IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIiltllllllin.llllllllllllllllllllHIIMMillll.'llllliil  miUHUIJiiiiii  inumii.nu.
iv1^.i.ii.iii>!,..ii!»;ii|iiili'ii(i:ii|ii|ii!Ki»"iini  iihimiiisihiiii  miiiiiumivii'iiW'Uvi^mtmim^m

HliiliiiM

l|||g|l||i|j||i|j||l|llffl

!ili!!<

m

' ,' ;V> i i'B oifif «ii i '<m i i'3 :i 2r .'uItiiiiiij.5ip-iiiMiiii iMdyMmMliaQiij

iiliiiiiiiiiwiiiii

wiMi n ii iLlmih iibiiiihlij . Ou'ijh

\mMmmmMMmmimmmmwm

.Jve-l/-  E-^UT. ^IxfeMft^ASs;-

./»>/

7

DISCOURSES

UNITY OF GOD,

AND OTHER SUBJECTS.

By WILLIAM G. ELIOT, Jr.,
PASTOR OF THE FIRST CONGREGATIONAL SOCIETY OF ST, I.OD1S.

PRINTED FOR THE
American ^Unitarian Association.

BOSTON :
CROSBY, NICHOLS, AND COMPANY,
111 Washington Street.
1853.

IS53

CAMBRIDGE :
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
METCALF AND COMPANY,
PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS  5
UNITY OF GOD  9
THE HOLY SPIRIT ....... 27
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ...... 39
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST  58
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY  83
THE ATONEMENT  101
THE ATONEMENT . . . . . . .113
REGENERATION  127
RETRIBUTION  141

INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS.

There are two popular errors concerning Unitarians, as
a body of believers, which I am desirous of removing from
the minds of all who read this book. First, it is supposed
that we deny the existence of Mystery in religion, and that
we refuse to receive any doctrine which we cannot perfect
ly understand. I should doubt if human presumption ever
went so far, if I had not read somewhere the words of a
philosophical believer, who said, " Where Mystery begins,
Religion ends." In all departments of human inquiry we
find mystery, that is, something hidden from us and beyond
our present reach, and it would be strange if religion wero
an exception to the general rule. All the subjects of which
it treats are, by their nature, beyond our perfect compre
hension. We may learn something of them, we may ob
tain glimmerings of the infinite truth, enough for present
guidance and comfort and encouragement, and that is all.
God, Eternity, Immortality, Redemption, Accountability,
Judgment, — what infinite verities do these words convey,
yet how completely are we overwhelmed in their contem
plation ! There is not one of them that we can perfectly
explain. Our own souls are an unfathomable mystery to
us, and how can we expect to comprehend the nature of

6 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 34
God and of Christ, and all the secrets of the spiritual world
of which we form a part ? We have no such expectation
and make no such promise. We come to the study of re
ligious subjects with reverential feelings, hoping to learn
enough for our salvation, not expecting to know all. But
what is distinctly revealed we do expect to know, and as
far as we receive distinct ideas we expect them to be con
sistent with each other. Mystery and contradiction are very
different things. The former is something beyond our sight,
or seen imperfectly. The latter is plainly seen to be un
true. It may concern subjects of which we know very little,
but of every subject we know enough to see that two con
tradictory statements cannot both be true. We know very
little, for example, about electricity ; but if any one were
to say that it is a self-moving and independent power, and
also an agent which never moves except by our will, we
should answer, that, although the subject is one enveloped
in mystery, the statement concerning it is manifestly false.
Applying this to religious things : The union between God
and Christ is a subject beyond our perfect comprehension,
— it is therefore a mystery ; but as Christ has declared that
he could " do nothing of himself," — that he " spake not of
himself," but. only "as the Father gave him command
ment," — we are prepared to see that those who assert that
he was equal with the Father, and independent in his au
thority, are in error. The subject is mysterious, but the
contradiction is plain. So when Christ asserts that he did
not know of a certain future event (see Mark xiii. 32), the
assertion that he was nevertheless Omniscient, is evidently
a denial of what he said. The limits of his knowledge we
cannot define, but he plainly asserts that some limits do
exist, which is a distinct denial of Omniscience.
The second error concerning us is of a like kind. It is

35 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 7
often said that we set Reason in opposition to Revelation,
or above it, and that therefore we do not come to Scripture
with a teachable spirit. This is not true, nor is any thing
like it true. We do indeed think that the Unitarian system
of Christianity is more rational than what is commonly
called Orthodoxy at the present day, and this is one argu
ment for its truth ; for, as Reason and Revelation are both
of them God's work, there cannot be any real opposition
between them. If we are sure of any doctrine that it is ir
rational or self-contradictory, we may be equally sure that
it is not a revealed truth. Revelation may tell us a great
many things which are beyond our discovery, and which
we can but imperfectly understand ; as when it tells us that
God answers prayer, or that " he works within us both to
will and to do of his good pleasure." It makes us feel that
the Truth is above us, and that, however earnestly we may
reach upwards, we cannot perfectly attain it. But at the
same time it develops, enlarges, and strengthens our ra
tional nature, while commanding us to believe. Christian
ity never tells us to stop thinking, but to " prove all things
and hold fast what is good." We are not commanded to
receive any doctrine without inquiry, but to " search the
Scriptures daily to see " what is true, and of ourselves " to
judge what is right." We ask no charter of freedom greater
than this ; but this charter we do claim, not only as rational
beings, 'but as Christians.
The outcry against reason, made by many religionists, is
not only unwise, but inconsistent with their own practice ;
nor are there any Christians who adhere more closely to
the plain and direct meaning of the Bible than Unitarians.
The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere plainly taught in
Scripture, nor can it be stated in Scripture words ; it is a
doctrine of inference, built up by arguments, and depend-
vol. xxvi. — no. 287. 1*

8 INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 36
ing upon distinctions so nice and difficult that it requires a
good deal of metaphysical acuteness to perceive them. A
crusade against reason comes with ill grace from those who
use it so freely. There is no such doctrine in the Unitarian
system, but it would be puerile to deny that reason is used
in our religious researches. We become Christians only
by its use. There is no other means by which we can
guard ourselves from gross superstition. We cannot use it
too freely or too much, so long as we use it reverently and
with prayer.
It only remains to say, that the following Sermons were
delivered in the Church of the Messiah soon after its dedi
cation. They were not prepared as controversial discourses,
and do not pretend to be a complete discussion of the sub
jects introduced. In their preparation I must acknowledge
my great indebtedness to two works, " Concessions of Trin
itarians," and " Illustrations of Unitarianism," by that inge
nious and learned man, John Wilson, of Boston, formerly
of England. To his industry I am indebted for a great
part of my quotations from Trinitarian writers.
W. G. E.
St. Louis, April 10, 1852.

UNITY OF GOD.

AND JEHOVAH SnALL BE KING OVER ALT. THE EARTH ". IN THAT
'JAY THERE SHALL BE ONE JEHOVAH, AND HIS NAME ONE.  Zcch.
xiv. 9.
THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL, THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THEE, THE
ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM THOU HAST SENT. 
John xvii. 3.
I have selected the first of these two passages, because
it not only contains the belief of the prophet in the Unity
of God, but it is also a prophecy that, in the Messiah's time,
the same doctrine should be more fully established : for he
says, " In that day there shall be One Jehovah, and his
name One," — words which convey the idea of absolute
Unity as strongly as any words can.
The second passage contains the words of Christ himself,
and declares with equal plainness the same doctrine. They
are words spoken in prayer. " These words spake Jesus,
and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour
is come ; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify
thee ; as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he
should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
And this is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

10 UNITY OF GOD. 38
When we consider that these are words of a prayer of
fered by Christ himself, — when we look at their great ex
plicitness, at the distinction which they make between the
Father and the Son, at the emphasis with which they de
clare the Father's supremacy, — we see how important
they are in the controversy between the Unitarian and Trin
itarian believer. For the act of prayer is in itself an ad
mission of supremacy ; and when, in that prayer, we find ,
the distinct assertion that the Father is the only true God,
by whom Jesus Christ was sent, there seems to be nothing
else needed for the final and conclusive argument. If we
try to imagine some method in which Christ could have put
the controversy at rest, I think we could find none less open
to objection than this. If such words, under such circum
stances, can be explained away, it would be in vain to seek
for others which will stand.
Having such authority to rest upon, we begin our inquiry
this evening. My subject is the Unity of God, and I shall
attempt to prove that it is the doctrine both of the Old Tes
tament and the New. But as all Christians receive this
doctrine in some form, it is necessary to state more expli
citly the position we desire to establish. When we speak
of the Unity of God, we take the word in its common mean
ing ; we mean simple, absolute, undivided unity. We mean
that God is one being, one person, one Infinite and almighty
Jehovah, the Creator and Upholder of all things. We do
not pretend to understand the nature of God perfectly.
Both in his being and in his attributes he is far above our
comprehension. But we find no sufficient authority in the
Scripture for increasing the difficulty, by dividing the unity
of his being into a trinity of persons ; a distinction which is
beyond our clear conception, and which seems to us to lead
to hopeless contradiction : for by each person we must un-

39 UNITY OF GOD. 11
derstand one who has existence, consciousness, will, and
attributes of his own, and this is also the definition of a sep
arate being. The more earnestly we seek to explain this
apparent contradiction, that there are three and yet only
one, three persons but one being, the greater the difficulty
becomes ; until we must end, as most persons do end, with
saying that it is an unfathomable mystery, in which we
must believe without questioning. Now we distinctly say,
that, if the Scripture is so, we will try to believe it. We do
not set up our reason against Scripture, which is the ac
knowledged revelation of God ; but we must use our reason
to search the Scripture before we can admit a doctrine so
obscure and so difficult. We have a right to expect plain
proof before we can be required to believe it. Upon this
basis we proceed to consider the subject.
The Unitarian belief is, that there is one God, the Father
Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. The Trinitarian
believes that there is one God, Father, Son, and Spirit ;
that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the
Holy Spirit is God, yet that there are not three Gods, but
one God. Which of these is the true doctrine ? You see
the exact point of difference, and I cannot help here saying
that we have this advantage : we can express our whole
belief in unaltered Bible language. We believe in one God
the Father ; and the Apostle Paul speaks with us when he
says, " To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are
all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Cor. viii. 6.)
And again, when he says, " There is one God and Father
of all, who is above all and through all and in you all."
(Eph. iv. 6.) We say that the Father alone is the supreme
God ; and herein we have the testimony of Christ himself
in the words of our text, " that we may know thee, the only

12 UNITY OF GOD. 40
true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." It is very
important, in the defence of what we believe, to say that
no similar statement of the Trinitarian belief, concerning
God, can be made in unaltered Scripture language. It
seems to me almost fatal to that belief, because, being con
fessedly obscure and difficult, its plain statement is by so
much the more desirable, and, if it were true, might be con
fidently expected from those who " declared the whole
counsel of God." It is a very strong argument against
such a doctrine, that it cannot be expressed or explained
without a departure from Scripture language. Let us turn,
however, more carefully to the law and the testimony.
We look first to the Old Testament, from which our
argument is brief and conclusive. The great object of that
dispensation, under Moses and the Prophets, was to estab
lish the doctrine of God's Unity.
When Moses was appointed the leader of Israel, he found
his people buried in gross superstition and idolatry. He
led them forth from Egypt in the name of the great I am,
the Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He
instructed them in the history of past times, and for this
purpose the book of Genesis was written : to show that the
God in whose name he spoke was the same God by whom
the heavens and the earth were created, by whom the
wickedness of men had in times past been punished, by
whom a part of the human race had been saved from the
general destruction, by whom their ancestors, Abraham and
his children, had been greatly blessed, in that land of prom
ise to which he was now about to lead them, and establish
them there as a great people. When he brought them to
the foot of Mount Sinai in the wilderness, after they had
been rescued by the strong hand and outstretched arm of
the Almighty, in the midst of the fire and the smoke this

41 UNITY OF GOD. 13
eternal truth was spoken : " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy
God is one Jehovah." I use the word Jehovah, instead of
Lord, because, as you know, wherever the latter is printed
in capitals in the Old Testament the original Hebrew is
Jehovah. Now this word is derived from hayah, to be, and
means self-existence ; so that the meaning is, " Hear, O
Israel, the self-existent one, thy God, is the only self-ex
istent." That was the great central doctrine of the Jewish religion.
They received it slowly and unwillingly ; it was too grand
for their degraded minds, and they returned again and
again to the idolatries of the heathen. For a thousand
years, their history is a succession of defeats and victories.
So long as they held fast to their national belief in Jehovah
as the only God, they were superior to all their enemies ;
but whenever they were corrupted by idolatrous practices,
they were shorn of their strength and brought low. Thus
it continued through the time of the Judges and of the Kings,
during which prophets were sent to them from time to time
to reiterate the one great truth, on the preservation of which
their existence as a nation depended. They declared it in
the most emphatic language ; they enforced it by threats of
the most terrible punishment if it was forsaken, and by the
most glorious promises if it was faithfully adhered to.
There would be no end to the task if I were to attempt
to give quotations in proof of this. Let me offer, however,
a few as a sample : Deut. xxxii. 39, " See now that I, even
I, am He, and there is no God with me ! I kill and I make
alive." Isaiah xliv. 8, "Thus saith Jehovah: Beside me
there is no God : is there a God beside me ? yea, there is
no God ; I know not any." Isaiah xiv. 5, and elsewhere,
" I am Jehovah, and there is none else. To whom then
will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto

14 unity of god. 42
him ; to whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal ?
saith the Holy One ; for I am God, and there is none else ;
I am God, and there is none like me." If it were needful,
we might bring several hundred instances as strong and
conclusive as these ; but those who are familiar with the
Old Testament will not require it ; they will admit that the
great labor of all the prophets, from Moses till the time of
captivity, was to teach the Unity of God and the purity of
his worship. It is all a commentary upon the words spoken
upon Mount Sinai, " Jehovah, thy God, is one Jehovah."
But their instructions were almost in vain. The people
were still corrupted, again and again, by the nations around,
until the judgments of God came upon them with more
dreadful calamities. They were completely subdued and
carried into captivity by the Assyrians and Chaldeans.
There, in the land of strangers, when their harps were hung
upon the willow, and they remembered with sadness the
desolation of the temple of God, the eternal truth of God's
Unity was indelibly impressed upon the heart of the Jewish
people ; it was burnt in by sorrow, never again to be erased.
When a small remnant returned to Palestine, it was as the
worshippers of one God, and to them the prophet Zechariah
spoke, when prophesying of the Messiah's time, in the
words of our text, " Jehovah shall be king over all the
earth ; in that day there shall be One Jehovah, and his
name One." The nation had yet many calamities to en
dure, many vicissitudes of fortune ; but among them all,
they never departed again from the lesson which had been
so severely learned.
Such is a general view of the Old Testament, which is, I
think, decisive of the question before us. If it had been
intended by those who spoke under the inspiration of God,
to convey some peculiar idea of unity, different from that

43 unity of god. 15
which the word ordinarily conveys, as, for example, a
Trinity in Unity instead of absolute unity, would it not have
been somewhere distinctly expressed ? Would the chosen
people of God, whose special mission was to teach the truth
concerning God's nature, have been left in ignorance of so
important a doctrine as this ? Would it not rather have
modified all the instructions of the prophets, and appeared
in all their teaching ? But what hint do we find of such a
thing ? From Genesis to Malachi, where do we find, a
single expression which would convey to an unprejudiced
mind such an idea ?
To show how diligently the record has been searched for
such passages, and with what small success, the words, " a
threefold cord cannot be broken," and the passages in which
the word holy is repeated three times, as, " holy, holy, holy
Lord God Almighty," have been quoted and greatly relied
upon by learned theologians, as a proof of the Trinity in
Unity. When such trifles are relied upon, it is a tolerably
good proof that sound argument is wanting. We scarcely
need to be informed that the repetition of the word " holy "
is only an evidence of intense feeling, as when David said
in his affliction, " O my son Absalom, my son, my son
Absalom ! " or as in the exclamation of Jeremiah, " O
earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Jehovah ! " or as in
Rev. viii. 13, " Woe, woe, woe to the inhabiters of the
earth ! " It is just as we would say thrice holy or thrice
cursed ; conveying intense feeling and nothing more.
We must also refer to two arguments, which, although they
are abandoned by the most learned Orthodox critics, are still
insisted upon by many persons. The first is, that the He
brew word " Eloheem," translated God, is in the plural num
ber, indicating, as is supposed, a plurality of persons in the
Godhead. Our answer to this is the same which is given
vol. xxvi. — no. 287. 2

16 UNITY OF GOD. 44
by John Calvin and Professor Stuart, whose orthodoxy will
not be questioned, and is in these words : " For the sake of
emphasis, the Hebrews commonly employed most of the
words which signify Lord, God, &c, in the plural form, but
with the sense of the singular." In proof of which, I refer
to Exodus vii. 1, where the word god is applied to Moses,
" And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a
god to Pharaoh." The Hebrew is here in the plural, and,
literally translated, would be gods. A similar passage oc
curs 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where the word gods, in the plural
number, is applied to Samuel. In fact, this plural form to
nouns of a singular number is a common idiom in the He
brew language where intensity of meaning is expressed.
The names of many of the heathen idols, as of Baal, of
Dagon, of Ashtoreth, Beelzebub, and even of the golden calf
made by Aaron, Ex. xxxii. 4, are all in the plural number.
So in Gen. xxiv. 9, where it is said the servant put his
hand on the thigh of Abraham his master, the word master
is in the Hebrew plural, that is, masters. The same mode
of expression occurs in other places, of Potiphar, of Pharaoh,
and of Joseph, all of whom are spoken of in the plural num
ber, as a token of unusual respect. I have before me no
less than fifty instances, in which words having a singular
meaning are in the plural form, according to the Hebrew
usage. As in Prov. i. 20, " Wisdom crieth without ; she
uttereth her voice in the street " ; the Hebrew word for
wisdom is in the plural. In the same manner, I can give
you instances in which the words salvation, love, truth,
desolation, death, pride, and many others, are in the plural
form in the Hebrew, though translated in the singular.
These considerations are enough to show that the use of the
word Eloheem is, according to Professor Stuart's explana
tion, nothing but a Hebrew idiom, upon which no doctrine
of a plurality of persons can be built.

