unto you all the coun- sel of Gody Acts XX. 27. If the apostles could de- clare the ivhole counsel of God without once alludins; 189 to a tiiuily, why sliouUl v,e think it important at this time to ingraft this doctrine into our faith, and make it a part of the christian religion? 5. It is well ascertained from the best testimony, which can be derived from history, that the great mass of christians for the two first centuries were unitarian. This fact is giMierally admitted by all parties, so far as it regards the Nazarenes, or Jewish cliristians, and a portion also of the Gentile chris- tians. Although there is no direct authority in the written word of God for the doctrine of the trinityj especially in the form in which it is received hy the episcopal church, yet if this doctrine could not be dis- tinctly traced to some later source, your argument of tradition might perhaps be thought to apply here, and we should be required to believe in the trinity, for the same reason tiiat we are required to believe iu the divine origin of episcopacy, and the traditional ceremonies of the Protestant Episcopal and Catholic churches, because we cannot go back to "any one pe- riod in which it could probably have originated." But fortunately we have not this difficulty to encoun- ter in the present instance. Few things in history are better settled, than the origin of the trinity. The close analogy between this doctrine and the philoso- phical speculations of Plato, leaves no room for mis- take. Many of the first converts to Christianity were Platonists, and they spared no pains in tracing out resemblances between the new religion, which they had emhraced, and the philosophy to which they had become so strongly wedded while heathens. Plato had some obscure notions of tiuee distinct principles in nature. These principles were, first, 26 190 a bupieuib Hcing, or cJiief Cause; secoutlly, a divine mind; thirdly, the soul of the universe. A\'lien the Piatonists became cliristiaiis, linding some general analogy between this part of their philosophy, and the accounts given in the New Testament of the Fa ther, Son, and Holy Spirit, they gradually interwove with these many of the peculiar properties of the three Platonic principles, and by this unnatural com- bination, the doctrine of the trinity assumed by de- grees the shape in which it has appeared in later times. It does not come within my purpose to enter into the particulars of this history. It has often been done by able hands; and the result has been such as to convince any one, who will examine their inquiries with patience and impartiality, that the ori- gin of the trinity can be traced to the Platonic phi- losophy, with as much precision, as any fact of those times, either political, civil, or ecclesiastical, can be established by the authority of history.* The principal points of controversy at first, had re- gard to the nature of Christ. It has already been seen, that the Holy Spirit was not elevated to the rank of a person in the trinity, till near the close of * The account n'liich Le Clerc gives of the three Platonic principles is as follows. Plato autcm dixit priimiin esse ro cv, ainev uTcu^rMv, Ens, Causam omnium rertim; secundum vcro Aoyo*, Ratiunem et SectO' rem fra'sent'nim et futurorumi teitiuii) dcnique -^vx^jf xoTf^ov, Animam, sive Spiritum mundi. Secundum quidem Principium a primo ^enitmn, seu factumj tertiuni vero a secundo adfirmat. Ars Critica, P. ii. § 1. c. 15. He observes further, tliat Parmeuides was the first, who started the notion of three principles. Primns omnium tria principia oonstituit Parmenides. Ibid. 191 the fourth century. Several sects early sprung u[) in the first ages, who entertained various sentiments respecting the nature and character of Christ; hut during the three first centuries, there is no trace of any doctrine, like that adopted hy the episcopal church, in which the Fathei-, Son, and Holy Spirft are considered to be tliree distinct jjersons of equal ■power and dignity. The Apostles^ creed is a remarkable proof of this fact. Although it cannot be ascertained when this creed was first made, yet it is undoubtedly very an- cient. At whatever period it was formed, it must be supposed to have been intended to contain what were then considered all the important doctrines of the christian religion. It, nevertheless, gives no coun- tenance to a trinity, and contains very little, if any thing, on this subject, to which every unitarian will not assent.* I have reserved this opportunity to make some fur- ther remarks on your quotations from the epistles of Ignatius. Enough has already been said on the sus- picious character of these epistles to make it appear, that they are not entitled to the least degree of credit * Those, who wish to see the doctiirie of the trinity traced by historical deductions to its true source, may find it done in a very concise and perspicuous manner in professor Norton's "State- ment of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians respecting the nature of God, and tlie Person of Christ," written ill reply to professor Stuart's Letters to Mr. Channing, p. SI. A more full account is also contained in the General Repos. and Rev. vol. iii. p. 13. Cudworth's fntellectual System, Book i. chap. 4. Piiestley's Hist, of Early Opinions. And some re- marks may be found to the purpose in I-e Clcrc's Ars Critica, Pars Secunda, § 1.^. 19a as authoiity in points of controversy. Many epistles, which have gone out untler t!ie name of Ignatius, are universally acknowledged to be fictitious; and those, which are admitted by some to be genuine, are as universally allowed to be mangled and interpolated. And it is a well known fact, that many of the inter- polations, which have been detected, relate particu- larly to the tr'nnty, I will quote two or three of those, which were de- tected by archbishop Usher. <'Our l^ord and God Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God." <'One only begotten Son, the Word, God and Man." "God the Word dwelt in a human body."** Now whatever Ignatius may have written, it is certain he did not write these passages; although, if they had not been discovered to be spurious, they would now be defended with as much zeal as any other parts of his reputed writings. Whatever he wrote, these passages were added by some later hand. From these insertions two things are evident; first, that when they were made, these writings were not thought sufficiemly strong in favour of the trini- ty; and secondly, that no confidence can be placed in any other passages of a similar character. If the original writings taught explicitly the doctrine of the trinity, why should these additions have been deem- ed necessary?! * Usher's edition of Ignatius' Epistles, Oxford, 16-14, p. 4£, 96, 202; as quoted in Lind. Se(|uel, p. 446. t Speakiijj^- of the seven epistles, licss, who believes them to be genuine, observes, "These arc tolerably well purified from modern 193 Among the extracts, which you make from Ij;na- tius, are tlie following. <»Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God." p. 40. ^'Follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Fa- ther." Ibid. It will be seen, by a single glance of the eye, how striking a resemblance there is between these quota- tions, and those above, which were proved by arch- bishop Usher to have been inserted by design; and there is the strongest presumptive evidence, that they all have a similar origin. You must allow me again to express my surprise, that you should quote passages of this character, which are so very important in their consequences, without at least intimating to your rea- ders, that they are of doubtful authority, and should be received with very great caution. interpolations. I say tolerably well, for even the smaller edition appears in certain places to be suspicious." Less on the New Testament, p. Tl. Notwithstanding the suspicious character of these epistles, and the very great probability tliat they were written by some design- ing person to impose on the world, they are thought to be of so much account to the episcopal church, that they have lately been published in England as a tract for general circulation, by a "Society for the Distribution of Tracts," &c. and in this form they help to make up the book called "The Churchman Armed." See vol. i. p. 145. In this same book is inserted the learned treatise of bishop Burgess to prove, that "St. Paul was the founder ot the church in Britain." Vol. ii. p. 316. "The church of Britain was established before the church of Rome." p. 389. But the church has hitherto been contending, that it has de- scended through the church of Rome. How is this point to Ix; settled? Or how is it to be explained, that the church has been so long in an error? ' 194 I have tlius fmishctl the general view, which I proposed to take of the doctrine of the trinity, as contained in the articles of the church. I have at- tempted to compare it with reason, with scripture, and with itself; and on my mind the conviction is ir- resistible, that, as it is there stated, it is irrational, unscriptural, and contradictory in its parts. Not only so, its origin may be traced to a period much later, than that of our Saviour, or liis apostles. These things considered, I cannot persuade myself, that such a doctrine is to be received as in any man- ner connected with the pure, the consistent, and holy religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. ILIS^^SSI ^11, Reverend and dear sir, It only remains in this letter to explain the texts of scripture, which you have adduced in proof of the <licitly; but they regard it an impe- rious duty to use their best faculties in ascertaining what is, and what is not revealed. They place no reliance on the interpretations of fallible men, any farther than from their own inquiry they find them sanctioned in the scriptures. By what faculty of the mind are we to judge, if not by the understanding; or by what proofs are we to be convinced, if not by the results of our own deliberate investi^^ations. Chillingvvorth speaks with great force and truth in repelling the same charge, as it was formerly made by the Catholics against the protestant churches. ••^Propose me any thing out of the Bible, and require whether I believe it or no, and seem it never so in- comprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this; God hath said so, there- fore it is true. In other things I will take no man's liberty of judgment from him; neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse man, nor the worse Christian, I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others, I expect from them again. I am fully assured, that God does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any more of man, than this; to believe the scripture to be God's word, to en- deavour to find the true sense of it, and to live ac- cording to it.''* Every unitarian, it is believed, would subscribe to these sentiments *<>vith hand and * Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, a safe way toSalva-' lion, chap. vi. Protestants not Heretics, sec.. 56. 199 heart." Every one believes Avhat the Bible contains, and for the same reason as Chillingworth, ^'because God hath said it.*' But since christians differ so widely respecting what is actually contained in the Bible^ how can we give peace to our conscience^ or be satisfied that we have the whole truth, unless we use our best faculties in conducting our inquiries, and forming our judgment? There has probably never been a unitarian, who rejected any doctrine or opin- ion, which others have thought to be in the scrips tures, solely because this doctrine or opinion was not consonant to reason. If you tell me you believe a doctrine, which you acknowledge to be unintelligible and irrational, you must suppose such an acknowledgment will at leasfc excite a suspicion, that you may be in a mistake. If you go on to tell me, that this doctrine is contained in scripture, I still shall not be able to believe it, till I have examined seriously and patiently for myself; because 1 cannot believe a proposition, till I am con- vinced by some course of reasoning, that it is true. If the scriptures are to be believed at all, it must be on the authority of reason; and, indeed, by what other authority can you determine the truth of any doctrine or opinion? And admitting you could believe a thing for which you could give no reason, what would be the value of such a faith? "When faith is virtue, reason makes it so.^' The truth is, all our religious opinions, which can be called such, are founded on reason, and to deny its use would be to reject our religion altogether. Why do we believe in the life, sufferin2;s, and death of our 200 Saviour, or vvliy tlo we believe, that the apostles have given us a faitliful account of his instructions, except from the conviction, which is produced by a rational invoeti2;ation of the subject? 1 have heard preachers, in the commencement of a discourse, declaim vehe- mently against the use of reason in deciding on the articles of religious faith, and yet make the chief bur- den of wiiat followed a series of arguments, to prove some of the principal tenets of their belief. Some effect is produced on the minds of the unin- formed by telling them, that unitarians "exalt reason above revelation." To any one, who is in the least degree acquainted with their writings, such a charge needs no refutation. If to search with patient and unwearied labour, with a pious and humble desire of knowing the truth, as it was revealed by Jesus Christ, and preached by the apostles; if to value the com- mands of God more than the commands of men, and to think it necessary to be convinced of a fact before it is believed; if to acknowledge the divine will as the only proper rule of conduct, to rest the hope of future safety wholly on the mercy of God, and to expect salvation on no other terms, than re- pentance, obedience, and a holy life; — if these be to exalt reason above revelation, few unitarians pro- bably will care to free tiiemselves from the imputa- tion; if they be not, the