45 UNITY OF GOD. 17
The other argument to which I refer is of a similar sort.
It is founded upon the words, Gen. 1. 26, " Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness," which we also regard
as an idiomatic mode of expression, commonly called the
plural of excellence or of dignity. We can give instances
in Sacred Scripture of its use by earthly kings, by Jesus
Christ, by the Apostle Paul, and by many others. In 1
Thess. ii. 18 are these words : " Wherefore we would have
come unto you, even I Paul, once and again, but Satan hin
dered us " ; where the Apostle applies the pronouns, we and
us, to himself. We might quote other passages showing the
same use of the plural, but it is not needful, as the argu
ment is abandoned by a large part of Trinitarian writers.
Martin Luther, Grotius, Bishop Patrick, Dr. South, Dr. Sam
uel Johnson, Archbishop Whately, are all good Orthodox
authorities, and all of them agree with us upon this point.
I do not know of any other arguments now used, to
prove that a plurality of persons in the Godhead is hinted
at in the Old Testament. One thing, very important, is
certain, that, if any such hints were conveyed, the Jews
never understood them. The presumption is, that they
knew their own language, and it is certain they understood
that the Unity of God was taught by their Scriptures in the
most absolute and unqualified manner. Such was their in
terpretation of Moses and the Prophets at the time when
Christ came. In all Palestine there probably could not
have been found a single man or woman, who supposed that
there was any distinction of persons, such as is now taught,
in the Unity of God.
If, therefore, such a doctrine is contained in the New
Testament, it must have been completely a new revelaticn
to the Jews ; and not only new, but also strange. At first
sight it must have appeared to them then, as it does now,
B*

18 UNITY OF GOD. 46
subversive of their ancient doctrine. It would have been
necessary, therefore, for the Saviour and his Apostles to
state it very plainly, and to prove its consistency with the
law of Moses. If we find no such statement, we may con
clude that there was no such doctrine. Silence, under
such circumstances, would be a full consent to the old Jew
ish belief in the Unity of God.
What shall we say, then, when we find that this doctrine
is reaffirmed, over and over again, by Christ and his Apos
tles, in the strongest possible language, which is used with
out any explanation, or any hint that a peculiar sense is to
be attached to the word One, when applied to God ? No
less than thirteen hundred and twenty-six times is the word
God used in the books of the New Testament, without any
explanation to guard us from what our Trinitarian friends
would call a fatal error upon this which is the fundamental
doctrine of religion.
This is a tolerably strong case ; but a more careful ex
amination will make it still stronger. Let us look at the
teaching of Christ himself first, and then of his Apostles.
Christ uniformly spoke of God as his Father, and of the
Father as the only God. Almost his first recorded words
are these : S' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve." He prayed to God as his Father,
and taught his disciples to pray in the same words : " Our
Father, who art in heaven." Upon one occasion, when
some one called him " good master," he answered, " Why
callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is
God." Upon another occasion, when asked what was the
first commandment of all, he commenced in the very words
of the law spoken from Mt. Sinai : " Hear, O Israel : The
Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and all

47 UNITY OF GOD. 19
thy mind, and all thy strength. This is the first and great
commandment." Observe how solemn is this affirmation
of the old doctrine ; it is a reenactment of the great cen
tral law of the Jewish religion, without one word of amend
ment or qualification. Can we ask any thing more ?
But we have more, if possible. If this were all, it might
perhaps be argued that the word " God " includes the idea
of tri-personality in the Father, Son, and Spirit ; but the
Saviour has forbidden such a construction by teaching us,
that the God of whom he spoke is the Father only. We
once more refer to the words of our text, words of prayer
to the Father : " This is life eternal, that they may know
thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent." He speaks of himself, the Son, as a separate be
ing, dependent on the Father. " Glorify thy Son, that thy
Son also may glorify thee." Again, in his prediction of
his heavenly exaltation he says, " Hereafter shall the Son of
man sit on the right hand of the power of God." So when
in the garden of Gethsemane he prayed to the Father,
" Not my will, but thine be done." And on the cross, in
the time of his last agony, " My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me ? " and yet once more, after his resur
rection, he said to his disciples, " I ascend unto my Father
and to your Father, to my God and to your God." Thus,
through his whole ministry, he used the same uniform and
familiar language. I ask you again to remember that this
language was addressed to those who had no conception of
any other doctrine than the absolute Unity of God. How
must they have understood it ? I think, just as we under
stand it now, when we say, " To us there is but one God,
even the Father."
The Saviour's testimony is therefore the same with that
of Moses. But although this is admitted by many Trinita-
2*

20 UNITY OF GOD. 48
rians, it is said that the revelation of the new doctrine was
reserved until after the descent of the Holy Spirit at the day
of Pentecost. Let us look then at the preaching of the
Apostles at that time, and subsequently. We find it to be
exactly the same ; the same language is used concerning
God, without any hint that it is to be taken in a peculiar
sense. These are their words : " The God of Abraham,
and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath
glorified his son Jesus, whom God hath raised from the
dead." And again : " This Jesus hath God raised up.
Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."
This language is repeated in the first six or seven chapters
of the Book of Acts, over and over again ; and God is al
ways spoken of without any qualifying word, as the only
Supreme Being, by whom Christ was sent, raised up, and
glorified. Does this look like the revelation of a new doc
trine concerning God ?
In the seventeenth chapter of Acts, Paul makes a distinct
declaration concerning God. He found an altar in Athens,
erected to the unknown God, and said, " Whom therefore ye
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Now, what
is this declaration ? " That God who made the world, and
all things therein, is Lord of heaven and earth ; that in him
we live, and move, and have our being ; that we are his
offspring, and that he hath appointed a day in which he will
judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he
hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance, in that
he hath raised him from the dead."
The time would fail me, to speak of all the instances of
this kind. The Epistles are full of them. The common
mode in which God is there spoken of is, as " the God and

49 UNITY OF GOD. 21
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ " ; as, for example, 2 Cor.
i. 3, " Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort."
Again, Eph. iii. 14, "I bow my knees unto the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ." And, Phil. ii. 11, "That every
knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Observe,
that these passages not only imply the supremacy of one
God, but they also declare that this one God is the Father
only. The same God whom the Apostle elsewhere calls
" the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God,
who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings,
the Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in
the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man
hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power ever
lasting." (1 Tim. vi. 15.) All these are words of the New
Testament. I ask you again, Could they be made more ex
plicit ? If I, as a Unitarian minister, were to task myself
in finding words to express the perfect unity and absolute
supremacy of God the Father, could any words be found
more conclusive than these ?
It appears, therefore, that the language of the Bible is
uniform, from first to last, on this subject. Moses and the
Prophets, Jesus Christ, both before and after his resurrec
tion, and the Apostles, both before and after the day of
Pentecost, assert, in the same unqualified words, that the
Father isihe only living and true God.
Upon what ground, then, are we authorized to divide that
absolute Unity ? Suppose that we were to find two or three
passages which seem to imply such a division. Ought we
not to explain them, if possible, in accordance with the great
prevailing doctrine ? Ought we, for the sake of them, to
introduce inextricable confusion into our ideas of God ? I

22 UNITY OF GOD. ^0
think not. When we have so strong a general case made
out, we ought not to feel troubled by a few difficulties in
detail. The language which we have quoted is so plain,
that we canndt be mistaken in its meaning. We hold to
that plain meaning, and by doing so we are Unitarians. I
say this, not because the difficulties in our way are many
or great, but because it is important for the young inquirer
to take this position. He ought not to expect to explain
every text of Scripture to his perfect satisfaction ; some
difficulties will still remain, but they ought not to trouble
him, where the general conclusion is so well established.
In the present case, however, the remaining difficulties are
few. There are but two texts of any importance which are
supposed to imply the doctrine of a Trinity. The first is
the form of baptism : " Go ye and baptize all nations in the
name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
But this teaches no Trinity of persons, much less of equal
persons in the Godhead. On the contrary, the use of the
word Son implies inferiority. The words mean that we
should be baptized into faith in God as our Father, in the
Son of God as our Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit as the
guiding influence which proceeds from God. This com
prises the whole Christian faith. It is sometimes said, that
to be baptized in the Son is a proof of his deity ; but it is
not so ; for Paul speaks of the Jews as having been bap
tized into Moses. Nor does it follow, because .the three
are spoken of together, that they are equal to each other ;
for in Numb. xxi. 5, 7, we read, " The people came to
Moses and said, We have sinned ; we have spoken against
Jehovah and against thee." And again, 1 Chron. xxix. 20,
" All the congregation blessed Jehovah, God of their fathers,
and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah and

51 UNITY OF GOD. 23
the king." And 1 Sam. xxv. 32, " David said to Abigail,
blessed be Jehovah, God of Israel, who sent thee this day
to meet me ; and blessed be thy advice, and blessed be
thou, who hast kept me this day from shedding blood."
You will observe the strength of this language. It is an
ascription of praise, — first to Jehovah, God of Israel, then
to her advice, and then to herself. But the ascription is to
be understood differently in each case. So, when we read
that they worshipped Jehovah and the king, we understand
the first as supreme worship, and the second as the homage
of respect. In all such cases, which are frequent in the
Bible, common sense saves us from error. Although two
or three subjects are spoken of in the same connection, it
does not follow that they are spoken of in the same sense,
much less that they are the same thing, or equal to each
other. Nor does it follow that the Holy Spirit is a person be
cause we are baptized into its name. For, according to a
common mode of expression among the Jews, the name of
a thing often meant the thing itself ; so the Rabbins speak
of being baptized into the name of liberty, and the Samari
tans circumcised their converts into the name of Mt. Geri
zim. If you feel any remaining doubt as to this passage, which
is regarded as the great bulwark of the Trinitarian belief, I
can refer you to a great many Orthodox authorities which
admjt the interpretation now given. Among them are the
celebrated Erasmus, Dr. Wardlaw, Schleusner, Michaelis,
and Professor Stuart of Andover. They all of them de
clare, that, although the baptismal form will bear a Trinita
rian meaning, it may also be interpreted differently without
violence to the language.
The other text to which I referred is 1 John v. 7 :

24 UNITY OF GOD. 52
" There are three which bear record in heaven, the Fa
ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are
one." Of which we say, first, if we admit its genuine
ness, it affords no argument against the doctrine of the
unity. The Greek word translated one is in the neuter
gender, and means, not one being, but one thing ; which is,
according to the use of Scripture, not identity, but agree
ment ; as when it is said, " He that soweth and he that
watereth are one " ; or as the Saviour prays for his disci
ples, " that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in
me, and I in thee." It is so that the passage is interpreted
by Calvin. He says : " The expression ' these three are
one,' refers not to essence, but to consent ; as if the Apostle
had said, the Father and his eternal word and spirit harmo
niously bear testimony to Christ. There is no doubt that
the Father, Word, and Spirit are called one in the same
sense as blood, water, and spirit, in the following verse."
The same explanation is given by the celebrated Beza, one
of the great Orthodox authorities ; and McKnight, the au
thor of an Orthodox commentary, has these words : " It was
not to John's purpose to speak here of the unity of the heav
enly witnesses, in respect either of their nature or of their
number. I am therefore of opinion, that, when he wrote
' these three are one," he meant only that they are one in
respect of the agreement of their testimony, conformably to
the use of the same phrase in other parts of the New Tes
tament." With such authority, therefore, as that of Calvin,
Beza, and McKnight on our side, to which I might add that
of twenty-two others, equally distinguished as Trinitarians-,
whose names I have now before me, we need not hesitate
to give a Unitarian explanation to this famous text.
Truth compels me, however, to add, that the text, such
as it is, is spurious. It has no proper place in the Bible, of

53 UNITY OF GOD. 25
which we have the following proof: — " 1. It is not con
tained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier
than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manuscript
earlier than the ninth century. 3. It is not found in any of
the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek
ecclesiastical writers, though, to prove the doctrine of the
Trinity, they have cited the words both before and after it.
5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin Fathers, even
when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally
have led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited
by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the
latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is supposed to
have been forged. 7. It has been omitted, as spurious, in
many editions of the New Testament, since the Reforma
tion ; in the first two of Erasmus ; in those of Aldus, Coli-
nasus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omit
ted by Luther, in his German version. In the old English
Bibles of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Eliza
beth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets ;
but between the years 1566 and 1680 it began to be printed
as it now stands, by whose authority is not known." With
such evidence before him, Bishop Lowth says : " We have
some wranglers in theology, sworn to follow their master,
who are prepared to defend any thing, however absurd,
should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one
among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criti
cism, and having the use of his understanding, who would
be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse, 1
John v. 7."
You will see upon how slender a basis the doctrine of a
Trinity rests. There is not a single passage. of the Bible in
which it is distinctly stated, not one in which it is clearly
implied. The doctrine of the Divine Unity, therefore, re-

26 UNITY OF GOD. 54
mains unimpeached. It is written all over the Old and New
Testaments, just as it is written all over the works of God
everywhere in the universe : " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah
thy God is one Jehovah." This is life eternal, that we may
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
ihou hast sent..

THE HOLY SPIRIT.

god is A spirit. — John iv. 24.

My subject this evening is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Last Sunday I attempted to show that the doctrine of the
Divine Unity, unqualified and undivided, is taught by the
Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures ; that God
is our Father, and that the Father is the only true God, —
the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the founda
tion on which we rest our faith.
Those who impugn this doctrine, or who modify it by a
Trinity of persons in the Godhead, attempt to prove that
Christ, the Son of God, is equal with the Father, and, in
some sense, the same with the Father ; also, that the Spirit
of God has a personality and attributes, separate from God
the Father and God the Son. Having thus asserted these
points separately, they join them together, under a modified
doctrine of the Divine Unity, as a Trinity of persons in one
God. The most important step in their argument is to
prove the Deity of Christ, that is, his equality or identity
with the Father, and1 it might naturally be expected that this
would form the next subject of our inquiry. Such is the

28 the holy spirit. 58
usual course ; but I have two reasons for departing from it
by taking the doctrine of the Holy Spirit first. In the first
place, I think that sufficient prominence is not given to this
doctrine in the Trinitarian controversy. It is too often
taken for granted, or accepted with almost no proof. Trin
itarians, if they can satisfy themselves of the Deity of
Christ, consider that their whole work is done. Very few
are aware upon what slender proof the separate personality
of the Holy Spirit rests. Very few are aware of what is
the fact, that this doctrine was not even asserted in the
Christian Church, nor made a part of the creed, until the
end of the fourth century, by the Council of Constantinople.
I wish this to appear ; both that the importance of the
doctrine, and the difficulty of receiving it in any other way
than that in which we receive it, may be known. I wish it
to appear that the Scripture language concerning the Holy
Spirit confirms our view of the Unity ; that no doctrine of
the Holy Spirit can be found such as is necessary to estab
lish the Trinity. If I can succeed in this, we shall then
come to the consideration of Christ's nature, with a strong
presumption that our vie'w of him is correct ; for I think
that, if it plainly appears that a third person in the Trinity
cannot be proved, very few persons will undertake to prove
the second, and the doctrine of -the Divine Unity will there
fore become more impregnable.
I take this course also for another reason. There is no
subject upon which Unitarians are more misrepresented than
this of the Holy Spirit. Because we deny a separate per
sonality, we are thought to deny the Holy Spirit itself, that
is, to reject all belief in divine influences for the regenera
tion of the heart and guidance of the life. Many persons
hold to the doctrine of the Trinity because they suppose
that its denial would involve an error like this. They

59 the holy spirit. 29
shrink from the Unitarian belief for the same reason. They
feel the necessity of those heavenly influences which are
the workings of the divine spirit, and from their faith in
such influences their chief enjoyment in religion proceeds.
Shall they give it up ? Even if overthrown in argument,
shall they yield all the blessedness of their religion ? We
say no. If such were the alternative, let the doctrine of the
Trinity be adhered to, with or without proof. The neces
sity of the heavenly influence which the heart acknowledges
would be proof enough.
But there is no such alternative. To deny the person
ality of the Holy Spirit, separate from that of the Father, is
not to deny the Holy Spirit itself. So far as the doctrine is
a practical one, or of any practical importance in the for
mation of the religious character, all Christians are agreed
upon it. In God we live and move and have our being.
He works within us both to will and to do of his good
pleasure. He is more ready to give his Holy Spirit to
those that ask him, than an earthly parent is to bestow good
things upon his children. But all this is as true to the Uni
tarian as to the Trinitarian. Indeed, it seems to me more
true ; for we believe that the gift comes directly from a
Father's love. There is no intermediate doctrine of a third
person to confuse the thoughts. When we pray to the
Heavenly Father, we feel that we are in living communion
with him and he with us.
The Greek word translated Spirit in the New Testament
is Pneuma, the literal meaning of which is wind or breath.
The corresponding word in the Old Testament has the
same meaning. Both words occur veiy frequently in this
sense. When applied to God, or to any intelligent being,
they are commonly translated Spirit, sometimes by the word
Ghost, which, as you know, had exactly the same meaning
vol. xxvi. — no. 288. 1* c*

30 the holy spirit. 60
at the time when the translation of the Bible was made.
To give up the ghost is the parting of the spirit from the
body, and the Holy Ghost is only another name for Holy
Spirit. The Greek or Hebrew word is exactly the same in
both cases. Now the question in controversy is, What does
this term Holy Spirit mean according to Scripture usage ?
Is it a person in the Godhead separate from the Father, or
is it intended to express as its general meaning the influ
ences which proceed from the Father ? This question must
be decided by a careful examination of the Scripture.
There are three principal uses of the term Holy Spirit
when applied to God in the Scripture which we must ex
amine. 1. Sometimes it means God himself; 2. Some
times the power, or some other attribute, of God ; and 3.
Sometimes (which is the most common use) the various
influences which proceed from God.
First : It is sometimes used as another expression for
God himself, just as the spirit of man is sometimes used for
the man himself. Of this we have an instance in 1 Cor. ii.
11, " For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man which is in him ? even so the things of God
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." As we should not
think of saying that the spirit of man is here any thing but
the man himself, so the Spirit of God is God himself. So it
is said, Ps. cxxxix. 7, " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit,
or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up
into heaven, thou art there " ; where the phrase " thy Spir
it " evidently means the same as thy presence, or thyself.
Again, Isa. xl. 13, " Who hath directed the Spirit of the
Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him ? " where the
Spirit of the Lord evidently means the Lord himself. This
is in accordance with the words of our text, " God is a
Spirit."