charge is unfounded. We are told, that they have a habit of rejecting such doctrines, as they do not comprehend. This also is a mistake. They reject no doctrine for this reason only, because they do not comprehend it. No man, it is presumed, pretends to comprehend the at- tributes of God, or any of his works in their full ex- SOI tent. I cannot comprehend his existence, nor my own, nor the existence of any thins;. I cannot com- prehend the structure of my own frame, nor of any organized substance in nature. Yet 1 believe these things, because they harmonize perfectly with my understanding, my conscience, and every principle of my mind. I discover nothing in them contradictory or impossible. I should believe in a miracle upon the same principle; not because I can comprehend it, but because my reason convinces me that God is a Being of infinite power, and may, if he choose, mani- fest his power in the working of a miracle. If I did not first use my reason, I could never be convinced, that it was not a deception. But it is one thing for a proposition or doctrine to be incomprehensible, and quite a different thing for it to be contradictory, or inconsistent with the plainest principles of the understanding, or with any known^ positive truth. I do not believe, that one man will be punished for the sins which another has committed, nor that God has elected a certain number to ever- lasting life, and left the remainder of mankind to perish without remedy, — not because these doctrines are incomprehensible, but because they are inconsis- tent with the goodness and justice of God, which I consider established truths. I do not believe, that the earth is a plane surface, and stands still, and that the sun revolves around it every day, — not because these things are incomprehensible, but because my reason has convinced me, that they are inconsistent with the experience of wise men, and the laws of na- ture. That a proposition is incomprehensible, there- fore, is no ground for rejecting it, and he must be very much in the dark, and have no common share of cre- dulity, who fancies, that any unitarian has on this ground disbelieved a single article of faith, which has been received by other christians. Tlie doctrine of the trinity, perhaps, is as incom- prehensible as any thing; and yet I do not disbelieve this doctrine because 1 cannot comprehend it. I dis- believe it, first, because I can find no authority for it in scripture; secondly, because it is contradictory in itself: thirdly, because it is inconsistent with the moral attributes of God; and fourthly, because it violates all the rules of right reasoning by which in other cases, I am enabled to come at a knowledge of truth. Furthermore, unitarians are charged with not believ- ing in mysteries. From this charge very few among them it is presumed would desire to escape. Is not the christian religion a revelation from God, designed to enlighten, improve, and encourage his creatures, and is it credible, that such a revelation should con- tain mysteries, or dark and unintelligible doctrines? Did God commission his only Son to publish his will to men by miracles and wonders, and at the same time make his communications in such terms as they could not possibly understand, or even conceive? The very idea implies an impeachment against the good- ness of God, at which the mind revolts. The design of a revelation was to draw aside the veil of obscurity, and bring down a knowledge of the divine nature, the principles of duty, and the prospects of futurity to the capacities of men. But how is this design affected, if we are still involved in mystery? And what concep- tion, let me ask, can you form of a revealed mystery? What is a revelation, but something made knowrif 203 which was before unknown. Whatever continues to be unknown, anil cannot [>ossibly be undei-stood, lias certainly never been revealed. If we hold, that our re- ligion is mysterious and unintelligible, we make a very wrong use of language, when we call it a reve- lation; and if we believe it to be a revelation, we speak very inconsistently, when we say it is not to be understood. If we look into the sacred writings we shall not find, that our Saviour, or his apostles, ever spoke of any mysteries in their instructions, which their followers were not to understand. The word mystevTj is often used in the liible, but never to signify a thing, which is unintelligible, or contradictory to reason. Some doctrines are said to have been mysterious before they were revealed; but there is no instance in whicli a revealed truth is called a mystenj,* * The writers on the trinitarian side of the controversy, have dwelt with much apparent fondness on the propensity of unita- rians to use their understanding in judging of religious subjects; and none, perhaps, has employed more words in discussing this topic, than Mr. William Burgh. A large portion of his long Keply to Mr. Lindsey's Apology, is occupied in proving, that there are many things incomprehensible. After having fully es- tablished this ])oint, he lays it down as an axiom, ihat "About matters which we do not comprehend, It is obvious, that we cau' not with certainty say any thing." p. 23. Does he mean, that we cann:>t say ivith certainty that grass grows, the sun shines, or that a man moves when he walks, because we cannot comprehend these operations? Such are the premises from which he draws the conclusion, that we cannot reason about the attributes and dis- pensations of the Deity. His words are, "The infinite and incomprehensible majesty of God is an object beyond the limits of reason; we are incapable of forming any idea of him." j>. 23. Can we form no idea, then, of 204 These introductory remarks have extended to a rather greater length, than I have been aware. We will now attend to the principal object of this letter, which is a consideration of certain texts of scripture, and especially those, which you have selected in proof of the divinity of Christ. As you profess to take these texts from Jones's work on the trinity, and as you call this "an inestimable work," and recommend it very highly to your readers, it will not be thought foreign to the purpose to say a few words on its character. It could not but excite a little astonishment to see a book quoted, as of the highest authority on this most important point of controversy, which scarcely a scho- lar or critic has before quoted with approbation, since the day it was written. That it should be a popular book among the uninformed, who take the author's results as truths, without being able to follow him through his show of criticism, is not wonderful; but that a scholar and biblical critic, who can detect his fallacies in every page, and perceive the cloud of pre- the power, the wisdom, and goodness of God? How can we wor- ship a being of whom we can form no idea? Or how can we talk of the benevolence, the mercy, the love of God, or indeed of any of his attributes, if they are totally beyond our conception? Do we not reason perpetually about the attributes of God? Do we