61

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 31

The only intelligent idea that we can form of God the
Father is of a spiritual being, or of an infinite mind, partly
made manifest to us through his wonderful works. Just as
our idea of a man is chiefly that of a spirit or soul, which
for the present is joined to the body as the means of its de
velopment. In both cases the idea is indistinct and imper
fect. We cannot perfectly apprehend the nature of spirit
ual existence, and in our efforts to do so we may easily be
come puzzled. But so far as we have any distinct concep
tion of the being of God the Father, we think of him as an
infinite, omnipresent Spirit. How much, then, is our diffi
culty increased, and how hopeless does the confusion of our
minds become, when we try to think of a Spirit of God,
having a personal existence separate from God the Father !
For if the Father is himself a Spirit, it is to speak of the
Spirit of a Spirit, and in fact conveys no idea to the mind.
But if in such cases we take the Spirit of God as another
expression for God himself, there is no difficulty.
The second use of the term " Spirit of God " is to ex
press God's power, or some other attribute. When the
Saviour said, Matt. xii. 28, " If I by the Spirit of God cast
out devils," he meant by the power of God ; as we find in
the corresponding passage by another Evangelist, Luke xi.
20, " If I by the finger of God cast out devils " ; in both
cases meaning exactly the same. So in Luke i. 35, " The
Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee," the exercise of the Divine
power is intended.
Such modes of expression are quite common in the Bi
ble. They are intended simply to express the exertion of
God's power. Whatever God himself does, he is said to
do by his spirit, or by his word, or by his hand, or by the
breath of his mouth ; all of which means substantially the

32 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 62
same thing. See, for example, Job xxvi. 12, " He divid-
eth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he
smiteth through the proud. By his Spirit he hath gar
nished the heavens ; his hand hath formed the crooked ser
pent." Or in Ps. xxxiii. 6, " By the word of Jehovah were
the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the oreath
or Spirit of his mouth ; he spake and it was done, he com
manded and it stood fast." All such language is perfectly
intelligible if we receive it as different modes of expressing
the exercise of God's power and wisdom ; but if in such
language we try to find evidence that the Spirit of God is
a person separate from God the Father, it all becomes ob
scure. We might as well attribute personality to the Fin
ger or the Hand of God. Here also, as before, the natural
use of language leads us to the more intelligible doctrine.
There is one other principal use of the term Holy Spirit,
to which I have referred. It is that which means the Holy
Influence of the Deity on the minds of his servants, with
the accompanying gifts and powers. This is by far the
most common use of the term in the Bible, — perhaps in
nine cases out of ten where it occurs. It is a use which
confirms our view of the doctrine in dispute, and I think is
inconsistent with any other. While I read a few of the
passages, I would ask your close attention, that you may
decide for yourselves upon this point, to which doctrine
the language is most favorable. The Scripture says, that
the Holy Spirit was " put within " Moses ; that the spirit of
the Lord was " put upon " the prophets, and other inspired
persons ; that the spirit of the Lord " fell upon " Ezekiel ;
that to the Apostles the Holy Spirit was " partially given,"
but that to Christ it was " given without measure " ; that
they " received " the Holy Spirit ; they were " baptized "
with the Holy Spirit and with fire ; they were " supplied "

63 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 33
with the spirit of Christ, and were made " partakers " of it.
The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, was " poured out " or
" shed forth " both on Jews and Gentiles. Believers were
" sealed " with the Holy Spirit of promise. Jesus " breathed
on them," and said, " Receive ye the Holy Spirit." In
Luke xi. 13 it is said, " How much more shall the Heav
enly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him " ;
and in the parallel passage, Matt. vii. 11, the words are,
" How much more shall your Heavenly Father give good
things to them that ask him " ; so that the Holy Spirit in
this case is the same with the " good things," or the spirit
ual blessings, promised. We are taught to " walk in " the
spirit, and that the " fruit of the spirit " is love, joy, peace,
long-suffering, and the like.
There are two instances in which the descent of the Holy
Spirit was accompanied by a visible demonstration. Both
of them are referred to as a proof of the personality of the
Spirit of God, separate from the Father. They are un
doubtedly the strongest instances to that effect which can
be alleged. The first of them is at the baptism of Jesus,
and the second at the day of Pentecost. In the former, it
is said that " the Spirit of God descended like a dove, light
ing upon Jesus, and a voice came from heaven saying,
' This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' " It
was an. outward token of God's approbation ; the visible ap
pointment of Christ as the Messiah. It was to this that the
Apostle referred when he said, speaking of this veiy inci
dent, " That God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Ghost and with power." Acts x. 38. Observe that ex
pression, which is used as descriptive of Christ's baptism :
" That God anointed him with the Holy Spirit." Is it not
perfectly inapplicable to the idea of separate personality ?
The other instance is at the day of Pentecost, of which

34 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 64
we find similar language used. The event is described by
Peter as the pouring out of God's Spirit, and he declares
that " Jesus, being by' the right hand of God exalted, and
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spir
it, had shed forth that which was seen and heard." And
he exhorts his hearers to " receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit, the promise of which had been made to them."
You will observe how strongly all this language confirms
the view which we take of the doctrine, and how difficult to
be reconciled with any other.
These, therefore, are the three meanings which belong
to the " Holy Spirit," according to Scripture usage : 1. It
is sometimes only another expression for God himself, as
the spirit of man is another expression, in some instances,
for the man himself. 2. Sometimes it expresses the power
of God, or some other attribute ; as when we read, " By
his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens." 3. Sometimes,
which is the most common use, it means the spiritual bless
ings, or influences, or good things, which the Heavenly Fa
ther bestows upon those who ask him. We have no hesita
tion in asserting most positively, that there is no passage in
the Bible in which the words may not be explained under
one of these meanings. There is no passage in the Bible
where the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Self-existent, Al
mighty, or Omnipresent Person, distinct from the God and
Father of Jesus Christ. But, on the contrary, the language
is generally such that it cannot be spoken of a person at all,
but must mean the influences which proceed from God the
Father. Upon what ground, then, are we required to renounce
our belief in the Unity of God, or, at least, to modify it by
the admission of a third person in the Godhead ? The argu
ments are so few, that it will not take long to answer them.

65 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 35
I have already given the meaning of the words used in
baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19, as expressing our belief in God as
our Father, in Christ as our Redeemer, and in the Holy
Spirit as the sanctifying influence which comes from God.
The only other text to which I need refer is found Rom.
viii. 26 : " Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities ;
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but
the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings
which cannot be uttered ; and he that searcheth the hearts
knoweth the mind of the Spirit, because it maketh interces
sion for the saints, according to the will of God." " It is
surprising," says Mr. Peabody, " that this text should ever
have been quoted as favoring the idea of the supreme inde
pendent divinity of a Spirit, which intercedes, that.is, offers
prayer, of course to some superior being." It is one of
those texts which are difficult to explain, word for word,
but of which the whole meaning is perfectly evident. The
idea of the passage is, that " the devout soul, in all its in
firmity and ignorance, will still be sustained, for it will still
press to the mercy-seat ; and that if it knows not what to
ask for, and cannot shape its own supplications, God, know
ing the earnestness and rectitude of its desires, will satisfy
all its real wants."
The principal argument for the separate personality of
the Spirit is found in the four passages which I have read
to you this evening from John xiv., xv., and xvi., in which
the divine influences promised by Christ to his disciples are
personified under the name of the Comforter. I think that
if it can be shown that this personification does not, accord
ing to common Scripture usage, imply literal personality,
very little argument will be left.
What is the Scripture usage in this respect ? A brief
examination will show us that no mode of expression is

36 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 66
more common than that in which inanimate objects and
qualities are spoken of as if they were living beings, having
personal properties and performing personal actions. Thus,
" the sea and the mountains are represented as having
eyes ; the earth as having ears ; a song, a stone, an altar,
water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken of
as witnesses. The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed
as individuals, capable of being roused from sleep. The
ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and the
blood of sprinkling, are exhibited as speakers ; and destruc
tion and death, as saying that they had heard with their
ears. In the language of Holy Writ, the sun rejoiceth and
knoweth his going down ; the deep lifts up his hands, and
utters his voice ; the mountains skip like rams, the little
hills like lambs ; wisdom and understanding cry aloud, and
put forth their voice ; the heart and the flesh of the prophet
cry out for the living God. The Scripture is a seer and
preacher ; the word of Jesus is a judge ; nature, the heav
ens, the earth, are teachers. God's testimonies are coun
sellors, his rod and staff are comforters ; the light and the
truth, and the commandments of God, are leaders or guides.
Sin is described as a master, and death as a king and an
enemy. Fle,sh and the mind are treated of as having a
will ; fear and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word
and commandments of God, are exhibited as messengers.
Charity is represented as in possession of all the graces and
virtues of the Christian character." *
Such is the usage of Scripture. It is so common that I
may almost call it universal. Some of the instances to
which I have now referred are also much stronger as per
sonifications than that in which the Holy Spirit is personified
* Wilson's Illustrations.

67 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 37
as the Comforter. For instance, if you will read the thir
teenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, you
will find that charity is spoken of as a living person, who
" suffereth long and is kind, who envieth not, who seeketh
not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, re-
joiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiccth in the truth, beareth all
things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things." I refer you also particularly to the ninth chapter
of the book of Proverbs.
It is evident, therefore, that personification is a very com
mon figure of speech in the Scripture, and we are perfectly
justified in this mode of interpreting those passages in which
the influences of the Holy Spirit are called a Comforter.
We can fully account for the language, without the neces
sity of supposing literal personality ; and we are confirmed
in this view, because we find that the Apostles regarded the
" shedding abroad" of the divine influences at the day of
Pentecost as a fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. (Acts
ii. 33.) These influences were to them " the Comforter,"
which brought all things to their remembrance, and quali
fied them to be the ministers of Christ.
It may perhaps still further confirm us in this view of
the language, that, even if we should admit that the Com
forter is a literal person, he is evidently not upon an equal
ity with the Father or the Son ; for he is given oy the Fa
ther, he is sent hy the Son, he is to speak only what he shall
hear, he shall receive of Christ whatever he teaches ; all of
which expressions imply inferiority. And accordingly it is
a fact in the history of the Church, that, for two hundred
years after the personality of the Spirit was taught, his in
feriority to the Father and to the Son was universally ad
mitted. We feel justified, therefore, in rejecting the doctrine of
vol. xxvi. — no. 288. 2 d

38 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 68
the personality of the Holy Spirit as a third Person in the
Godhead. The Scriptures do not teach it, but just the con
trary. We reject it as a human device, by which great
confusion is introduced into our ideas concerning God, and
which is of no practical utility. Let me again say, how
ever, that we do not reject the true and Scriptural idea of
the Holy Spirit. We believe in the reality and necessity of
a Divine Influence in the soul, and upon it we place our
chief dependence. Our prayer is, that the Spirit of God
may guide us aright, so that our present seeking after the
truth as it is in Jesus may be blessed to our eternal salva
tion.

OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

HE SAITH UNTO THEM, BUT WHOM SAY TE THAT I AM ? AND SI
MON PETER ANSWERED AND SAID, THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON
op the living god." — Matthew xvi. 16.
These words distinctly explain the subject before us this
evening. The question asked is exactly that which we
now ask, — Whom do the Scriptures say that Jesus Christ
is ? And the answer given is exactly the same which we,
as Unitarian believers, would give. We take the words
in their fullest meaning, and adopt them as the confession
of our faith. " He is the Christ, the Son of the living God."
In these words, not only the statement of our belief is
contained, but also the argument on which it rests. The
word " Christ " means anointed. It is in Greek, the same
with " Messiah " in Hebrew, and implies that Jesus was
anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and with power, to
become a prince and a saviour, a prophet and a judge. It
implies, therefore, very high distinction, but at the same
time a distinction conferred by one higher than himself.
He is also " the Son of God " ; a phrase elsewhere be
stowed upon prophets and righteous men, but here used with
peculiar solemnity, — "the Son of the living God," — and
with peculiar meaning ; the same as when he is called

40 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 72
" the beloved Son," or " the only begotten Son of his Fa
ther." Such words, I think, announce peculiar exaltation,
— peculiar nearness to God. I doubt if we can at present
understand their full meaning. To me, when taken in
connection with other expressions used by our Saviour con
cerning himself, they convey an idea of mystery, of union
with God inexplicably close ; a mystery into which we can
but imperfectly penetrate, because it is but imperfectly re
vealed. But at the same time, while the expression con
veys the idea of an unknown exaltation, it distinctly im
plies derivation and dependence. If words mean any
thing, — if we are to use them according to their intelligi
ble meaning, — the Son owes his existence to the Father,
and cannot therefore be self-existent. The very idea of
sonship is of derivation, and is therefore inconsistent with
the doctrine both of identity and of equality. If words
mean any thing, he who is the Son of the living or su
preme God cannot be himself the supreme God, but must
be derived from him, and dependent on him.
In the statement now given, I have expressed my whole
belief concerning Christ. In the words of Peter, I say,
" He is the Christ, the Son of the living God." With that
confessionof faith Jesus was satisfied ; for he said, " Bless
ed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heav
en." It is, then, not only the opinion of the Apostles, con
firmed by Christ, but it is also the direct inspiration of the
Father in heaven. We have reason, therefore, to be satis
fied with it. We adopt it, word for word, as the confes
sion of faith in this church, and are willing to receive no
other. It constitutes us Unitarians. My task this evening
is to show its meaning more fully, and to prove that it is
taught, not only in the words of the text, but everywhere
else in the Bible.

73 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 41
First of all, you will observe, and I call your attention
particularly to it, that those who accuse us of believing
that Christ is a mere man, are in error. They are preju
diced or misinformed. If by a mere man they mean one
like ourselves, or like the prophets of the olden time, Mo
ses, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or John the Baptist, the charge
is entirely untrue. I know of no Unitarians who hold such
a belief. There may be individuals who receive it, as
there are individuals in the Presbyterian Church who be
lieve in infant damnation ; but I hope they are few in both
cases. You will also find, among nominal Unitarians,
some who have almost no faith at all ; who hold to Jesus
only as they might hold to Socrates. I pass no sentence •
upon them, for it is not our part to sit in judgment or to
pronounce anathemas ; but I do say, that they are not to be
taken as the exponents of the Unitarian faith. I feel satis
fied, from observation which has been very extended, that
there is no denomination in which Christ is more heartily
received than in our own. A vulgar prejudice has been
sometimes excited against us, by calling Unitarianism the
half-way house to infidelity ; but I believe that it has been
the means of saving more persons from infidelity than any
other form of belief. It addresses itself to thinking men
and encourages them to think independently, but it does
not make shipwreck of faith. It receives Christ as the di
vine master and guide, but at the same time proves his
doctrines to be consistent with enlightened reason.
Unitarians, as a body of believers, everywhere, agree in
the belief that Christ is the special messenger of God ;
that his mission was divine ; that his character was sinless ;
that his authority was so directly from God, that whatever
he taught is the teaching of the Father. " For he spake
not of himself, but as the Father gave him commandment,
vol. xxvi. — no. 289. 1 * d *

42 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 74
so he taught." He was divine, therefore, in his mission, in
his character, and in his authority. This is not the descrip
tion of a mere man. Consider only the distinction of ab
solute freedom from sin, to say nothing of his superhuman
wisdom and power ; how completely does that distinction
alone place him by himself! What nearness to God does
it give him ! We can but imperfectly conceive it. Our
own sinfulness is so great, it is so inherent in our nature,
so inseparable from the development of our thoughts and
affections, that we but imperfectly understand its debasing
influence. I believe that, if we could this day be absolute
ly freed from sin, we should be lost in amazement at the
height to which we would rise, and the comparative degra
dation in which we now stand. To be absolutely freed
from sin, is to be indeed the Son of God ; it is the highest
moral exaltation ; and when we add thereto such authority
and power as belonged to Jesus, we see how very far he is
from all our ideas of a mere man.
Upon one point of considerable importance, Unitarian
believers are divided in opinion. Some of them, among
whom are included a majority of English Unitarians, be
lieve that the existence of Christ began when he was born
at Bethlehem of Judea. They defend this belief by the
records of his life, from his infancy to his crucifixion. —
That he calls himself a man, and is so called and so treat
ed by his disciples ; and that he was subject to the wants,
to the infirmities, the sufferings, and death, which belong to
humanity. This class of believers is sometimes called
Humanitarian. Although there are many arguments diffi
cult to answer, by which their belief is sustained, I have
never been satisfied with it. I do not now belong, and I
never have belonged, to their number. We acknowledge
them as brethren, and among them we see many of the

75 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 43
most excellent names which adorn the Unitarian calendar ;
but I cannot agree with them in opinion. I admit, how
ever, that the most essential point in the Christian faith is,
not the time when Christ's existence began, nor the meta
physical elements of his nature, but the degree of his au- |
thority to speak in the name of God. If the Scriptures
say truly, that to him the Spirit was given without meas
ure, and that he has power to give eternal life to whom he
will, this alone is enough to make his religion divine, and
to enable us to receive him as our Saviour.
The other part of Unitarians believe that Christ came
down from heaven to accomplish his work on earth ; that
from his dwelling in the bosom of the Father, he was sent,
a willing messenger, to bring glad tidings of great joy,
and to accomplish, for our salvation, a work which we
could not do for ourselves. To this faith I give my adher
ence, and more strongly, from year to year, as I become
more thoroughly acquainted with the Bible. As I have al
ready said, I do not pretend to define it exactly. The na
ture of his being, before he came upon earth, is entirely
unknown to us. The degree of his nearness to God, either
then or now, we can but imperfectly understand. But I
am unable to interpret his language concerning himself, or
the language of his Apostles concerning him, consistently
with any other belief.
When the Jews were objecting to him his youth and the
obscurity of his birth, he answered, John viii. 56, " Your
father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw and
was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, thou art not fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? And Jesus said
unto them, before Abraham was, I am." In his prayer to
the Father, he says, John xvii. 5, " Glorify thou me with
thy own self, with the glory which I had with thee before

44 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 76
the world was." And again, verse 24, " For thou lovedst
me before the foundation of the world." At another time,
when the Jews objected to his saying that he was the bread
which came down from heaven, he said to his disciples,
John vi. 61, " Doth this offend you ? What and if ye shall
see the Son of man ascend up where he was before ? "
John the Baptist, in speaking of him, said, John i. 30, " Af
ter me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he
was before me."
" In this connection let me quote the Saviour's words.
' No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down
from heaven.' Is it said that coming down from heaven
simply implies a divine commission ? Why, then, did not
John the Baptist, who certainly had a commission, no less
from God than that of Jesus, speak of himself as com
ing down from heaven ? But he in this same chapter
(John iii.) expressly speaks of Christ as coming down from
heaven in a sense in which he himself did not come from
heaven, and of himself as being of the earth in a sense in
which Christ was not of the earth. ' He must increase,'
says the Baptist, ' but I must decrease. He that cometh
from above is above all. He that cometh from the earth
is earthly, .and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh
from heaven is above all.' " *
In accordance with this view, it is said of Christ, " He
made himself of no reputation " ; which means, literally,
he divested himself, as if of what he had previously pos
sessed or enjoyed, " and took upon him the form of a ser
vant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself." (Phil.
ii. 7.) In another place it is said, " Ye know the grace of
* Peabody's Lectures.

77 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 45
our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for
your sakes he became poor, that ye, through his poverty,
might become rich " ; by which we understand that Jesus,
for man's salvation, passed from a richer to a poorer, from
a more lofty to a more humble condition.
It is true that Christ is called a man ; but properly con
sidered, this is no objection to the view now offered. The
essential idea of humanity is not derived from weakness
and sin, but from that mysterious connection of the soul
and body, — the immortal spirit with the corruptible flesh,
— by which the soul is made subject to earthly influence.
Our spiritual nature is probably the same, in its elements,
with that of the most exalted archangel. The highest cre
ated spirit, therefore, if clothed in human form and subject
ed to human sympathies and temptations, would become,
properly speaking, a man. Consider the distance between
different members of the human family, as at present con
stituted. Take Newton, with his mind reaching up to the
heights of heaven, and place him by the side of one of
those thousands of his own countrymen, whose thoughts
have scarcely a larger range than that of a brute ; see how
wide a field is covered by that word, man ! For these two
are brothers, of the same family, of the same descent.
And so, as Jesus is called " the Son of God," and we also
are honored by the same name, — as he is called the " first
born of every creature," with reference to that spiritual
family of which we are the younger children, — I believe
that we may claim kindred with him. Coming from the
bosom of the Father, to make known the Father's love, he
took our nature upon him. He became a man. The
attributes of humanity belonged to him. Suffering as we
suffer, tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, " he
gave us a perfect example in the performance of those

46 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 78
duties which are incumbent on all created spirits, and
which are the same to all, namely, love and obedience to
the great father-spirit, love and charity to all fellow-spirits."
He was a man, more perfectly than any other. In him hu
manity was glorified ; the ideal, which is proposed to us all,
was perfected in him. The weakness of the flesh was net
only brought into subjection to the spirit, but the spirit was
made stronger through the victory, as it is written, Christ
" was made perfect through suffering." All human pas
sions, all desires, all purposes, were thus made pure and
heavenly ; and thus it is that through his humiliation " God
has highly exalted him, and given him a name above every
name." It will be seen, therefore, that those passages of the Bible
which speak of the great exaltation of Jesus cannot be
brought against us, as Unitarians, unless they distinctly im
ply his equality with the Father. This needs to be care
fully remarked. Trinitarians are apt to think that every
text which speaks of Christ's great power, and wisdom,
and authority, or of his exaltation at the right hand of God,
militates against our doctrine ; but it is not so. He is to us,
also, the Son of the living God, the image of the Father,
through whpm, both in his person and in his life and in his
words, as much is made known of the Infinite God as it is
possible for us to know in our present state. There is but
one way to overthrow the Unitarian doctrine. It is to prove,
not that Christ is " a Prince and a Saviour by the right hand
of God highly exalted," but that he is the Infinite God him
self, by whom that exaltation was given. It is not to prove
that the Father made himself manifest through the Son, as
it is written, " the word was made flesh," that is, " the
divine wisdom and power were manifested in a human
form," but it is to prove that the Father, who is the being

79 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 47
manifested, is the same with the Son, who was the medium
of the manifestation. The question between us and Trin
itarians is simply this : Did the Saviour, when he said,
" My Father is greater than I," mean what he seemed to
say, and what he was understood by those who heard him
to say, or did he mean that, while there was an apparent
inferiority, he was in fact equal with the Father, possessed
of the same attributes, being himself the absolute and Su
preme God ?
Here is the true point of the controversy. I think that
it settles itself. I scarcely know how to bring any argu
ments to make it plainer. I am almost afraid that in mul
tiplying words, in so plain a case, I may darken counsel,
but must try. I shall show you, first, that Christ himself
distinctly denies the possession of divine attributes ; sec
ondly, that the Apostles, when they speak of him in the
highest terms of exaltation, and therefore of his highest
nature, uniformly declare his entire dependence on God,
the Father.
The leading attributes of Deity are Self-existence, Om
nipotence, Omniscience, and Infinite Goodness. If we can
prove by the words of Christ himself that he denies the
possession of one and all of these, I think our case is made
out. His distinct denial of any one of these attributes
would be enough ; but, in fact, he denies them all.
1. Of Self-existence. This attribute implies absolute
independence ; an existence to which no other being is
necessary ; self-derived and self-sustained. But Christ de
clares a hundred times that he came not of himself, but
that the Father sent him ; see John viii. 42, " Neither came
I of myself, but he sent me." He declared that he was
indebted to the Father for the support of his existence ;
John vi. 57, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I

48 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 80
live by the Father " ; and again, John v. 26, " As the Fa
ther hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself. I can of mine own self do nothing ;
as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek
not mine own will, but the will of the Father who sent me."
He says also, John x. 18, " No man taketh my life from
me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power [the literal
meaning is authority] to lay it down, and I have authority
to take it again ; this commandment have I received of my
Father." Which also agrees with 2 Cor. xiii. 4, " Though
he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the
power of God." Here is a distinct and full denial of
underived and independent existence. Upon the authority
of Christ himself, therefore, we say that he was not the
Self-existent God.
2. Omnipotence. Jesus distinctly and repeatedly de
clares that he is not in possession of this attribute. He
uniformly speaks of his power as being given by the
Father and exercised under his direction. But the idea of
omnipotence is inconsistent with that of derived power
and delegated authority. Omnipotence cannot be given by
one to another. In such a case he who gives must be
greater than he who receives. Therefore, when the Sav
iour says, Matt, xxviii. 18, " All power is given to me by
the Father," the word given necessarily limits the word
all. The text is sometimes quoted to prove ChrisJ's om
nipotence, but we think it proves just the contrary. Again
he says, John v. 19, " The Son can do nothing of him
self" ; and again, verse 30, " I can of mine own self do
nothing." And still more pointedly, when he was asked
for a certain distinction by James and John, he answered,
Matt. xx. 23, " To sit on my right hand and on my left is
not mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom it

81 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 49
is prepared of my Father." In his last conversation with
his disciples he says, " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice,
because I said, I go unto the Father ; for my Father is
greater than I." (John xiv. 28.) These declarations are
distinct and unqualified. We are therefore ready to re
ceive Christ in the highest exaltation which the Scripture
accords to him. But we feel at the same time compelled
to believe his own words. These are the best authority.
They do not teach us that he is Almighty, but that he is
dependent in all things upon the Father.
3. Omniscience. This is the attribute by which he who
possesses it knows all things. An omniscient being needs
not to be instructed. Thus it is written of the Almighty,
Isaiah xl. 13, " Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord,
or, being his counsellor, hath taught him ? With whom
took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him
in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge ? "
Compare those words with the words of the Saviour, John
vii. 16, " My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me " ;
and xiv. 24, " The word which ye hear is not mine, but the
Father's who sent me." And again, viii. 28, " As my
Father hath taught me, I speak these things." And even
more strongly, xii. 49, " I have not spoken of myself, but
the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment,
what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I
speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I
speak." All this is an expression of imparted knowledge,
which, however great it may be, must always be less than
omniscience. And accordingly we find, Matthew xxiv. 36,
and Mark xiii. 32, when asked concerning a future event,
Jesus answered, " Of that day and that hour knoweth no
man ; no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father." In Matthew it says, " but my Father only."
vol. xxvi. — no. 289. 2 e

50 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 82
We cannot escape from these words if we would. We
place implicit reliance upon whatever Christ taught. We
believe that God spake through him ; and upon his own
authority we say, that omniscience is the attribute of the
Father only.
4. Infinite Goodness. We believe that Christ was per
fectly free from sin, that he went about doing good, and
finished the work which God gave him to do. In this sense,
therefore, he was perfect ; but there is a jsense in which '
none but an Infinite being is good, andjm thisjsense Christ
denied it of himself, Mark x. 18. When some one called
him " Good Master," he answered, " Why callest thou me
good ? there is none good but one, that is God." The
same words are found in the parallel passages in Matthew
and Luke.
What are we to say of these plain denials by the Saviour
himself, not of one only, but of all these attributes ? We
have his own words to prove that he is neither Self-exist
ent, Omniscient, All-wise, nor Infinitely Good. On what
ground can we set aside his testimony ? We shall be told,
perhaps, that all this is spoken only of his human nature ;
that he denied these attributes as a man, although he was
conscious of possessing them as God.
We find no fault with those who are satisfied with this
answer, but it does not satisfy us. It does not seem to us
the fair interpretation of plain language. For, first, we
find no passage in the Bible, and there is none, in which it
is taught that our Saviour had two natures, one human and
one divine ; but he is always spoken of as a single being,
" the Christ, the Son of the living God." And secondly,
we think that when he spoke of himself without qualifica
tion, using the personal pronouns, J, and myself, and me,
he must have used them in their common meaning, and he

83 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 51
was certainly, at the time, so understood. If he had in
tended to have been understood differently, he would have
given some indication of it. As he gave none, we take
his words in their plain and obvious meaning. Just as you
would understand me, if I were to say, " I do not know
such a thing," or " I cannot do such a thing," without
qualifying the words, so do we understand him. We dare
not understand him otherwise. For would it be right for
me to say, " I do not know such a thing," if I really know
it ? and defend myself by saying, that my body does not
know it, but my mind does ? or that I know it as a clergy
man, but not as a citizen ? Such would not be a fair use
of language ; and if the Scripture were to be interpreted
in such a manner, there is absolutely no doctrine which
could not be proved from it. We understand Jesus simply
as he spoke, and therefore, while we pray for the time
when " at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and
every tongue confess him to be the Lord," we remember
that this must always be done " to the glory of God the
Father." The quotation of this verse brings us to the last topic
of my present discourse. I am still to prove that the Apos
tles, in those passages where they speak of Christ's highest
exaltation, uniformly declare that he is dependent for all
upon the Father. For this purpose I shall use only those
texts which are commonly considered proofs of his Supreme
Divinity. They are therefore undoubtedly applicable to
his highest nature, whatever they may be ; and if, when so
spoken of, his dependence on God is alleged, our argument
will be conclusive. For, as I have already said, we do not
pretend to define the degree of exaltation which belongs to
Christ. We remain Unitarians so long as we believe that
the Father alone is the Supreme God.

52 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 84
1. There is probably no text oftener quoted against us,
than the first part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, particu
larly the eighth verse : " But unto the Son he saith, Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of right
eousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom ; thou hast loved
righteousness and hated iniquity." The word God is here
applied to Christ, and is understood as a proof of his deity.
This, however, would be an uncertain proof, for the same
word is applied quite frequently in a subordinate sense. It
was applied to Moses, who was said to be " a god to Pha
raoh." Exod. vii. 1. Those also were called Gods to
whom the word of God came. See John x. 35. We
must look, therefore, to the connection to see what its mean
ing is, in this case ; and we read directly after the words
quoted, "Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed
thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Observe,
therefore, which is the point of our argument in this case,
that, even when spoken of as God, there is the Supreme
God over him, from whom he receives his anointing, and
by whom he is raised above his equals. Let me read to
you, also, the beginning of that same chapter, that you may
see how plainly the dependence of Christ upon the Father
is expressed. " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these
last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath ap
pointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds ; who being the brightness of his glory, and the
express image of his person, and upholding all things by
the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our
sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high ;
being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent name than thev.

85 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 53
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art
my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? And again, I will
be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." We
admit that words cannot easily express higher exaltation
than this. It was the Apostle's intention to speak in the
strongest terms which were consistent with truth, and he
has done so. In reading them we perceive that the exalta
tion of Christ is greater than we can fully comprehend.
But at the same time we perceive, with equal plainness,
delegated authority and absolute dependence on the Father.
On the one hand, we can have no doubt that his highest
nature is here spoken of, for there is no passage in which
stronger words are used. On the other hand, we read that
he did not speak of himself, but that God spoke by him ;
that in all his highest offices he was the agent of God,
working only by God's power ; that he obtained a more
excellent name than the angels by inheritance, according
to the appointment of God ; that there was a time when
his existence began, as plainly expressed in these words,
" This day have I begotten thee." In the tenth, eleventh,
and twelfth verses, which are a quotation from Psalm
cii., the Almighty himself is addressed as the source of
all power and might ; after which the Apostle returns to
his former subject, the dignity of Christ, which he again
ascribes to God as the Author and Giver.
We refer next to the Epistle to the Colossians, the first
and second chapters. I cannot quote them at large, but
request you to read them carefully for yourselves. You
will find the same remarks hold good which have been made
on the passage already quoted. You will find language
which you cannot reconcile with the doctrine of mere hu
manity ; you will feel amazed, as in the presence of a
being highly exalted above every one of us ; but every-

54 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 86
where you will find proof of derived authority and depend
ent existence. He is " the image of the invisible God,"
and therefore not the invisible God himself. He is " the
first-born of every creature," and therefore himself a cre
ated being. The reason and the source of his great exal
tation are distinctly given : " For it pleased the Father that
in him all fulness should dwell."
In both of these passages language is used which seems
to imply that Christ is the agent by whom all things were
created and upheld. I think that this properly refers to the
spiritual world in heaven and on earth, of which he is ap
pointed the head and director ; but time will not allow
me to consider this question now. It is altogether unim
portant to our present argument, for it does not affect the
real exaltation of Christ, nor does it alter the fact of his
complete dependence on the Father.
We next refer to Phil. ii. 5, 11 ; in the sixth verse it is
said of Jesus Christ, " Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God " ; of which
Calvin says, " The form of God here signifies majesty ;
I acknowledge, indeed, that Paul does not make mention of
Christ's divine essence." To be in the form of God means,
to be the image or manifestation of God ; which is also
the interpretation adopted by Le Clerc and Macknight. The
proper meaning of the words, " Thought it not robbery to
be equal with God," is that given by Bishop Sherlock,
namely, " He was not tenacious of appearing as God ; did
not eagerly insist to be equal with God." This is the
meaning adopted by Coleridge, Professor Stuart, Luther,
Melancthon, Archbishop Tillotson, Paley, and many others
of the most eminent Trinitarian writers. But the exact
meaning of the words is not important to our present argu
ment. Whatever they mean, their limitation is found in

87 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 55
the ninth and following verses. " Wherefore God hath
highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above
every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall
bow, of those in heaven, and those in earth and those under
the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
One of the most important books in the New Testament,
in a doctrinal point of view, is the Acts of the Apostles.
It contains their first preaching after they had been fully
instructed in their work. Whatever they knew of Jesus or
believed concerning him will undoubtedly be found there.
They were impelled at the same time by strong affection
for their master, by a deep sense of their former unfaith
fulness to him, and by the direct command of God, to de
clare the whole truth. Now what is the substance of their
preaching ? Read the first ten chapters of that book and
determine. I think that you will agree with me that it is a
series of Unitarian discourses. There is not an expression,
not a single word that I cannot use, or that I am not accus
tomed to use as a Unitarian believer. They indeed declare
that Christ is a Prince and a Saviour, that he is both Lord
and Christ ; but how is it that he obtained this authority ?
Let them answer in their own words : " Therefore let all
the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made
that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and
Christ." Acts ii. 36. " Then Peter and the other Apos
tles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than
men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye
slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with
his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give
repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Acts v. 29.
This is the utmost of their preaching ; further than this
they never go ; and thus far we as Unitarians go with them.

56 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 88
These Scriptures all of them speak of Christ in his high
est nature. You hear them quoted every day to prove his
absolute deity. Yet you perceive that all of them, by
showing his dependence on God the Father, prove the exact
contrary, and teach that though so highly exalted, even
above our perfect comprehension, he is not the Supremo
God nor equal to God the Father. In further explanation
of this view I will quote the following passage from the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 24-28; which is a
distinct and full declaration of the Unitarian doctrine : —
" Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up
the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have
put down all rule and all authority and power. For he
must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath
put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things
are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who
did put all things under him. And when all things shall
be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be
subject unto him that put all things under him, that God
may be all in all."
I cannot express my faith as a Unitarian in plainer words
than these, They are a brief statement, in the most un
equivocal terms, of the general, pervading doctrine of the
Bible. Such is the testimony of Christ concerning himself,
and such the testimony of the Apostles concerning him as
their Lord and Master. It is all consistent with the Sav
iour's own prayer to the Father, " That they might know
Thee, the Only True God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast
sent"; and with the words of Paul, "To us there is but
one God, even the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ."
There are, however, a few texts which, taken by them
selves, are thought to teach a different doctrine. Among

89 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 57
these the introduction to the Gospel of John is the most
important. I wish to examine them fairly and carefully,
and must therefore defer them to another evening. In the
mean time, and in conclusion, let me again say that, with
the plain words of Christ and his Apostles to guide us, we
ought not to be troubled or shaken in our faith by a few
comparatively obscure and difficult passages. In so large
a subject we ought to expect some remaining difficulties,
and we have reason to thank God that the general doctrine
of the Bible is so plainly taught, that he who runs may
read.

OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY. — Isaiah viii. 20.
I have promised this evening to explain the principal
texts in the Bible, which are supposed to militate against
the Unitarian doctrine. The task is by no means easy ;
not because there is inherent difficulty in any of such texts,
or in all of them put together, but because the work, to be
thoroughly done, would be very tedious. A single passage,
if at all obscure, may require a great many words in its
critical exposition. Nor is the hearer always able to decide
whether the explanation is satisfactory or not ; he must
take a great part of the critical statements upon authority,
and he is very apt to be suspicious of unfair dealing, when
an interpretation is given to familiar words different from
that to which he is accustomed. He is apt to think that the
language, instead of being explained, is explained away.
For this reason, I am accustomed, in explaining a disputed
passage, to give " Orthodox " Trinitarian authority for the
explanation which I adopt. It is not because I think that
such testimony is more respectable than that of our own
writers, but because I would put the explanations given
beyond the suspicion of unfairness. For if, with reference

91 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 59
to any particular text, we can show that eminent scholars
in the Trinitarian ranks have given the same explanation,
although they have thereby weakened their own argument,
it will follow that the words are fairly susceptible of such
a meaning. In adopting a Unitarian explanation, upon
Trinitarian authority, we need have no fear that the words
are distorted, or the meaning perverted, merely to suit our
end. Now it is a very singular fact, and it is one which greatly
confirms me in my Unitarian belief, that there is not a sin
gle text in the Bible with regard to which we cannot bring
good Trinitarian authority for its Unitarian meaning ; or in
other words, there is not a single text which is not aban
doned by one or more of the most celebrated Trinitarian
theologians. I repeat that this gives me great confidence
in our interpretations of the Bible. We might otherwise
fear that our interpretations were made to suit ourselves, —
we might suspect ourselves of unfairness.
After all, however, the explanation which we adopt of
particular disputed passages should be to a great extent
determined by the general view which we take of the Scrip
ture doctrine. When a text is ambiguous, that is, when it
may be explained in accordance either with the Trinitarian
or Unitarian belief, we should be guided in our choice of
the two explanations by the general meaning of the whole
Bible. It would not be right to set aside a doctrine which
is acknowledged to be that of a whole book, because there
are a few sentences which will bear a different construction.
Before proceeding, therefore, to the examination of the texts
in question, let me again remind you of the great strength
of argument by which the Unitarian doctrine concerning
God and our Lord Jesus Christ has been proved to be the
general and prevailing doctrine of the Bible. Let me re-

60 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 92
mind you that the Old Testament not only declares the Unity
of God, but that the express object of the dispensation under
Moses and the Prophets was to establish that doctrine in the
world ; that it was taught without any qualification, and re
ceived by the Jews just as we receive it ; that when Christ
came, he reaffirmed the doctrine, using the same words
which had been spoken from Mount Sinai, without the least
hint that they were to be understood in a different manner,
but, on the contrary, declaring in so many words, that the
Father is the only true God ; that the Apostles took up the
same instruction, teaching that the God of Abraham, and of
Isaac, and of Jacob, " the God of their fathers," was also
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think that it will not be disputed that this is the general
instruction of the Bible. If we are to modify this instruc
tion, it must be because the texts which we are this evening
to examine require it ; but if it can be shown that every
one of them can be explained, and has been explained, even
by Trinitarians themselves, in accordance with the gener
al doctrine as above stated, we shall be justified, I think, in
adopting such explanation, and thereby putting our minds
at rest.
1. First, we will examine several of those texts in which
peculiar names are given to Jesus Christ, of which the
principal are Isa. ix. 6, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, and Matt. i. 23.
In these passages the names " Wonderful, Counsellor, the
mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,"
" Jehovah our righteousness," and " Immanuel, or God
with us," are applied to Christ, and there are no passages
more relied upon to prove his supreme divinity. To un
derstand them, we must have some knowledge of the
Scripture usage, in the application of such names to re
markable persons or places. By which we shall learn,

93 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 61
that the use of such names proves nothing of the nature of
the person to whom they are given, but that they are only
descriptive of some circumstances attending his birth, or
the offices he is expected to fill.
Nothing is more common in the Bible than such descrip
tive names as the following. An altar was called by Ja
cob " El-Elohe-Israel," — God, the God of Israel ; another
by Moses, " Jehovah-Nissi," — Jehovah, my banner. The
place where God provided the ram instead of Isaac is
called " Jehovah-jireh," — God will see or provide. In the
same manner, the names of many distinguished persons in
the Old Testament, if translated into English, have similar
meanings, and, without a knowledge of this Hebrew cus
tom, would convey very false ideas. Elias means " my
God," and you will remember that when our Saviour, on
the cross, cried out, " Eloi, Eloi," &c, those who stood near
thought that he was calling upon Elias. Elijah means,
literally, " my God Jehovah," and Zedekiah, " the right
eousness of Jehovah." Gabriel means, literally, " the
strength of God," or " the strong God," and it is worthy of
remark that the Hebrew words comprising the name are
identically the same as those which, in the text before us,
are translated " the mighty God," — Gibor Ael. We are
accustomed to these names, and, as they are not translated
in their ordinary use, we do not think of their literal
meaning ; but when just such names are applied to Christ,
they are translated into English, and insisted upon as a lit
eral proof of his divine nature. Whereas, properly consid
ered, they prove nothing upon the subject either one way or
the other.
We proceed now to a particular examination of the texts
in question. Isa. ix. 6 : Of which we remark, first, that
the words were originally spoken, not of Christ, but of
vol. xxvi. — no. 289. 3 f

62 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 94
King Hezekiah. The distinguished Hugo Grotius, and
Samuel White, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, both
of them Trinitarians, take this view of it. The words of
the latter are as follows : " The government shall be upon
his shoulders ; that is, that he, King Hezekiah, shall reign
in the throne of David, as the metaphor signifies, and as
the prophet more fully explains himself in the following
verse ; which cannot be literally true of our Saviour, whose
kingdom was not of this world, as David's was ; but in a
second and sublimer sense the expression denotes that power
which God devolved on his Son, of governing his spiritual
kingdom, the Church." Now we argue, that, whatever the
names may indicate, if in their primary application they
were given to King Hezekiah, they cannot in their second
ary application to Christ prove his Supreme Divinity. In
the phrase " the mighty God," the word translated " God"
means, literally, strong. And we may therefore read
" Mighty Potentate," if we prefer. The definite article al
so is wanting in the Hebrew, so that it would be, A mighty
God or Potentate. This is the interpretation which Martin
Luther gave, and he declares that the epithet " belongs not
to the person of Christ, but to his work and office." Ro-
senmuller, one of the most learned Orthodox commentators,
says : " It is evident that ael denotes strong, powerful,
and is used in Ezekiel xxxi. 11 of King Nebuchadnezzar,
who is called ael Goyim, ' the mighty one of the heathen,'
or, if ael means God, ' the God of the heathen.' "
The phrase " the everlasting Father " can scarcely be
applied to Christ in a literal sense, according to the Trini
tarian system : for this would confound the distinction be
tween the Father and the Son. Accordingly we find that
Calvin and Grotius translate the words " the Father of the
age," or dispensation. Bishop Lowth, Carlile (in his work

95 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 63
" Jesus Christ the Great God our Saviour"), and Dr. Adam
Clarke translate it, " Father of the everlasting age," and in
the same manner a great many other Orthodox writers.
Such a rendering we are willing to accept, together with the
meaning which Calvin gave to the words, namely, " He
who is always producing new offspring in the Church."
But we prefer the explanation of Dr. Wells, of the Church
of England, who says that, when Christ is called the ev
erlasting Father, it means that he is the " author of our
eternal salvation, and the Father or head of the world to
come, that is, of the Gospel state." I will also add the tes
timony of Luther, who says that the title Everlasting Father
denotes not a person, but his work, and that the Hebrew
particle translated " everlasting " does not properly signify
eternal, but of indefinite continuance.
We next refer to Jer. xxiii. 6, in which Christ is called
" Jehovah our righteousness " ; but it so happens that in
chapter xxxiii. 16 of the same prophet, exactly the same
name is applied to the city of Jerusalem. " In those days
shall Judah be saved and Jerusalem dwell safely, and this
is the name wherewith she shall be called, — Jehovah our
righteousness." So that we have no difficulty in cither
case. Le Clerc explains the passage for us as follows :
" The Messiah is said to be called Jehovah our righteous
ness to denote that in his days, and by his means, God
would, in a remarkable manner, exhibit proofs of his own
justice by punishing the wicked and defending the right
eous ; so in chapter xxxiii. 16, Jerusalem is designated by
the same title, meaning that God would cause righteousness
to flourish in that city, namely, in the Christian Church."
In Matt. i. 23 it is written, " They shall call his name
Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us." The
words are a quotation of a prophecy from Isa. vii. 14, of

64 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 96
which Professor Stuart, of Andover, says : " Originally and
literally it is applicable only to the birth of a child within a
period of three years from the time when the prophecy
was spoken ; for how could the birth of Jesus, which hap
pened seven hundred and forty-two years afterwards, be a
sign to Ahaz that within three years his kingdom was to be
freed from his enemies ? Such a child, it would seem, was
born at that time ; for in chapter viii. he is twice referred to,
as if then present, or at least then living." Tnat tne appli
cation of the prophecy to Christ proves nothing concerning
his nature, I could bring abundant Trinitarian testimony,
but content myself with that of the eminent man just now
>quoted. In his reply to Dr. Channing, he says : " What
you say respecting the argument concerning Christ's divine
nature, from the name given him in Matt. i. 23, accords
in the main with my views. To maintain that the name
Immanuel proves the doctrine in question is a fallacious
argument, although many Trinitarians have urged it. Je
rusalem is called Jehovah our righteousness. Is Jerusalem
therefore divine ? " I have been more careful in explain
ing these passages, because the same explanation will ap
ply to other texts, in which similar names are given to Jesus
Christ. .
2. An argument is drawn for the Supreme Divinity of
Christ, from the fact that similar language is sometimes
applied to him and to God. The answer in all such cases
is, that in its application to God we understand it in its high
est sense; but to Christ only in that sense which belongs to
him as the Son of God. Thus it it is said, " I am Jehovah,
and beside me there is no Saviour." Yet Christ is called
our Saviour. Jehovah is called the Redeemer of Israel,
and Christ is also called a Redeemer. Such language gives
us no trouble. In the highest sense, all salvation, all help,

97 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 65
all guidance, and all support come from God. He alone
is the author and giver of every good gift, and thus, in the
ascription of praise, we say, " To the only wise God, our
Saviour." But Jesus Christ is also in a true and real sense
our Saviour, our guide, our supporter, our Redeemer. Not
by his independent power, indeed, but because, Acts v. 31,
" God hath exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince
and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness
of sins." In the same manner, many things are said to be
done by God which are also said to be done by Christ ; as,
that God will judge the world, and also that Christ is the
judge of all. But this is explained when we are taught,
Acts xxii. 31, " That God will judge the world in righteous
ness by that man whom he hath ordained " ; and so in all
other instances of the same sort. Christ acts as the agent,
the representative, the messenger of God, but we ascribe
the work to him, always remembering, however, that he does
not speak of himself. John vii. 16, 18. To the same effect
I will quote the following very clear language of Professor
Stuart : " Nothing can be more erroneous in most cases, than
to draw the conclusion that, because the Scripture asserts
some particular thing to have been done by God, therefore
he did it immediately, and no instruments were employed
by him. In interpreting the principles of human laws, we
say, ' He who does any thing by another does it himself.'
Does not common sense approve of this, as applied to the
language of the Scripture ? Nothing can be more evident
than that the sacred writers have expressed themselves in a
manner which recognizes this principle."
On the same principle we explain those passages which
teach us to " honor the Son as we honor the Father," and
that " he who denieth the Son denieth the Father also."
For in all such cases the ambassador and the king, the
3* F*

66 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 98
principal and the agent, God and his Christ, are one ; and
accordingly Christ himself said, " He that receiveth you re
ceiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that
sent me."
In further application of the same principle, it is said in
Isaiah and Malachi, " The voice of him that crieth in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight " ; and again, " Behold I send my messenger be
fore my face " ; which words in Matt. iii. 3 are applied to
the coming of John the Baptist to prepare the way for Jesus
Christ ; for the coming of Christ as the messenger of God
was the coming of God himself to bestow the blessings of
a new revelation. If you will keep this rule of interpreta
tion in your mind, namely, that the same language will
often be applied directly to the principal and also to the
agent, because whatever the agent does the principal may
be said to do, it will remove much of the obscurity of the
sacred writings.
3. There are a number of instances in the New Testa
ment in which Christ is said to have been worshipped, either
by his disciples or other persons. For instance, Matt.
xxviii. 9, when, after his resurrection, his disciples " came
and held. him by the feet and worshipped him " ; and verse
17, " When they saw him they worshipped him." Upon this
passage Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Methodist commenta-
' tor, remarks as follows : " This kind of reverence is in daily
use among the Hindoos ; when a disciple meets a public
guide in the streets, he prostrates himself before him, and,
taking the dust from his teacher's feet, rubs it on his fore
head, breast," &c. And Dr. J. P. Smith, an equally good
authority, says : " The prostrate position, which denoted the
highest reverence and respect, is manifestly described, but
the expression does not necessarily import more than the

99 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 67
most exalted kind of civil homage." In fact, the word
" worshipped " is very frequently used to signify respect
and homage, and so it is used in application to temporal
rulers ; see Matt, xviii. 26, in the parable of the creditor
who took his servant by the throat, saying, Pay me that
thou owest. " The servant therefore fell down and wor
shipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me and I will
pay thee all." Also see Luke xiv. 10 : " Then shalt thou
have worship in the presence of those who sit at meat with
thee." We must, therefore, in all cases determine by the
circumstances the nature of the worship given ; but with
regard to the highest or religious worship, we have the com
mand of Jesus himself, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy
God and him only shalt thou serve." Matt. iv. 10. I will
remark that the word here translated serve, whenever it
occurs, means religious worship such as we give to God
only, and there is no case of its application to Jesus Christ.
There are two texts in which it is supposed that direct
prayer is offered to Christ. The first is Acts vii. 59, at
the martyrdom of Stephen : " And they stoned Stephen,
calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit ! " By turning to your Bibles, you will see that the
word God is printed in italics, from which we know that it
is not in the original, but supplied by the translators. We
may read, therefore, calling upon Christ, or simply " calling
out." Now we are to remember that Stephen is repre
sented as seeing Jesus at the right hand of God, and his
exclamation was like an appeal made to one who was
present. But apart from this, there is nothing in the words
of Stephen which every believer in Christ may not adopt
in his dying hour. Our brightest hope of heaven is to be
with him, and the natural aspiration of our hearts will be,
when the time of our departure comes, that he may receive

68 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 100
us into his fold and acknowledge us as his brethren. No one
is more heartily Unitarian than I am, but I think that such
words would come to my lips as the natural prompting of
my heart. So have I often heard the dying Christian, with
heaven already opening to his eyes, whisper the name of
parent or child, or some dear friend long since departed,
as if communion with the dead were already begun.
How much more may we thus speak the name of Jesus,
with whom the spiritual bond is closest of all, whose inter
cession with the Father is for us, and who hath gone before
to the blessed mansions, to prepare a place for us, that
where he is we may be also ! It was only yesterday that I
stood by the bedside of a dying friend, who, wearied with
her long-continued suffering, exclaimed, " O, how I long to
go home ! O that Jesus would take me to himself! " Yet
her belief is as decidedly Unitarian as my own.
Another instance of what is thought to be direct prayer
to Jesus Christ is found 2 Cor. xii. 8 : " For this thing I be
sought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me ; and
he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for my
strength is made perfect in weakness ; most gladly there
fore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of
Christ may rest upon me." Dr. Hammond of the English
Church interprets this as a prayer to God. But I think that
the connection shows it to have been Christ whom Paul
addressed. It is not, however, what we commonly call
prayer, but a personal request to his master. For he has
been giving us an account of Christ's appearing to him in
a vision, by a special revelation, and in that vision, with
Christ present before him, he makes the petition here
recorded. It cannot therefore be considered as an author
ity for prayer to Christ, under ordinary circumstances." Our
proper and only sufficient authority upon this subject is in

101 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 69
the words of Jesus Christ himself, who says, speaking of
the time when he should no longer be on earth, John xvi.
23, " In that day ye shall ask me nothing ; verily, verily, I
say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my
name, he will give it you ; hitherto have ye asked nothing
in my name ; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may
be full."
This is the Christian doctrine of prayer. We pray to
God the Father only, but we pray through Jesus Christ, or
in his name ; that is, as his followers and disciples, who be
lieve in his words, who trust in his promises, who receive
the benefit of his life, his suffering, "and death, who look to
him as our advocate with the Father, and who receive
through him, as the mediator between God and us and as
the living head of his Church, the spiritual blessings which
are needed to sustain our souls : further than this the Scrip
tures do not authorize us to go.
The frequent ascriptions of praise and honor to Christ
give us no trouble. To him, in fact, under God, we owe all
our spiritual blessings ; and so long as we keep it distinctly
in mind, that all should be done to the glory of God the
Father, the ultimate source of all blessing, we may proper
ly ascribe " blessing and honor and glory and power," not
only " to Him who sitteth upon the throne, but to the Lamb
for ever.'.' Rev. v. 13. You will observe in the words just
quoted, and almost everywhere else in the book of Reve
lation, how clearly the distinction is kept up between God
and Christ ; between him who sits upon the throne, and the
Lamb. Read the whole of the fifth chapter and it will ap
pear still more plainly. There is no book of the New Tes
tament which offers so great difficulties in its interpretation
ias that to which I now refer. It is written in the highest
strain of poetry and prophetic imagery, and no two writers

70 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 102
can be found who agree as to its exact meaning. I think,
therefore, that it ought not to be used as a principal author
ity upon disputed points of doctrine.
If it is true (which we consider by no means certain)
that it is Jesus who says, Rev. i. 11, "I am Alpha and
Omega," its explanation is difficult ; for we can scarcely
understand how such words are applicable to any one but
the Almighty. But the difficulty is at once increased and
removed, when we find the words used by one who com
manded John not to worship him : " See thou do it not ;
for I am thy fellow-servant ; worship God " ; for it was the
same person who used these words who said directly after,
" I am Alpha and Omega ; the beginning and the end ; the
first and the last." Rev. xxii. 8, 13. I can understand
such language only by supposing that Jesus and also the
angel were speaking in the name of God. In the same
manner Moses says, Deut. xxix. 2, 6, " I have led you
forty years in the wilderness ;  that ye may know
that I am the Lord your God." See also Deut. xi. 13- 15.
In both of these passages Moses used language, which, if
it had been used by Christ, would be stronger in proving his
Deity than any now quoted for that purpose. We should
not, therefore, attach so great importance to isolated and
obscure texts. I am persuaded that it is better to look to
the plainer books of Scripture for our chief instruction.
4. The strongest support of the Trinitarian doctrine con
cerning Christ, and, as it appears to most readers, the great
est difficulty in the way of Unitarians, is found in the intro
duction to the Gospel of John ; to which I now ask your
attention for a few minutes. It is an obscure and difficult
passage of Scripture. But its obscurity arises, chiefly, from
our failing to consider the object which the Apostle had in
view, and the circumstances under which he wrote. Upon