not say,that one event indicates his i6'isc?om,another his j^oit'^fr, another his goodness; and do we not say, that the justice of God will award an adequate punishment to the guilt of a sinner? We do not comprehend these attributes fully; yet still, as far as we do comprehend them, we can reason about them, as well as about the innumerable operations of nature, which we do not compre- hend. The character of this book may be very easily imagined, when it is known, that the specimens here quoted are some of the author's first principle_s. 205 judice darkening and confounding every just princi- ple of criticism and interpretation, should publicly sanction and recommend a work of this character, is Ijardly to be accounted for by tlie usual mode of judg- ing of motives from actions. It is the way .of tliis writer to bring together short passages selected at random from different parts of the scriptures, each of whicli contains some of the same, or similar words to the other, and to infer immediately that they mean the same thing. No re- gard is had to the context, hoi* does he seem ever to have dreamed, that the same word may mean very different things, when used in different connexions. In this way you may prove the trinity from the Koran, and show the A^edasof the Hindoo.^, the Talmuds and Targums of the .Tews, to be treatises written in sup- port of orthodoxy. In short, you may prove any thing from any book. A few examples from the work in question will ex- hibit the grounds of these remarks. John iii. 29. ^'He that hath tlie bride is the bride- groom.*' Isaiah liv. 5. "Tliy maker is thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name.'' From these two texts thus brought together, the author infers, that Christ is the Supreme God. John iii. 6. ^'That which is horn of the Spirit.'^ 1 John V. 4. "AVhatsoever is born of God.^^ This is his first proof of the "divinity of the Holy Ghost." To prove "the trinity in unity" he quotes the following text. Psalm xxxiii. 6. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of (hem by the S8 206 breath of liis moutli." On this text he remarks, •<^tlie whole trinity, therefore, created the Avorld." Another argument for the trinity in unity is drawn from the following collocation of texts. Kom. vii. 25. "/ myself serve the law of God.^^ Gal. vi. S. ^'Fulfil the law of Christ/^ Horn. viii. S. '^'The law of the sjnvit of Ufe.'^ By the same kind of reasoning might St. Paul be proved to be a person in the trinity, because he says, Rom. vii. 23. ^^The laiv of my mind.^' I will add only one example more. John vi. 45. *'They shall be all tau_^ht of God.^^ Gal. i. i%. "Neither w as 1 taught it, but by the re- velation of Jesus Christ." John xiv. 26. "The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will teach you all things." Because teaching is here predicated of God, of Jegus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, it is supposed to follow, that these three are one and the same God. Upon this principle, why should not every person, who is said in the scriptures to teach, be considered as sustaining the same character? Paul and Barnabas ^^taught much people.-' Acts xi. 26. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas constitute a part of the "trinity in unity."* * This paralogistic uiudc ol reasoning appears iu iiave been a very favourite one,^vitli a certain class of writers. Mr. Burj^h has adopted it tiuouji;hout his bonk in very close imitation of Jones. In one part of the scriptures, mention is made of "the grace of God,-' and in anotlier, of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ," from which Mr. Burf;;h thinks it a lo-jical inference, that "the god- head ofthf Father and tli" Son is th^^ >:inif^." 'hap. iii. 5 23. 207 These extracts give a fair specimen of tlie gene- ral character of Jones's work, so far as it regards his manner of reasoning. To say nothing of his unac- countable perversion, and numerous cn-ors of criticism, what respect can we. have for the candour or fairness of a writer, who descends on serious subjects to such a childish play upon words, as these specimens exhi- bit? Is it possible, that the cause of the trinity re- quires such a support? And above all^ is this to be Again, Paul at one time calls himself "a servant of God," antl at anotlier, "the servant of Jesus Christ;" therefore, Christ is the most high God. Sec. 35. The apostle speaks on a certain occasion of "ministering the gospel of Gufl" and soon after adds, (Iiat he Iiad "preached the gospel of Christ." It follows, according to this new species of biblical logic, that "Jesus Christ is one with the Father. God." Sec. 51. After these examples, and the extracts before made from tins writer, it is scarcely necessary to add, that he acknowledged him- self to be "altogether unread in theological disputations.-^ p. 221. It was most unfortunate, that his evil stars should lead him to write a book of two hundred and fifty pages, in defence of the trinity, if he was conscious of being thus ignorant of the subject-. In reading such books as these of Jones and Burgh, one can- not but be forcibly reminded of bishop Newton's remarks in his Dissertation on the Difticulties of Scripture. He speaks of men, "who interpret scripture according to their opinions, and frame not their opinions according to scripture. They quote the scrip- ture, and one would think they understood at least what they quotej but alas, in their quotations they manifestly regard the bare words more than the meaning, and so there is but somelliing apposite in the sound, no matter how remote it is in the significa- tion." See Nisbett's Messiah, p. 11. Another writer, who is fund of interpreting tlie scriptures after the manner ol Jones, is Dr. Nares of Ijidilenden. See liis Remarks on the [mproved Version of 'be Xi^1, S08 adopleil as a Uue mode of interpreting the scrip- tures? But the doctrinal part of this hook is not its worst part. The spirit and temper with which it is written, are as distant from the spirit and temper of Christ, as the doctrines it defends are contrary to the trutiis he taught. Let any one read the introduction, and the< letter at the end of the hook, and see how mucii he will find of the mild and gentk spirit inculcated in the gospel. Let him especially ol)serve in what man- ner the writer constantly speaks of Dr. Samuel Clarke, the friend of Newton, and one of the most ahle, learned, and pious men of the age in which he lived. In one place he charges him with professing to "helieve in two different Gods;" and in another^ after censuring him, with a sneer, for changing some of his religious opinions, he says, ♦^and to put the best face he could upon his unbelief, he spent much of the remainder of his life in writing ambiguous com- ments, and finding various readings, that is, in fick- i)ig Jioles in the Bible.*'* Such is the work, which you seriously recommend to your readers, and to wiiich you refer them for religious knowledge.! The passages of scripture usually adduced in sup- port of the trinity I shall consider in the following order. I. Tliose in which Christ is called, or supposed to be called, God. * Catliolic Doctrine of tlic Trinity, New York, 1813, p. 169. t 'i'liis is the. work, which the editor of the American edition of Festivals and Fasts sajs, in his usual summary way, "has put the (liiestion, whether the doctrine of the trinity be revealed in scrii** ture, beyond ail further controversy!" p. 2'^24. 209 II. 'I'hose ill which such properties are ascribed to him, as it is thought could be ascribed only to God, or to a being equal to God: and some of those, which arc believed to contain general proofs of the doctrine of the trinity. I. As Jesus is sometimes called God in the scrip- tures, it has been inferred, that he must be tlie Supreme Being. This raiglit be an argument of some force, if it were not true, that the sacred writers often apply the same title to other persons. On examining the scriptures we shall discover, thiit it was not uncom- mon for those, w ho were eminent for their virtues, or dignity of station, to be called Gods. ^'And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh." Exod. vii. 1. "Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." xxii. 28. "For the Lord your God, is God of Gods." Deut. X. 17. *^God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods." Ps. Ixxxii. 1. "I have said ye are Gods, v. (5, ^Mmong the Gods, there is none like unto t!iee, O Lord." Ps. Ixxxvi. 8. "Worship him, all ye Gods." xcvii. 7. The word God in all these passages means the jjro- phetSf ihQJudgeSf or magistrates of Israel. The same word is sometimes rendered judges; as in Exodus xxi. 6. "Then his master shall brhig him unto the judges," literally, "unto the Gods." In another place the same word is translated angels. Psal. viii. 5. "For thou hast made him a little lower than the ANGELS," or "G()i)S.'"f^ From tliese texts, and from * The onc!;inal word is Q*^7^{. 'Hie passagi; isreiulerccl hv ieron), pmilf) muius a Deo; by A(iuil!a unit Syraniachus, ^^eipc" ''• Tcc^ct ©ee»; and by the Seventy, ,3fa;iv rt rasj' xy/:>.9'j'., Vid. Le CliMT, ot Sept. Edit. Breit. iy Loc. 21U iiicluy ollicis, which miglit be added, it appears, that the title Aviiich is supposed to prove Jesus to have heen tlie Supreme lieing, was given to Moses, the judges and magistrates of Israel, and to angels, as well as to Christ. This use of the term exactly' coincides with the words of our Saviour himself, when he says, ^'Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are Gods? If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and tiie scripture cannot he broken," &c. John x. 34, 3 J. This is a key to all the passages above cited, and to all others in which the word God is applied to Tiwj other person, than the Supreme Being. The word of God came to Moses, the prophets, the rulers of Israel, and in a greater or less degree to every good man. For being thus eminently favoured, they were sometimes calleix6* Y)itcxi TTx^a^ed'uKccTi* u'l y^xd the Lord. There is no more reason for infer- ring, that Christ was the eternal God, because Eman- uel, the name by which the prophet said he should be called, means God with Us, than there is for be- lieving Elijah to have been the eternal God, because his name means God the Lord. This title was ex- pressive of the character of Christ, as in him God was manifest on earth in a remarkable manner by his wis- dom and power. same time both Father and Son. But since God can be only one, it follows, if he is both Fatlier and Son, that he is Father of him- self, and Son of himself. They deny this consequence, and say, that although the true God can be only one, yet he consists of a plurality of persons, one of which is the Father, and the other the Son. They, who say these things, manifestly contradict them- selves, and it would be in vain to dispute with persons, who have so little regard for the first principles of the understanding. I would sooner pray God to give them a sound mind, than attempt tO dispute with them." Slichting. Comment. Tom. ii. p. 417. A part of the text might be more correctly rendered in the fol- lowing words, "We are in him, that is true, through his Son Jesus Christ." Particula in ponitur pro per. Slicht. — Ev pro ^/«. Viger. De Idiotismis, p. 610. For a similar use of this preposition, see Rom. x. 8, 9. Eph.iii. 21. Coll. i. 16. For other examples in which the relative is not referred to the nearest antecedent, see Act vii. 19. x. 6. 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9. 237 I have not mentioned 1 John iii. 16, because the words, of God, are added by the translators. I would only remark on this text, that it shows with what prepossessions king James's translators engai^ed in their important undertaking, and the necessity of re- ceiving their translation with great caution in any case of doubt or difficulty. They have here added a word, which gives a totally d liferent meaning to the text, and have acknowledged, by putting it in italics, that it is not authorized by the original. If they were so much warped by system and previous opinions, as to deviate so glaringly from the original in one instance, we cannot be surprised to find a similar tendency in many others.* In examining these texts we find there is not one, in which it is absolutely certain, that the title God is applied to Christ. And it may be said, without fear of contradiction, that in whatever sense this title is used, it is never so connected with Christ, as to war- rant the inference, by any just principles of interpre- tation, that he is the Supreme God. And it is wor- thy of remark, that several of the most learned and emi- nent trinitarians have given such explanations to the texis here considered, as are conformable to the uni- tarian interpretation. Is it not a little singular, that almost every text, in which it is supposed Christ is directly called Grod, should be of so doubtful a character? Does it not give * The word Qeov, of God, Is not admitted into the text eithet* by Mill, Wetsten, Bengel, or Griesbach. It is found in one manuscript only, in the Complut. etlit. and Vuljrafp. Vid. Wet- sten and Griesbach. 33 ,ioom for suspicion, that these texts, in their present form, are by no means the purest in the scriptures? How should it happen, that those passages, which are thought to be the strongest in favour of the trini- ty, have actually the least certainty in regard to their original construction, and are the least definite in their meaning of any others in the whole Bible? There is one mode, and only one, of explaining this fact. The texts themselves have been mutilated and deformed by being pressed, from time to time, into a service for which they were not originally qualified. But there is enough of their primitive simplicity still left, to enable us to detect their factitious and unnatural parts, and to discover a meaning in them honourable to God, and to the Saviour, and conformable to the plain sense of scripture. 