103 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 71
these it chiefly depends what meaning shall be given to the
word Logos, and therefore to the whole passage in ques
tion. It is commonly supposed that his object was to de
clare that Jesus Christ was God, the second person of the
Trinity. The Logos is taken as another term for Christ, as
if the Apostle had said, " In the beginning was Jesus Christ,
and Jesus Christ was with God, and Jesus Christ was God."
This explanation is thought by those who receive it to
remove all difficulty, and to make the whole passage plain.
But it is only because they are accustomed to it, and do
not perceive the force of the words used. In fact it ex
presses a direct contradiction, which cannot itself be ex
plained, except by saying that the terms used have no dis
tinct or intelligible meaning. When we say that James is
with John, we cannot take a plainer way of saying that
James and John are two separate beings. To say that
James is with John and that James is John, is a contradic
tion in terms. Why does not the same hold true of God
and of Christ ? If by the Logos we understand a personal
existence distinct from God, we may say that the Logos
was with God, but not at the same time that the Logos was
God. To say one is to deny the other. We shall not,
therefore, escape the difficulty of the passage by adopting
the Trinitarian theory. We may not be quite satisfied with
our own explanation, and some parts of it may continue to
perplex us, but we cannot receive an explanation which so
evidently contradicts itself.
Secondly, we cannot adopt it, because it also contradicts
the Apostle's repeated assertions concerning Christ, and
his plain statement of the object with which his Gospel was
written. There is none of the Gospels which is so full in
its declarations that Christ is the son of God, not God him
self, and it is in this Gospel that we find record of Christ's

72 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 104
most distinct denial of the Divine attributes. At its close,
the Apostle informs us what his general purpose had been,
as follows (John xx. 31) : " These are written that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that, believing, ye might have life through his name."
Would he have so stated his purpose, if his real object had
been to prove that Christ was himself the Infinite God,
whose Son he declares him to be, and by whom he was
anointed ? Let me also remind you of his words, in this
same first chapter which is supposed to teach that Christ is
God : " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-be
gotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de
clared him." This is the true doctrine, in accordance with
which we should explain the introductoiy sentences now
under consideration.
Let us look, next, at the literal meaning of the Greek word
Logos. There is no word in English which exactly an
swers to it./ In Latin, it was sometimes translated ratio, or
reason, sometimes verbum, a word, or sermo, a discourse.
The connection alone must determine, in each case, which
of these meanings should be used. In the present case, if
we translate it by ratio, reason, it would mean the Divine
Mind or the Wisdom of God. Tertullian, one of the Chris
tian Fathers, whose authority as a learned man is very high,
understood it in this way.* The same meaning was adopt
ed by Le Clerc and by Dr. Wall, both of them Trinitarians,
and no Greek scholar will deny that such a translation of
the word Logos is strictly correct. If we prefer it, there
fore, or if we think that this meaning suits the connection,
we are at liberty to adopt it. We have no objection, how
ever, to the translation which is given in the English Bible,
* Tertullian. advers. Praxeam, Cap. 5.

105 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 73
if it is rightly considered ; for by the Word of God we can
understand nothing else but God's power and wisdom, and
it is but another expression for the Divine Mind, the Spirit
of God, or God himself. So when we read in the book of
Psalms, that " by the Word of Jehovah the heavens were
made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth,"
it is only another mode of saying that these things were
done by the power and wisdom of God, or by God himself.
It is precisely this which the Apostle John asserts in the first
verses of his Gospel ; namely, the Word of God, considered
as creating and upholding, is only another expression for
God himself.
But why did the Apostle think it necessary to make a for
mal statement of a truth, so plain that it is almost self-evi
dent ? and how do we account for the peculiar phraseology
which he used ? In these questions consists the whole diffi
culty of the case, and we can answer them only by refer
ring to the times when the Apostle wrote and the particular
doctrines which he intended to combat.
There is a natural tendency in the human mind to draw
a veil between itself and God. Our faculties are so lim
ited, and the idea of an Infinite and Omnipresent Being,
who does all things by his own direct power, is so far
above our comprehension, that we often use words that
imply an intermediate agency, even when we know that
they are only a different way of saying the same thing.
Thus we speak of Nature, of Providence, of the Laws
of God, the Spirit and the Word of God, almost as if
they were agents through whom God acts, instead of differ
ent names or expressions for the ever-present God himself.
We are not deceived by such terms, and although they
sometimes have the effect of removing God farther from us,
vol. xxvi. — no. 289. 4

74 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 106
they are undoubtedly an aid to our feebleness. But in
ancient times, when the education of the religious world
was more imperfect, and especially among the Oriental na
tions, where imagination gives so strong a bias to all intel
lectual development, such words very often come to be re
alities. The Wisdom, Reason, and Understanding of God
his Spirit, his Word, came to be considered as real agencies
and in the progress of time as personal existences, indis
tinctly defined, but real and living. Hence arose serious
and fatal errors. Such ideas, incorporated into the Chris
tian system, made it little better than a modified form of
polytheism. The God in whom we live and move and
have our being, of whom and by whom and through whom
are all things, was no longer preached, and an incompre
hensible jargon, of Emanations and jEons and the like, was
substituted ; a perversion of Gospel truth little better than
its rejection.
What I am now stating is an historical fact. By refer
ring to any good Ecclesiastical History of the first and
second centuries, you will learn that a system of phi
losophy, such as I have described, originated with Philo
an Alexandrian Jew, a man of gTeat learning, whose influ
ence spread itself through all the learned world of his age
Many of his disciples became converts to Christianity
and from them arose the sect of the Gnostics, one of the
most influential but pestilent heresies of the early Christian
Church. They had their origin in Apostolical times, al
though their system was not completely matured until later.
Their head-quarters were in the city of Ephesus, where,
according to the uniform testimony of antiquity, the Gospel
of John was written. It is very difficult to learn exactly
what they taught, but it was something like the following : —

107 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 75
" They maintained that the Supreme God dwelt in the re
mote heavens, surrounde'd by chosen spirits, Mons as they
called them, and gave himself very little concern with
what took place upon earth ; that the world was created by
an inferior and an imperfect being, who was also the au
thor of the Jewish dispensation ; that Christ was sent by the
Supreme God to deliver men from the tyranny of this Cre
ator, and from the yoke of his law ; that there were also
various created spirits, or jEons, sustaining different offices,
independently, for the most part, of the Supreme Deity ; the
names of some of which jEons were Life, Light, and par
ticularly the Logos, which represented the Divine Reason
or Wisdom ; and that the jEon Light became incarnate in
John the Baptist. All these spiritual existences were repre
sented as distinct from each other and from the Supreme
God." *
The existence of such a system at the time when John
wrote, and among the very people whom he was seeking to
convert, or who had been already converted to Christ,
would justify us in supposing that the introduction to his
Gospel, which is so exactly suited to the purpose, was in
fact intended for its overthrow. But the evidence is made
complete by the testimony of Irenaus, a competent and un
impeachable witness. He lived in the early part of the
second century, and was a friend and pupil of Polycarp,
who was a personal friend of John himself. In his work
against heresy, he says that the beloved disciple wrote his
Gospel for the express purpose of refuting the false and ab
surd notions which the Gnostics were beginning to spread
in Asia Minor. * Peabody's Lectures.

76 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 108
With these historical facts to guide us, we can without
difficulty learn the meaning of this famous passage. It
teaches that the Logos, the Word or Wisdom of God, which
the philosophical Christians thought to be an emanation
from God and a personal existence separate from him, was
only another name for God himself. It never had a per
sonal existence separate from God, but from the beginning
was with God and was God. (For we may properly say
that wisdom is with God and thatiGod is wisdom.) By
him, that is, by the Logos of God, or by God himself, — for
the grammatical construction admits of either meaning, and
both are in fact the same, — by him all things were made.
From him Life and Light proceed to enlighten every
one who comes into the world. He sent John, not as an
iEon called Light, but as a witness of Him who was the
true Light. And the Logos, the Wisdom or the Word of
God, which is God himself, became flesh; God was made
manifest in man, namely, in Jesus Christ, who dwelt among
us, and we beheld his glory, as of the only-begotten Son
of God, full of grace and truth.
This is the substance of the Apostle's meaning. It is
suited to the purpose he had in view, and it agrees with the
doctrine of his whole Gospel. I do not pretend to remove
all obscurity from the passage, but I have no doubt that
this is, substantially, its correct interpretation. We under
stand it as an assertion of the absolute unity of God, of
his direct agency in all things, and of the divine mission
of our Lord Jesus Christ. It therefore confirms our belief
in Him " who is the only true God, and in Jesus Christ
whom he hath sent."
5. The words contained in John x. 30 are much relied
upon to prove the Deity of Christ : " I and my Father

109 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 77
are one." We interpret the words as meaning unity in
counsel, design, and power, not unity of substance. I
have before me not less than twenty Trinitarian au
thorities to confirm this view, from which I select the
words of Calvin and of Professor Stuart, because their
names are most familjar to you. No one will suspect
either of them of leaning to the Unitarian side of the
question. " In the present case it seems to me that the meaning
of ' I and my Father are one' is simply, I and my Father
are united in counsel, design, and power. So in John xvii.
20, Christ prays that all who shall believe on him ' may be
one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee ; so they also
may be one in us.' See also Gal. iii. 28, and 1 Cor. iii.
8." — Professor Stuart, Answer to Channing.
6. 1 John v. 20 : " And we know that the Son of God is
come, and hath given us an understanding that we may
know Him that is true ; and we are in Him that is true,
even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and
eternal life." The word even you will find in italics, and
may therefore omit it and read, " We are in Him that is
true, in his Son Jesus Christ." Of which expression Cal
vin says, that " the Apostle intends to express the means
of our union with God, as if he had said, that we are in
God by Christ." Erasmus, Archbishop Tillotson, Adam
Clarke, and others, interpret it in the same way. Dr.
Bloomfield even more plainly : " We are in union with the
true God by means of his Son Jesus Christ." The words,
" this is the true God," may grammatically refer either
to Christ, or to " Him that is true." We rbfer it, of course,
to God the Father, who is the chief subject of discourse.
fn which construction we have the authority of Erasmus,
4* G»

78 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 110
Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others. The language of Grotius
is as follows : —
" This is the true God ; namely, he and none else whom
Jesus hath declared to be the object of worship. The
pronoun outos, this, not unfrequently relates to a remote
antecedent ; as in Acts vii. 19 ; x. 6. ' And eternal life ' ;
this is said by metonymy. The Apostle means that God is
the primary and chief author of eternal life. So also
Christ is called Life, John xi. 25 ; xiv. 6, because, next to
God the Father, he is the cause of eternal life."
7. Zech. xiii. 7, "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd
and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of
hosts." Here it is argued, that Christ is spoken of as the
fellow or equal of God. But in fact, the literal meaning
of the word translated fellow is " one with me," or near
me, and implies no equality at all. As to the meaning of
the word, there is no dispute among critics. But as the
passage is quoted with a great deal of confidence in many
Trinitarian pulpits, it may be worth while to read the re
marks of Calvin upon it. " The word translated fellow
means an associate, a neighbor, or a friend, and whoever
is joined to us in authority. I have no doubt that by this
title God distinguishes his shepherds, because he represent
ed himself by them to his people. The prophet speaks of
shepherds as God's associates, on account of their union
with him, and because, as St. Paul says, they are fellow-
workers and laborers together with God."
8. Much reliance is placed on the exclamation of Thomas,
John xx. 28, " And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God." I am not sure what explanation
of these words is the true one. They were not spoken as
a confession of faith, as the words of Peter were, when

Ill OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 79
asked by Christ, " Whom do ye say that I am ? " but they
were spoken by the most sceptical of all the Apostles, un
der the influence of the most profound astonishment. But
I am quite sure that they are not a declaration that Christ
is the Supreme God, for this simple reason : that, even if
such a doctrine be true, neither Thomas nor any other of
the twelve had any knowledge of it at the time. " It may
be justly doubted," says Dr. Bloomfield, Bishop of London,
" whether the so lately incredulous, because prejudiced and
unenlightened disciple, had then, or at any time before the
illumination of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, any complete
notion of the divine nature of Jesus as forming part of the
Godhead." Indeed, it can be clearly proved, and is ad
mitted by a great many Trinitarian writers, that the Apos
tles had no conception of Christ's deity when Thomas
spoke. I therefore adopt the opinion of the celebrated
Kuinoel, whose commentary on the Scriptures is a standard
work in Orthodox universities, and who says, that, if the
words are addressed to Jesus, " Thomas used the word
God in the sense in which it is applied to kings and judges
(who are considered as representatives of Deity) and pre
eminently to the Messiah."
9. We next refer to Romans ix. 5, " Whose are the
fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." The whole
argument against us in this passage depends on the punc
tuation. You know that the original manuscripts of the
New Testament are without any punctuation. The sen
tences are not divided from each other by any marks,
and translators are obliged to punctuate as they think the
sense requires. Now in this case, if we adopt the punc
tuation proposed by Griesbach, or that by Rosenmuller,

80 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 112
both of them Trinitarians and eminent in learning, the
sense is materially changed. Let the period be placed
after the word all, and it then reads, " Of whom, as con
cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all. God be
blessed for ever. " Which words are added as a dox
ology by the Apostle, in the way in which, in several
instances, he has inserted a doxology in the midst of a
paragraph. 10. In Acts xx. 28, we read, " Feed the Church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood." The true
reading of this passage is the " blood of the Lord " ; but
I do not care to insist upon this. The expression is of
course to be understood figuratively. No one will contend
that it was literally the blood of God. It can mean nothing
else than that God purchased the Church with the blood of
his own Son Jesus Christ, which, on account of his intimate
union with the Father, may be figuratively called God's
own blood. This is the meaning which is adopted by the
. celebrated Baxter, author of the Saints' Rest.
11. John xiv. 9, "He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father, and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father."
The meaning of these words is sufficiently explained by
the connection in which they stand. If you will read the
fourteenth chapter through, they will give you no trouble.
Christ made a clear revelation of God, and therefore made
known of the Father as much as it is possible for us at
present to know. So the words are explained by Dr.
William Sherlock : " He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father, that is, in plain words, the will of God was fully
declared to the world by Christ. Thus God was seen in
Christ." It is but another mode of saying that God was
made manifest in Christ, — which leads me to speak of

113 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 81
another text, 1 Tim. iii. 16, which expresses the same doc
trine : " And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, received
up into glory." It needs no explanation to the Unitarian
believer, for that God was manifest in Christ, and that thus
the Wisdom of God, or his Word, was made flesh, we
strongly maintain. For although " no man hath at any
time seen God himself, yet the only-begotten Son hath
declared him." The essential difference still remains be
tween God, who is manifested, and Christ, by whom the
manifestation is made.
We have now examined the most important texts which
are supposed to be at variance with the Unitarian belief.
If I have omitted any, they are such, I think, as are
sufficiently explained by the connection in which they
stand. For we again say, the highest terms of exaltation
applied to Christ give us no trouble, so long as the con
nection shows that he received his exaltation, " because it
pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell."
We may be at a loss to define the degree of his au
thority, but one such expression as that proves, beyond
all doubt, that his authority was not independent or su
preme. As to the greater part of these texts, I feel sure that our
explanation is good and sufficient. In a few cases only
it remains doubtful whether the Unitarian or Trinitarian
explanation is the most natural. But even if there were
a great many such cases, the weight of evidence which
has been adduced from the general testimony of the Bible
is enough to decide us. For my own part, my mind rests

82 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 114
upon this subject without any doubt or wavering, for to me
the meaning of the Bible seems so plain, that if there
were fifty texts which I could not perfectly understand,
although I should feel the difficulty, they would not shake
my faith.

ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY.

whose are the fathers. — Romans ix. 5.
My object this evening is to show the argument for the
Unitarian doctrine derived from Ecclesiastical History.
It is a subject to which more importance is attached
than it really deserves. For, as we have the Bible in our
own hands, we can read the words of Jesus and of his
Apostles for ourselves, and these alone are enough to form
our faith. They are indeed the only conclusive authority.
To Jesus the Holy Spirit was given without measure.
Whatever he declared himself to be, therefore, we are
bound to believe ; neither more nor less. Show us that
he laid claim to be the Infinite and Supreme God, and we
will so receive him ; but as we can find no such words
from his lips, but, on the contrary, repeated and distinct
declarations of his entire dependence on God the Father,
we receive this doctrine, and shall hold to it, let those who
are called the Christian Fathers teach what they may. We
do not, therefore, regard the subject of this evening as
essential to our general argument. It becomes important
chiefly because of the stress laid upon it by others.