11. I am next to consider some of the leading pas- sages, in which such properties or powers are ascrib- ed to Christ, as it is thought could be ascribed only to God, or to a being equal to God; and also some others, which are believed to contain general proofs of the doctrine of the trinity. John X. 30. "I and my Father are one." In another place our Lord explains in what sense he is to be understood, as being one with the Father. In a prayer for his disciples, he says, "Holy Father, keep, through thine own name, those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also, which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may BK ONE, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may be- lieve that thou hast sent me. And the glory, which 238 thou gavest me, I bave given them, that they may be ONE, even as we are one," John xvii. 11, 20. After reading these texts, it is not possible to mistake his meaning when he said, "I and my Father are one." They were one, as he and his disciples were one, and as all christians are one. They were united in counsel, and purpose, and acted in concert. Christ did "what he saw the Father do." If this text prove Christ to be God, the others prove the same of his disciples.* Philip, ii. t). "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Before we seek for an explanation of this text, it is necessary to know the object of the apostle, in writ- ing the passage from which it is taken. If we ex- amine the preceding and following verses, we shall learn, that be is enjoining on the Philippians the vir- tue of humility, and to make his injunctions the more eflfectual, he reminds them of the example of Christ. It is obvious, therefore, that the text must have a sense, which is in conformity with this object, and which is indicative of the humility, and not of the exaltation of Christ. This text most trinitarians think a decided proof of the deity of Christ. But if this opinion were correct, what force or meaning would there be in the apostle's language? Christ is mentioned here as an example of * It has been observed, that the original is not hi, one person, but iv, one thing. Hence Calvin says, "The ancients abused this text in attempting to prove from it, that Christ is of the same es- sence (of^coviioy) with the Father, for Christ is not speaking of a unity of substance, but of a union, by virtue of which, whatsoever he did would be confirmed by the Father." Abusi sunt hoc loco veteres, &c. Vid. Wolzogen. Oper. Tom, i. p. 922. 240 Lumility, and apparently for no other purpose. But was it any evidence of humility in him to "think it not robbery to be equal with God?'' The entire inconsis- tency of these words with the context, should point out at once the necessity of some better translation. As they stand, they destroy the propriety of the apos- tle's reference to the example of Christ, and render the whole passage inapplicable to the purpose for which it was evidently intended. What are we to understand, in the first place, by the form of Godf Most trinitarians suppose it to be the divine nature, and as it is applied to Christ, they consider it a declaration, that he is possessed of this nature, and is essentially God. But it is well know n;» that the word which is translated fornix very seldom means, in the original, the nature or essence of a thing, but only its external appearance, figure, or properties. Besides, if being in the form of God is a proof that Christ was actually God, then his being in the form of a servant, or slave, is a proof, that he was actual- ly a servant, or slave, which we know is not true. Any evidence contained in the phrase, /or?n of God, is as strong in favour of one of these positions, as the other. ^ Hence this must apply not to the nature, but to the condition and qualifications of Christ. The form of God, in w hich he appeared, was the manifestation of * Hammond says fM^^n is used by good authors pro interna ipsa rerwn essentia vel format but Le Clerc prefers the interpre- tation of Grotius, and quotes Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus and others to prove, that it relates to the external figure or appear- ance, and is synonymous with cix.a)i, ci^oif Tr^ogoi^is. Ham- mond. Adnot. — Mo^0i] denotat aliquid quod in occulos incurrit, adoque de Deo proprie dici non potest. AVetstcn. 241 divine power and wisdom in the miracles he wrought, the instructions he communicated, and in all the evi- dences he gave of the divinity of his mission. Thought if not robbery to be equal with God. It is agreed by almost all critics, trinitarian as well as unitarian, that the words, equal with God, may be trans- lated with the strictest conformity to grammatical con- struction, as, or like God. The phrase is thus trans- lated by archbishop Newcome, and Dr. Macknight. Allowing the common version to be admissible, this is thought preferable; because, if Christ be equal with Godf there must be two Gods equal in power and ma- jesty, which is contrary to scripture and reason.* Thought it not robbery; tliat is, he did not consider this resemblance to God as plunder, or a thing which he had taken by force. He looked upon it as a free gift, conferred by the good pleasure of God. In this consisted his humility. He did not exalt himself, or boast of those possessions and high endowments, which raised him to a likeness with God, as if he had ob- tained them by his own exertions, but was humble in his station, unassuming in his deportment, and submitted patiently to many indignities, without any ostentatious display of those powers, by which he might have secured the admiration, the respect and obedience of the world, t * Wetsten renders ktix, Qeai^ut Deus, like God; and in this he is followed by Macknight, who observes, that Whitby "has prov- ed in the clearest manner, that is-x is used adverbially by the lxx, to express likeness, but not equality." See Macknight on this place. Instar Dei. Rosenmul. et Slicht. t There is some difficulty in ascertaining the precise meaning of cc^TTxyfcoi, because it is not used in any other place in the New Testament, and probably is not to be found in more t'aan one or 24g With this meaning, which is strictly confonnable to the original, the text fills up the place in which it stands, and preserves harmony in the whole passage. CoUos. ii. 9. *^For in him dwcUeth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The word Godhead means the same as Deity, or God. What is meant by the fulness of God we can ascertain, by comparing this passage with others. In the preceding chapter the apostle says, ^^For it pleas- ed the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell.*' This fulness, then, was something, which he had re- ceived from the Father, and consequently was not any- two instances any where else. It may mean the act of seizing upon any thing for plunder, or booty; or it may mean the thing seized, the plunder, or booty itself. That is, it may be used in an active or passive sense. The latter is generally thought pre- ferable. It may signify, vel rem raptam, vel rem avide diripien- dam. et vindicandam. Schleusn. in voc. — Wetsten takes it in this sense, and gives as one reason, Christus nunquam harpagare cu- ravit, nunquam aliquid ab aliquo violenter rapuit. See also Wakefield's Silva Critica, Sect, cxlii. For a more full explana- tion of this text, see Belsham's Calm Inquiry, second edit. p. 82. Cappc's Critical Remarks, vol. i. p. 228. Professor Stuart translates this text as follows; "Who being in the condition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire." He gives as a reason why he ren- ders f^o§(pn, condition, that this word is sometimes used by meto- nymy, according to Schleusner, for (pv^ts, or ovcvv£^. It occurs nearly two hundred times in the septuagint version of the Old Testament, and is sometimes translated worship, at others reverence, and obeisance, but most commonly to bow down. When the sons of the prophets came out to meet Elisha, "they bowed themselves to the ground before him," literally, they worshipped him on the ground. 2 Kings ii. 16. The word derives its si}>;Hificatiou from the eastern custom of prostration in token of submission to a sove- It is said of Christ, Matt. viii. 2, ^'There came a leper and worshipped him," literally, bowed down before him, or, according to the custom of the coun- try, showed him a peculiar mark of reverence and re- spect, as Cornelius afterwards showed to Peter. The same may be said "of a certain ruler who came and worshipped him. ix. 18. After he had walked on the sea and stilled the winds, or, "by what power or authority have ye done this?" St. Paul says, "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth," xxvi. 9; that is^ contrary to the authority or doctrine of Jesus of Na zareth. "In his name (authority^ or doctrine) shall the Gentiles trust." Matt. xii. 2t 35 36a It hence follows, that being "baptized into the name'' of any personj is the same as being baptized into the doctrine of that person, or into the person himself; and to be baptized into the name of a things is the same as being baptized into the thing itself. This is consistent with what is stated in other places. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Gal. iii. 27. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, icere baptized into his deathP^^ Rom. vi. 3. "They were all baptized unto f into J ^Moses in the cloud." 1 Cor. X. 2. From the^e passages we must be convinced, that no argument can be derived from the text under consid- eration, in support of the doctrine of a trinity of per- sons in the godhead. To be baptized into the name of the Holy Spirit, does not imply, that this spirit is a person, any more than that death is a person, for the same reason. And if to be baptized into Christ be a proof, that he is equal with God, you may infer the same of Moses. '*To be baptized into the name of any person," says Schleusner, "signifies to profess, by the rite of baptism, a determination to be devoted to his doctrines, his au- thority and his institutions." They, "who "were bap- tized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea," were such as professed to be his followers and yield to his authority. To be baptized into Christ, is to express an acknowledgment of his authority, and a resolution to obey his commands, and copy his example. When Paul expressed his fears, "lest any should say, that he had baptized in his own name," his meaning was, that none whom he baptized should consider them- 263 selves his disciples, but practical believers of the re- ligion of Christ. In other words, to be baptized into any person, or thing, is to make a public profession of faith in that person, or thing. Faith is the first requisite of a reli- gious life. Wc cannot obey, till we believe; and if our faith be rational and sincere, we shall scarcely be wanting in obedience. One implies the other; so that to acknowledge a sincere faith in the christian reli- gion, by the ceremony of baptism, is the same, as re- solving to give heed to its injunctions, and confide in its promises. Baptism was designed as a rite of initiation into the christian church. To be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, ancl Holy Spirit, was to express a belief that God was the original author of the chris- tian religion; that Christ was empowered by divine aid to publish it to the world; and that the influence of the Holy Spirit, or a divine agency, was manifest in the miraculous powers and gifts, which were exer- cised, both by our saviour and his disciples.^ It is easy to perceive for what reason this form of baptism was instituted. It comprises the three principal sub- jects of christian faith. Whoever professes a sincere and rational belief in these, can give no firmer indica. tion, as far as faith goes, that he is a cliristian. There was a special, as well as a general reason, why the Holy Spirit should be connected with the other two. The enemies of Jesus, and of his religion, imputed the miracles, which he wrought, to a diabolical agen- cy, and said, "he casteth out demons by the prince of * BaptismUS dalUr in nomen re,v «7rer5<>i<*»Te{ TLxr^e<;, rov cAflovTo? XpiFTovyTov ju-tx^Tv^ticcivToi Tu^xycX^Tev. Clement. Vid, Resonmul. Vol. T. p. 575. 264 Uemons." It was important, that. such impressious should be done away as speedily and effectually as- possible, and that his works should be referred to their true source, the power and influence of God. This end could easily be accomplished, by making it a part of (he baptismal ceremony to acknowledge the ope- ration of the Holy Spirit, or the immediate agency of God, in confirming the truths of the gospel.* This is rendered the more probable, from the circumstance of there being no instance on record in which the w hole form was used. Those persons, who had seen such wonderful effects of the Spirit, as to render it impossi- ble for them to doubt of their true cause, were for this reason, perhaps, not baptized in the name of the Spirit, Whether this conjecture be correct or not, it is certain, the apostles did not consider this form as absolutely essential, since it was not always, if ever, employed by them. There is nothing, therefore, in the form itself, nor in the practice of the apostles, which can induce us to think, that because the Sou and Spirit are men- tioned in this connexion, we are to take them to be equal to the Father. If so important a doctrine were to be inculcated in this form of baptism, it certainly would not haye been so uniformly omitted by tlie apostles. It is, also, to be noticed, that in the verse immediately preceding, Christ says, "All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven, and in earth.-' If he were God, it could never be said, that all his power was ^iven to him; and this acknowledgment of his depen- dence, in immediate connexion with the form of bap- * Marsom's Sennon on tlie Impersonal it v- of t!ie Holy Ghost, third edition, Lotnloti, 181S, p. S8. 265 lism, ia another and an unanswerable proof, that no »uch doctrine can be deduced from it, as his equality with the Father. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. ^*=The £;race of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of tlie Holy Spirit, be with you all.