84 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 118
By the Roman Catholics, the early traditions of the Chris
tian Church and the writings of the Christian Fathers are
regarded as the strong bulwarks of their faith. They do
not hesitate to admit that the leading doctrines of Christian
ity cannot be proved by the Bible alone. Let me quote
some of their language to this effect. "We believe the
doctrine of a triune God," says Cardinal Hosius, " be
cause we have received it by tradition, though not men
tioned at all in Scripture." — Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap.
XXVII. " Those who bind themselves to Scripture alone, and
who do not set up any other rule of law or belief, labor to
no purpose, and are conquered by their own weapons, as
often as they join battle with such pests [the Unitarians],
that conceal and defend themselves likewise with the lan
guage of Scripture alone. And we know from history,
that this frequently happened to them in the conferences
and disputes into which they entered with the Photinians
and the Arians." — Petavius, De Trin. Lib. III. Cap. xi. 9;
Theol. Dog., Vol. II. p. 301.
" That the Son is of the same essence as the Father, or
consubstantial with him, is not manifest in any part of sa
cred Scripture, either in express words, or by certain and
immutable deduction. These and other opinions of the
Protestants no one can prove from the sacred writings,
the traditionary word of God being laid aside. This re
quest has often been made, but no one has made it good.
Scripture itself would, in many places, have seemed to ex
hibit the opposite doctrine, unless the Church had taught us
otherwise." — Masenius, Apud Sandium, pp. 9-11.
To the same purport I might quote many other Roman
Catholic authorities. " It is also a remarkable fact, that the

119 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 85
Roman Catholic has often triumphed over his Protestant an
tagonist by demonstrating that the great principle of Protes
tantism, the right of individuals to interpret Scripture without
resting on tradition and the authority of the Church, in
evitably leads to Unitarianism."
Protestant believers in the Trinity will not of course go
so far as this, but even among them concessions have
been made of almost equal importance. Many of their
best writers, as Hooker, Bishop Beveridge, Bishop Small-
ridge, and even Carlile (author of the work " Jesus Christ,
the great God our Saviour "), and many others, admit that
the doctrine of the Trinity is not " directly and explicitly
declared, but a doctrine of inference, which ought not to
be placed on a footing of equality with a doctrine of direct
and explicit revelation." — Carlile, pp. 81, 369.
I do not know whether to quote the Oxford tracts, which
were written by Newman, Pusey, and others before they
became Roman Catholics, as Catholic or Protestant author
ities. Newman was certainly a nominal Protestant when
he wrote the following words : " The most accurate con
sideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the
statement, as a general truth, that the doctrines in question
have never been learned merely from Scripture ; surely the
sacred volume was never intended, and was not adapted, to
teach our creed." (Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century,
p. 55, quoted in Wiseman's Lectures, p. 93.) You may
say, that, although a Protestant, he was on the high-road to
Catholicism and should not be quoted as a Protestant au
thority ; but I think that this was one thing that made him
a Roman Catholic, namely, that he was not able to prove
the doctrines of his Church by the Bible alone ; and there
fore, appealing to the authority of the Church in their de-
vol. xxvi. — no. 291. 1* H

86 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 120
fence, he came upon Catholic ground, and step by 'step
travelled from Oxford to Rome, almost before he was
aware of the inevitable result. For I believe it is strictly
true, that the doctrines of the Church of England, and of
the "Orthodox" Church generally, upon the subject we
are now discussing, cannot be consistently held by those
who admit the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, and
the right of private judgment.
In some shape or other the authority of the Church or
of tradition, or of the catechism or creed or prayer-book,
must he brought in, or the doctrines themselves will soon
be abandoned.
From considerations such as these, great importance is
attached to the Christian Fathers. Many persons, who are
really in doubt whether the doctrine of the Trinity is taught
in the Bible, are held in its belief because they suppose that
it has been the doctrine of the Church from the very be
ginning, and therefore must have been taught by the Apos
tles ; and probably the same opinion is a source of diffi
culty to many Unitarians. For if it were true, that that
doctrine was taught in the first two or three centuries, as
it is taught now, we might have some trouble in account
ing for it. It would have been very strange for such a
doctrine to have grown up all at once, if not derived from
the Apostles themselves.
I shall therefore attempt to show, and think that I
shall succeed in showing, that the departure from the
Unitarian or Evangelical faith was very gradual, and
that the doctrine of the Trinity as now taught was not
established in the Christian Church until the last part of
the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries. This I
shall do, first, by two arguments of a general nature ;

121 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 87
and secondly, by quotations from the Christian Fathers
themselves. 1. In the early ages of the Church we find mention of
two sects, the Ebionites and Nazarenes. They are some
times called " Judaizing Christians," because they adhered,
the former strictly, and the latter more loosely, to the
Mosaic law. The Ebionites believed that Christ was a
mere man, and were always reckoned among the heretics
by orthodox believers. The Nazarenes " believed in the
miraculous birth of Christ, and that he was in some way
united with the Divine nature ; they refused to discard the
ceremonies prescribed by Moses, but did not obtrude
them upon the Gentile Christians. They, moreover, rejected
the additions to the Mosaic ritual made by the doctors of
the law and by the Pharisees." This sect was never
counted among the heretics in the first three centuries.
Mosheirn informs us that " Epiphanius, a writer of the
fourth century, of no great fidelity or accuracy of judg
ment, was the first who branded them as heretics." * But
these Nazarenes were Unitarians, beyond all doubt, — and
would they have escaped the brand of heresy, if the ma
jority of believers had been Trinitarians ?
What I have now said is upon the authority of Mosheim
and Neander, both of them Trinitarian writers of high re
pute. My own belief is, that the Nazarenes were the prim
itive Christians, converts from Judaism, who retained a little
too much of their Jewish predilections, just as the Apostle
Peter did in his early ministry. But in other respects they
were primitive Gospel Christians. I think so, partly be
cause they were in such good repute in the Christian world,
* Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Book I. Cent. 2, Part 2, Chap. 5, $ 2, note 3.

88 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 122
that even their Judaizing tendencies did not separate them
from the orthodox communion, and partly because their
name is that which was given (at first by way of reproach)
to all the disciples of Christ, because he was a citizen of
Nazareth. Acts xxiv. 5.
Secondly. We derive a second general proof from
Ecclesiastical History in the creeds or confessions of faith
used in the first four centuries. By their examination, we
shall find there was a gradual departure from the simplicity
that is in Christ, and an equal departure from the Unitarian
belief. The confession of faith used by the Apostles
themselves, as recorded in the book of Acts, was very
brief and simple. " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God." Acts viii. 37. This creed was the rock on
which our Saviour assured Peter that he would build his
Church. Matt. xvi. 16. It was this which the Apostle
Peter taught to the assembled Jews on the day of Pente
cost. Acts ii. 36. The Apostle John wrote his Gospel for
the special purpose of inculcating it. John xx. 31. And
when Paul was miraculously converted to a knowledge
of the truth, the great burden of his preaching was, to
convince his hearers of the same. Acts ix. 22.
When, converts were made from among the heathens,
another article was necessarily added, expressive of the
belief in One God, even the Father. Hence was formed,
with some further additions, what is called the Apostles'
Creed. It was not written by the Apostles themselves,
but it was in general use in the first three centuries, and
was regarded as containing the whole apostolical faith.
Now we contend that it is nothing jnore or less than a
Unitarian creed. We can adopt it, word for word, with
out any explanation : —

123 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 89
" I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus
Christ, his only Son, our Lord ; who was, by the Holy
Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary ; under Pontius Pilate he
was crucified and buried ; the third day he rose from the
dead ; he ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right
hand of the Father ; from thence he shall come to judge
the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; the
holy Church ; the forgiveness of sins ; the resurrection
of the body, and life everlasting."
This is the exact form in which the creed was used in the
second, third, and fourth centuries, and it was considered
the sufficient rule of faith in the Church until the year 325.
I think that it would not have been regarded as sufficient
if the Trinitarian belief had generally prevailed. It would
not be regarded alone as sufficient in the present day. It
would not be considered safe in the Episcopal and Roman
Catholic Churches to discard the Nicene and Athanasian
Creeds and to retain this as the only confession of faith ;
nor in the Presbyterian Church would it be considered safe
to adopt it, instead of the Assembly's Catechism. But it
satisfies us, as Unitarians, and if we thought it right to use
any confession of faith, other than the New Testament
itself, I know of none which we could adopt more heartily
than this which is called the Apostles' Creed.
As corruptions of doctrine prevailed more and more, the
Apostles' Creed was found to be insufficient. At the Coun
cil of Nice, A. D. 325, another creed was established. It
was adopted against great opposition, although the whole
authority of the Emperor Constantine was exerted, and it
was more than fifty years before it was firmly established
in the Church ; so reluctantly did the Christian world depart
from its first formulas of faith. It is also to be especially
h *

90 ARGUBIENT FROM HISTORY. 124
remarked, that the Nicene Creed, as at first adopted, does
not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, for it says nothing of
the personality of the Holy Spirit. Nor does it teach the
absolute equality of Christ with the Father, although it
uses unscriptural language, such as a Unitarian cannot
adopt. The idea of derivation of the Son from the Father
is still retained. He is the Son of God, the begotten of
the Father, God of God, — that is, derived from God, not
absolutely God in the same sense with the Father. If you
will examine the history of the Council of Nice, you will
find that this is the meaning then attached to the words.*
The first creed in which the Trinitarian faith is stated,
as now received, is the Athanasian Creed. It was not com
posed by Athanasius, but by some unknown author in the
fifth century. It is such a creed as was needed in the
Church, after it had completely abandoned the Unitarian
faith ; and it is a strong argument in our favor, that no such
creed is to be found until the fifth century, a time when
corruptions of eveiy sort abounded. You will thus per
ceive how gradually the transition was made, step by step,
and " as the first creed is avowedly the one held by Unita
rians, and the last one held by the Trinitarians, the infer
ence is irresistible, that the Church, which was Unitarian in
the beginning, gradually became Trinitarian."
2. Having given these two general arguments, from un
disputed facts in the history of the Church, I now proceed
to give several quotations from the early Fathers. Among
those of the highest authority, and whose names will be
familiar to you, are Justin the Martyr, Irenreus, Clement
of Rome, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius.
* See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History.

125 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 91
These are tho most highly esteemed of the Christian Fa
thers before the Council of Nice, and they all concur in
giving Unitarian testimony.
Clement of Rome, u. personal friend of Paul, mentioned
in the Epistle to the Philippians, (Phil. iv. 3,) calls Jesus
" the sceptre of the majesty of God " ; and we find near
the close of his Letter to the Corinthians the following dox
ology, which is such as a Unitarian would have written : —
" Now God, the inspector of all things, the Father of all
spirits, and the Lord of all flesh, who has chosen our Lord
Jesus Christ, and us by him to be his peculiar people, grant
to eveiy soul of man that calleth upon His great and holy
name, faith, fear, peace, long-suffering, patience, temper
ance, holiness, and sobriety, unto all well pleasing in his
sight, through our high priest and protector Christ Jesus, by
whom be glory and majesty and power and honor unto
Him now and for ever." Again he says, " Have we not
all one God, and one Christ, and one spirit of grace poured
upon us all ? " which is exactly the language of the Apos
tle Paul himself, with' whom he was contemporary.
Justin Martyr, who addressed a defence of Christian
ity to Antoninus Pius, about the year 140, was among the
first to use that language concerning Christ which after
wards grew into the doctrine of his supreme divinity, and
holds a high rank among the Orthodox Fathers ; he has this
language concerning Christ : — " The Father is the author
to him, both of his existence and of his being powerful
and of his being Lord and God." You will observe that
Christ is here called God, but the connection shows that it
is in a subordinate sense. In another place he says,
" He was subordinate to the Father, and a minister to his
will."

92 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 126
Iren^us, who wrote a large work upon the subject of
heresies, A. D. 172, says : " All the Evangelists have de
livered to us the doctrine of one God and one Christ, the
Son of God"; invoking the Father, he calls him " the only
God," and according to several of the most considerable of
the early Christian writers, a common epithet by which the
Father is distinguished from the Son is, that he alone is
Autotheos, or God of himself.
Clemens Alexandrinus calls the Father alone " with
out beginning," and immediately after characterizes the
Son as " the beginning and the first-fruits of things, from
whom we must learn the Father of all." He also says,
" The Mediator performs the will of the Father ; the word
is the Mediator, being common to both, the seal of God,
and the Saviour of men, God's servant, and our instruc
tor." Tertullian expressly says, " That God was not always
a Father or a Judge ; since he could not be a Father
before he had a son, nor a Judge before there was sin, and
there was a time, when both sin, and the Son, which made
God to be a Judge and a Father, were not."
Origen, the most learned of the Fathers, wrote about
the year 225 ; he says, " The Father only is ' the Good,'
and the Saviour, as he is the image of the invisible God, so
is he the image of his goodness." Again he says, " If we
know what prayer is, we must not pray to any created
being, not to Christ himself, but only to God the Father of
all, to whom our Saviour himself prayed." " We are not
to pray to a brother, who has the same father with our
selves ; Jesus himself saying, that we must pray to the
Father, through the Son." Yet this same Origen frequent
ly calls Christ God, although in a subordinate sense. For

127 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 93
when accused of believing in two Gods, he explained him
self as follows : — " He who is God of himself is The God ;
for which reason he says in his prayer to the Father, that
they may know Thee the only true God ; but whatever is
God besides him, (who is so of himself,) being God only
by a communication of his divinity, cannot so properly be
called The God, but rather A God," or Divine.
Such language is very common until the beginning of
the fifth century ; and whenever Christ is called God before
that time, the word is to be understood in the sense in
which Origen used it. Thus Arnobius says, " Christ, a
God under the form of a man, speaking by the order of
the principal God." Again, " Then at length did God Al
mighty, the only God, send Christ." And Lactantius
says, " Christ taught that there is one God, and that he
alone ought to be worshipped ; neither did he ever call him
self God ; because he would not have been true to his trust,
if, being sent to take away Gods and assert One, he had
introduced another besides that one. Because he assumed
nothing at all to himself, he received the dignity of perpet
ual Priest, the honor of Sovereign King, the power of a
Judge, and the name of God."
I shall quote but one other authority, Eusebius, the
father of ecclesiastical history, who wrote about the year
320. He says, " There is one God and the only-begotten
comes from him." " Christ being neither the Supreme
God, nor an angel, is of a middle nature between them ;
and being neither the Supreme God nor a man, but a Me
diator, is in the middle between them, the only-begotten
Son of God." " Christ the only-begotten Son of God, and
the first-born of every creature, teaches us to call his Fa
ther the true God, and commands us to worship him only."
vol. xxvi. — no. 291. 2

94 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 128
These quotations are, I think, plain and conclusive. I
might multiply them to a great extent, if needful. But
these are enough for our present purpose, which is to show
that the changes in Christianity were very gradual, from
the plain and intelligible doctrine taught by Christ and his
Apostles, to the difficult and unscriptural doctrines of the
Athanasian Creed.
The chief source of these changes or corruptions was
the Platonic philosophy. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and
nearly all of the early Christian Fathers, were Platonists
before they were Christians. They brought into their new
religion as much of their old philosophy as they could.
They thus ingrafted many ideas borrowed from Plotinus,
Porphyry, Proclus, and other Platonists of that age ; and
what was equally bad, they applied Platonic language to
the expression of their Christian faith, by which great con
fusion of ideas was introduced. Among the terms thus
borrowed was the Greek word Trias, used by the Platonic
philosophers to express some subtile distinction in the divine
nature usually called the Platonic trinity. It was not a dis
tinction of persons properly so called, nor is it easy to say
exactly what it did mean. The word was first introduced
into the discussion of the Godhead among Christians by
Theophilus of Antioch, in the second century, and was
afterwards used by Origen in the third century. It was
translated into the Latin by Tertullian, about the year 200,
by the word Trinitas, of which the English word Trinity
is the exact translation. Many other words in the newly
invented phraseology came from the same source, and
many peculiar ideas concerning the Logos, or Word of
God. I shall not trace them now ; but to show the extent
to which " Orthodox " Christians of later times, when the

129 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 95
Trinity was becoming established, considered themselves
indebted to the Platonic philosophy, I will quote one sen
tence from the celebrated Augustine. He says, that he
" was in the dark with regard to the Trinity until he found
the true doctrine concerning the divine word, in a Latin
translation of some Platonic writings, which the Providence
of God had thrown in his way."
I do not suppose that any one will accuse me of inten
tional unfairness, in the representation now made of the
Christian Fathers. I have not claimed any one of them as
being what we would call a sound Unitarian. The best of
them used language and inculcated ideas which came from
the Platonic school quite as much as from Christ. All that
I contend for is this : that the farther we go back, the near
er we come to the true doctrine which is life eternal, name
ly, " to know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom he has sent." There is no proof whatever,
that what is now called the doctrine of the Trinity was in
existence before the Council of Nice. To this effect I will
quote the authority of George Christian Knapp, an eminent
Trinitarian writer, whose "Lectures on Christian Theolo
gy," as translated by Leonard Woods, Jr., are a standard
work with Trinitarian believers. After a full and learned
discussion of the whole subject, he distinctly admits that
it is " impossible to prove the agreement of the earliest
Christian writers with the common Orthodox doctrine
as established in the fourth century." Vol. I. pp. 294,
299', &c.
Again he says, " It is obvious, that the Unity, of which
these philosophical Fathers speak, is nothing more than
unanimity, agreement, correspondence in feelings, consent
in will, in power, and in the application of power to partic-

96 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 130
ular objects. They do not mean by the use of the word
to signify that the Son and Holy Spirit were God, in the
full meaning of the word, and in the same sense in which
the Father is God. In short, these philosophical Christians
asserted rather the divineness of the Son and the Spirit,
and their divine origin, than their equal deity with the
Father. Thus it is obvious, that they entertained far differ
ent views of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, of which
they often speak, than we do at the present time." " In
deed, the belief in the subordination of the Son to the
Father, for which Arianism was the later name, was com
monly adopted by most of those Fathers of the second and
third centuries, who assented in general to the philosophy
of Plato. And had not Divine Providence interposed in a
special manner, there is reason to think it would have been
the established doctrine of the Church." And again, " With
regard to the Holy Spirit more particularly, we may remark
that, during the three first centuries of the Christian era,
there was nothing decided by ecclesiastical authority re
specting his nature, the characteristics of his person, or his
relation to the Father and the Son. Nor was any thing
more definite established at the Council of Nice. To
believe in the Holy Spirit was all that was required." — lb.
p. 313.
Such is the fact concerning the Fathers of the first three
centuries. The writer just quoted accounts for it, being
himself a Trinitarian, by saying that the true doctrine was
corrupted by the infusion of the Platonic ideas. But if
that true doctrine had been the Trinity, we should find it
more distinctly stated the farther we go back in the record ;
of which the exact contrary is true. The earliest writers
are the most distinctly Unitarian, and in proportion as the

131 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 97
Platonic philosophy came in, there was a gradual, but rapid
departure from the truth, until, after long and violent strug
gles, the Christian world settled down into the Athanasian
Creed. It was undoubtedly by the permission of Divine
Providence, but it was through the direct influence of the
civil power, and the result of the most terrible persecutions.
From that time until the sixteenth century, comparative
darkness was over the face of the Christian world. But no
sooner was the light of the Reformation kindled, than the
Unitarian doctrine again appeared. Resisted alike by
Catholic and Protestant, it was held at the peril of a man's
life ; yet many were found to profess it. In Geneva,
Michael Servetus was burned to death, at the instigation
and by the authority of Calvin, who thereby gave another
proof that " the blood of the martyr is the seed of the
Church," for Geneva is now one of the strongholds of the
Unitarian faith.
We might name many others, in Germany, in France,
and in England, who bore a like testimony ; for from that
time to this our faith has never been without its martyrs
and faithful confessors. Nor have we any reason to be
ashamed of those who have borne our name. They have
been comparatively few, for the doctrine has been unpopu
lar and opposed by all the strength of the Christian world.
But although until modern times they were few in number,
they have been great in intellect, profound in learning, and
eminent in piety. John Milton, England's great poet ; Sir
Isaac Newton, her greatest philosopher ; John Locke, her
profoundest metaphysician; Nathaniel Lardner, author of
the most learned work on Christian evidences ever written, —
were all of them close students of the Scripture, and all of
them believers in the Divine Unity as we receive it. Even
2*