-' Many of the epistles of St. Paul are begun and ended with devout wishes, similar to those here ex- pressed. Some have, in these, discovered traces of religious worship offered to three beings, and have hence inferred the doctrine of the trinity. But such inferences will hardly stand the test of examination. The ^rrtce^ or which is the same thing, the, favour of Christ, meiins thq gospel of Christ, or all the bles- sings, privileges, consolations, and hopes, which are enjoyed through this gospel. We are especially in- debted for these to the grace, or favour of Christ, be- cause it was from the purest motives of benevolence and good will, that he suffered so much for the benefit and happiness of men. The apostle expresses a de- sire that these blessings, of which, we have been made partakers through Christ, may abound to the Corin- thians to whom he is writing; and, also, that they may be favoured with the love, or approbation of God. By "the communion of the Holy Spirit,'' is meant a parfitipation of the gifts, powers, or influences, which go under its name. In writing to the Philippians, St. Paul speaks of "their fellowship (communion, or participation) in the gospel," and of their "fellowship of the Spirit."* What can be meant here, but a joint *The word x.oivuvicc\s translated [womiscuous] y fellowship, com- munion, participation; but the last seems to be prefet-able. Schleusner in voc. Yates's Vindication, p. 171. participation of tlie blessings of the gospel, and of spiritual gifts? If you make the Holy Spirit a perw son, what idea can you attach to the apostle's language? How coiild the Corinthians join in the participation of a person? We may commune or participate with, but not of a person, and it is to be kept in mind, that there is no such expression in scripture, as communion with the Holy Spirit. The language of the text itself, therefore, renders it certain, that by the Holy Spirit in this place, cannot be understood a person, or being, much less the supreme God. The words of the apos- tle imply nothing more, than a benevolent wish, that to the Corinthians might abound the blessings confer- red by the gospel of Christ, the love or favour of God, and the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit.— All other texts of this description will be found to re- quire a similar explanation. 1 have thus examined some of the principal passages of scripture, which are usually quoted in support of the. trinity. Others may have been omitted, which are thought important, but my limits have allowed me to select only the most prominent. I cannot refrain from repeating a fact, at which I have before hinted, that every text, which I have examined, has been in- terpreted, by some one or more of the ablest trinitarian critics, in a manner perfectly consistent with the unita- rian exposition. This fact should teach some persons 1o urge with more gentleness the charge, which is often brought against unitarians, of attempting to put a forced < onstruction on such texts of scripture, as do not seem at first to harmonize with their sentiments. The meaning of some of the most difficult passages is to be settled by fair and patient criticism, in which learning, jiidgmenfcj and candour, are the only guides that can be trusted. These may be exercised by persons of one religious denomination, as well as of another; and we show but little regard for the cause of truth, when we suffer our prejudices, and zeal for a party, to blind our eyes to the light, which the judicious inquiries of learned men, wliatever may have been their private opinions, have thrown upon the scriptures. By neglect- ing to be informed, and refusing to inquire, we not only manifest a love of ignorance, but a fear, that our faith is of too flimsy a texture to bear a close exami- nation. If we place any value in religious attainments, in a knowledge of God and of our duty, we shall eagerly seize upon every means in our power, to come at the revealed truths of scripture. Truth in religion, as in every thing else, is known by its simplicity; error in- volves inns perplexities, fills us with doubt, and leaves us in despair. Truth is luminous; it sends forth a steady light. Error is dark, and spreads darkness around it. Truth is the guide to virtue; it is attended with harmony and peace. Error opens a broad way to vice, and draws the heedless and unsuspecting into its snares. We should remember, nevertheless, that opinions are important, as far as they influence the conduct, and no farther. A correct faith will make no amends for a bad life. Faith is not religion, any more than opinions are actions. To be religious we must have faith; to act rightly, we must think rightly; and yet, we may have faith and no religion. as we may think and never act. This truth is of great practical importance. It will cause us to exercise forbearance and a good temper to 208 ivards those with whom wc do not agree in religious opinions. While there is such a variety of character- istic features in the minds, constitutional tempera- ments, dispositions, associated impressions, and early habits of men; while there are such various degrees of knowledge, mental light, and strength of understand- ing, it is not possible, that all men should think alike. Kor is it necessary they should. It is not required of \is, that we never be in error, but that we use our best endeavours to avoid it. Our duty is discharged when we have done this, and it is our misfortune, and not our fault, if we still remain in the dark. All this may be granted, without affording any possible excuse for not keeping up the temper, the dispositions, the feel- ings, and practice of christians. There is no occasion for difference here, but our own perverseness, cher- ished ill nature, and evil passions. If we have any regard for the example of our Saviour, and the noble virtue of charity, which he enjoined, we shall soon learn to subdue these, to lay aside our narrow preju- dices, to disdain the invidious distinctions of names and sects, to brush away the films through which we can see the errors and faults, but not the virtues of our fellowmen; we shall learn, that all men are in the hands of God, that in the concerns of religion, all have equal privileges and freedom, and are entitled to equal claims on our candour, affection, tenderness, and chris- tian love. THE EMW' ERRATA. For "conclusive," page 10, line 6, read "exclusive" — for "either," p. 57, 1. 27, read "other"— p. 76, 1. 10, before "sacrifice" insert "last"— line at bottom, for "adopt," read "adapt" — for "possess," p. 95, I. 25, read "profess" — for "se« venth," p. 135, 1. 6, read "seventeenth"— p. 150, 1. 12, omit, "and essential"— for "in," p. 158, 1. 25, read "into"— for "sseculi," p. 247, line at bottom, read "seculi." This book is due two weeks from the last date stamped below, and if not returned at or before that time a fine of five cents a day will be incurred. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 0035519665 ^^t.T:^ *^TO '^ I BRITTIE DO NOT PHOTOCOPY