98 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 132
Dr. Isaac Watts, whose hymns are the music of every
church, became in the last years of his life a Unitarian. If
great names could support a cause, these would do it. We
might add to them many others of the living and the dead,
equally good. But we do not rely on such arguments.
We appeal to the Sacred Scriptures alone, to the glorious
company of the Apostles and to Christ their living head.
Yet surely we may be pardoned, when we hear our Church
vilified and ourselves excluded from the Christian com
munion, if we remind our opponents that so many of the
names of which Christendom is most proud are found in the
Unitarian ranks.
In the present day, we have every reason to be satisfied
wfth the progress of our faith. It is extending itself far
more rapidly than most persons are aware ; not only by the
growth of Unitarian societies, so called, but by the diffusion
of Unitarian ideas everywhere. So far as they are true,
we hope that they will continue to prevail more and more.
If they are untrue, if they are a perversion of God's word,
we hope that they may soon pass away. If we hold error,
we do so ignorantly, for we honestly believe that we hold
the truth as it is in Jesus.
I will therefore close this sermon in the words, almost
the dying words, of Dr. Watts, in his solemn address to the
Deity. As sincere inquirers after Scriptural truth, we may
adopt them as our own.
" Dear and blessed God ! hadst thou been pleased, in any
one plain Scripture, to have .informed me which of the dif
ferent opinions about the Holy Trinity, among the contend
ing parties of Christians, had been true, thou knowest with
how much zeal, satisfaction, and joy, my unbiassed heart
would have opened itself to receive and embrace the di-

133 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 99
vine discovery. Hadst thou told me plainly, in any single
text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three real
distinct persons in thy Divine nature, I had never suffered
myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embar
rassed with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere
inventions of men, instead of Divine doctrine ; but I should
have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far
as it was possible for me to understand them, as the only
rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased so to ex
press and include this proposition in the several scattered
parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience
might with ease find out and with certainty infer this doc
trine, I should have joyfully employed all my reasoning
powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found
out this inference, and ingrafted it into my soul."
" Thou hast taught me, Holy Father, by thy prophets,
that the way of holiness in the times of the Gospel, or un
der the kingdom of the Messiah, shall be a highway, a plain
and easy path ; so that the wayfaring man, or the stranger,
' though a fool, shall not err therein.' And thou hast called
the poor and the ignorant, the mean and the foolish things
of this world, to the knowledge of thyself and thy Son,
and taught them to receive and partake of the salvation
which thou hast provided. But how can such weak crea
tures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a
doctrine as this, in the explication and defence whereof
multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have
lost themselves in infinite subtilties of dispute, and endless
mazes of darkness ? And can this strange and perplexing
notion of three real persons going to make up one true God
be so necessary and so important a part of that Christian
doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the New, is rep-

100 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 134
resented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest un
derstandings ? "
Such were the last thoughts of a pious and learned man,
after more than twenty years of examination of the Scrip
tures. They are full of instruction to us, and well calculat
ed to confirm us in our present belief. If such a man as
Dr. Watts was forced out of Trinitarianism by prayerful
and conscientious study of the Bible, we, as Unitarians,
have reason to thank God and take courage.

THE ATONEMENT.

FOR IP, WHEN WE WERE ENEMIES, WE WERE RECONCILED TO
GOD BY* THE DEATH OF HIS SON, MUCH MORE, BEING RECONCILED,
WE SHALL BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE ; AND NOT ONLY SO, BUT WE
ALSO JOY IN GOD THROUGH ODR LORD JESUS CHRIST, BY' WHOM
WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE ATONEMENT.  KomailS V. 10, 11.
The word which is translated reconcile in the tenth
verse, is translated atone in the eleventh. Of course,
therefore, the meaning is the same. The two words were
used by the translators as exactly synonymous, and the
word Atonement was printed in the first editions ,of the
English Bible, At-one-ment. It is used in the same man
ner by other writers in the time of James I., so that its
meaning is well established, and as this is the only passage
in the New Testament where it occurs, we are authorized
to say that the doctrine of Atonement and the doctrine of
Reconciliation are the same thing. If we so regard it,
this is the great doctrine of religion. It is the substance
of religion itself. Other truths may be important, but they
are so only as they are subsidiary to this. In a practical
point of view, they concern us only as they teach us how
to be reconciled to God, and help us in becoming so. Or,
in other words, all religious truth is important in propor-

102 THE ATONEMENT. 136
tion as it shows to sinners the way of salvation, and helps
them to walk therein until salvation is attained.
The necessity of reconciliation rests upon the fact that
we are sinners. " God made man upright, and he has
sought out many inventions." " For there is not a just
man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." How
this came to pass is not here the material question. The
fact is undeniable, and from it comes the necessity of the
Gospel redemption. If there is any man who has com
mitted no sin, for him the mission of Christ has no personal
interest. " God was in Christ reconciling the world to
himself," but where there has been no rebellion, there
can be no reconciliation. "They that are whole need not
a physician, but they that are sick " ; and therefore Christ
said, that " he came not to call the righteous, but sinners,
to repentance." It is because we feel ourselves to be
sinners, that we come to Christ. We have lost our way
and desire to find it. We have rebelled against God and
desire to make peace with him. We are alienated from
him and desire to be again brought near. Our sins rise
up in judgment against us, and we desire that the record
of them should be blotted out. Through sin we are at
enmity with God, and as his creatures, dependent on his
power, as his children, whose only hope of happiness
comes from the Father's love, our chief concern, I may say
our only concern, is to find the means of reconciliation with
him ; to obtain assurance of pardon and acceptance with
God, of whose love we have made ourselves so unworthy.
This is our inquiry to-night. Not an abstract subject
of metaphysical research, but the great practical question
of religion. How shall the burdened conscience throw off
its load ? Where shall the despairing heart, self-accused,
find hope ? Where shall the weary and heavy laden find

139 THE ATONEMENT. 103
rest ? Is it not a question which concerns us all ? May
God in his mercy guide us to a right answer ! And that
we may be so guided, let us consider it, not as a disputed
subject in theology, but as a practical subject in vital
religion. How shall the sinner be reconciled with God ? How
shall he be justified, or restored to God's favor ? How
shall he obtain forgiveness and remission of sins ? We
look for an answer, — First, to the laws of God's govern
ment; to that which we call Nature, interpreted by our
unenlightened reason. An answer comes, but it is not an
answer of peace. It is not forgiveness, but " Pay me
that thou owest." " If thou doest well, shalt thou not be
accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin Heth at the
door." It is the voice of stern, unpitying exaction. " Ev
erywhere in Nature we read Law, inexorable, unrelenting
Law. She governs by laws, which indeed are always
adapted to the good of the whole, to the advancement and
perfection of the race, but beneath them the individual
continually is crushed. Nature never pardons. Her wheels
thunder along their iron track, nor turn out to spare any
helpless mortal who has fallen beneath them. Ignorance
of the law is no excuse. Helplessness is no exemption.
There is no appeal to any court of error, but prompt ex
ecution follows judgment. The innocent child, who igno
rantly touches fire, is not the less burned. The man who,
in the night, ignorantly walks over a precipice, is not the
less destroyed. In nature, therefore, we find no word of
pardon for those who have broken the law, whatever may
be their excuse or sorrow." * If the laws of God's moral
government are equally stern and unbending, there is no
* Doctrine of Forgiveness, by James F. Clarke.
vol. xxvi. — no. 292. 1*

104 THE ATONEMENT. 140
hope for man ; his sins will surely find him out, and
sooner or later will work his destruction.
If we look to our own moral nature, the same answer
comes, equally stern, equally unpitying. Perhaps I may
say even more so. The wound upon the physical frame
will be healed by the curative power of nature herself;
and although a scar is left, the injury may be forgotten.
But the wounds of conscience are not healed ; sin once
committed can never be forgotten. Or if for a time it be
put out of mind by the hurried pursuits of life, it will still
rise up again, like the ghost of a murdered friend, to spoil
our best enjoyment and to rebuke us in our proudest im
aginings. Conscience speaks no word of pardon ; it gives
no assurance that God's favor will be restored to those by
whom it has been once forfeited. Its rebuke is equally
stern for a sin committed years ago as for those of yester
day. The intervening years may have been spent in the
sorrow of repentance, or in works of obedience, but con
science remains unappeased. Perhaps the more nearly
we come to a righteous life, the more deeply we feel the
stings of remorse, for the iniquity of bygone days.
Such is the natural working of a tender conscience. It
cannot find comfort for itself; it cannot blot out the record
of its own sins. It looks upward, but it clothes the Almighty
in attributes of vengeance ; its own fears read anger in his
face; its own sense of ill-deserving anticipates the sen
tence of condemnation. It drives the sinner to cruel pen
ances, to self-torture and scourging, vainly striving to
expiate the sins of the soul by the sufferings of the body ;
and yet, after years of such penance, the poor sufferer,
at each renewed remembrance of his sin, will strike the
bleeding scourge more deeply into the flesh. and cast himself
to the ground in renewed and hopeless agony. History

141 THE ATONEMENT. 105
will tell of a thousand such, and this is the Voice of Pardon
which the awakened conscience speaks.
Or sometimes it will deceive the sinner with the hope,
that by offering payment to the Most High his debts may
be discharged ; and thus, by sacrifices upon the altar, or
by the builflmg of costly churches, or by the splendor of
external worship, or, in more enlightened times, by institu
tions of charity and other works of philanthropy, men
have sought to make their peace with Him against whose
majesty they have rebelled. But still, however costly the
sacrifice, the conscience cannot be thus satisfied. Still
there has been a whispering, that it is not possible for the
blood of bulls and goats to take away sin ; or that God
should be appeased by the imperfect offerings of those
who, when they have done all, are but unprofitable servants.
There needed something more than this, some higher
and better teaching. It is a necessity which every one of
us, who acknowledges himself to be a sinner, must feel,
and we shall feel it more and more deeply, in proportion
as we rise higher in purity and goodness. We need to be
assured that God is merciful. Reason itself may teach us
that he is good towards those who do not violate his laws ;
for the provisions of nature are always bountiful and kind,
both for man and beast, so long as they are not perverted
by the selfishness or folly of those for whose good they
were intended. But from the retributions of a violated
law, reason alone finds no way of escape. From the
anger of an offended God, reason alone points out no ref
uge. There is a debt which cannot be paid, and reason
alone gives no assurance that God will remit it. This is
what we need to learn, that God is merciful. This is the
balm in Gilead, by which the wounded conscience can be
made whole ; this is the voice from heaven which we need

106 THE ATONEMENT. 142
to hear, speaking peace to the broken and contrite heart.
We need some assurance, that, "if we confess our sins,
God is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness."
The religion which can give us that assurance is the
religion for which the sinful heart yearns. Let us but learn
that there is forgiveness with God, that upon certain condi
tions, with which we are able to comply, he will not impute
to men their past offences, but will freely justify them and
graciously accept them, in the exercise of his infinite mer
cy, and it is all we need to know. The wall of separation
between us and our God is then thrown down. The way
for reconciliation, and for the redemption which follows it,
is open. He who brings that assurance, who instructs us
in these conditions, is indeed our Saviour. But if he not
only does this, but gives us encouragement and help in
complying with the conditions, and goes before in the way
wherein we must walk, and disarms death of its terror, and
reveals God to us as a Father clothed in the attributes of
tenderness and love, and opens to our eyes the heavenly
abode where God and his angels dwell, and to which he,
the messenger of love, has gone before to prepare a place
for us, that where he is we may be also ; — in what words
can we express our gratitude, except to say, " Thanks be
to God, for his unspeakable gift," in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Such are the glad tidings of great joy, " Glory to God
in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men."
Whisperings of the same message had been spoken in the
world before. To Abraham and to his children, to the
righteous men and prophets of olden time, some intimations
had been given of God's abounding love towards the sinner :
"For I have no pleasure, saith the Lord God, in the death
of the sinner, but rather that he should turn and live."

143 THE ATONEMENT. 107
By such words many hearts had been comforted. The
penitent sinner had been made to hear joy and gladness,
and the bones which had been broken were made to rejoice.
Nay, I believe that in all religions, even in those most ob
scured by superstition, there have always been some rays
of divine truth, received through the first revelation which
God made of himself to his human family, by which a
stronger hope of God's mercy has been given than reason
alone could suggest. The spirit of God has always striven
with man ; the light has always been in the world every
where, and men have preferred darkness rather than light
because their deeds were evil. But when, through the
manifold corruptions of sin and human error, the whole
head had become sick and the whole heart faint, it became
necessary that a clearer revelation of God's mercy should
be made. And it was then, when the full time had come,
that " God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the
world, but that the world through him might be saved."
The Christian religion is throughout a revelation of mer
cy ; even as we read, " Of his fulness have we all re
ceived, and grace for grace." I do not mean that it annuls
God's law ; on the contrary, Christ came to fulfil, or to
make perfect and complete, the moral law under which we
live and by which we must be judged. The Christian law
of morals is the strictest that has ever been given to man.
It is the strictest that we can conceive. It takes hold, not
only of the actions, but the motives from which action
springs ; of all our secret desires and thoughts and purposes.
It holds before us the standard of absolute perfection, of
which it gives an example in Jesus Christ, and commands
us never to be weaiy of well-doing, until we have attained
to the fulness of his stature. But for the past offences of
the penitent sinner, and for his continued short-comings in
the Christian race, it has words of blessed healing, of

108 THE ATONEMENT. 144
heavenly comfort, of eternal encouragement. " If any
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, even Jesus
Christ the righteous."
When we have learned with humility of heart to confess
our sins, to acknowledge ourselves guilty before God, and
that by the deeds of the law — by our own imperfect right
eousness — no man can be justified in his sight, then do we
also learn, that God is ready to justify us, to restore us
again to his favor, if we come before him with believing,
trustful hearts, seeking to do his will as followers of Christ.
That he will justify us ; not because we deserve it, for
from such a claim every mouth is stopped, by the acknowl
edgment of sin. But that he will justify us freely, by his
grace, his infinite mercy, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus, whom he hath foreordained to be a mercy-
seat for those who approach through faith in him, to declare
that the sinner shall be justified — treated as though he were
righteous, received to the arms of God's love, even as the
returning prodigal was received by his father — by tbe
remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of
God. This was Christ's mission ; to declare God's justifi
cation of the repenting sinner. That he might show God
to be at ^he same time just and the justifier of him who
believeth in Jesus.
We can therefore rely upon the mercy of God ; we can
feel sure that, if we go to him as children to a father, he
will receive us ; " he will in no wise cast us out." But
we cannot claim the merit of this reception ; it is not
because of what we have done, and all the boasting of the
self-righteous is excluded. It is to God's mercy alone, in
Jesus Christ, that we owe our acceptance. The prime and
perhaps only condition on which we receive forgiveness of
our past sins is an act which, by its nature, excludes merit.
It is an act of self-renunciation ; the prostration before God

145 THE ATONEMENT. 109
of the self-convicted sinner ; the act of sincere confession
and repentance ; in a word, the act of self-surrender to
God, which by the Scripture is called Faith. Not belief
only, that belief which the devils also may have even while
they tremble ; not that belief which is often an exercise of
the barren intellect, and is no more than the willing or
unwilling acceptance of certain opinions ; but Faith, which
is tlie deepest experience of the soul, — an act by which
oui whole relation towards God is changed ; by which we
are brought from the attitude of distrust and rebellion to
that of children who, although with tears in their eyes,
exclaim, Abba, my Father ! — this is Christian faith.
This is the condition on which God has promised, through
Christ, to forgive our sins. If it be fulfilled, he has prom
ised that the record of the past shall be blotted out. At
the foot of the cross, where we learn to believe, the burden
falls from our back, and we start forward upon a new race
with heaven in our view. A long and arduous race, — but
we begin it with light hearts, full of hope, sure of obtaining
the prize, if we run with patience, looking unto Jesus who
is the author and finisher of our faith.
The law of God is therefore not made void. We ac
knowledge its full force by that act of faith, which is the
condition of pardon. We place ourselves under the con
demnation of God's law ; we wait for sentence to be
passed upon us ; and instead thereof, hear the words of
the Divine Saviour, " Depart in peace, thy faith hath saved
thee " ; " Go and sin no more."
The law of God is not made void ; it is established as
completely as if its utmost penalty had been exacted.
The continuance of God's favor is also made to depend
upon a renewed life, a life of filial obedience, without
which we again fall into condemnation. j

110 THE ATONEMENT. 146
Nay, something more than this is true. The forgiveness
of sin does not remove all evil consequences. It removes
the worst, which is our estrangement from God, but there
are others which remain. Although we may be restored
to his favor and may feel in our hearts the earnest of heav
enly bliss, it requires long years of striving to rid our souls
of the stains which sin has left there.
The intemperate man may be reformed, he may feel
that his reconciliation with God is made, but will the evil
effects of past transgression quickly disappear ? Will not
even the appetite for that which was his ruin remain and
return upon him, a morbid craving for that which he strives
to hate ? And so it is with all our sins. We may repent
of them, we may forsake them, we may feel that through
God's mercy in Jesus Christ they are forgiven, and yet
their evil consequences may remain, — increasing the diffi
culty of our onward progress, returning upon us in perverted
tastes, in sinful imaginings, in weakness of resolution, so
that we are often compelled to exclaim, " That which we
do, we allow not, but that which we would not, we do."
Such is the true experience of the sinner, even of him who
has found hope in Christ. It is a further vindication of
God's law ; it is a further evidence that those who trifle
with their souls incur a dreadful risk, and must, to a certain
extent, reap that which they sow.
God may forgive them, but he still leaves a token in their
souls, by which they may see how narrow has been their
escape. They may be saved, but it is so as by fire. There
fore it is that the redeemed in Christ, while they labor to
work out their own salvation, must do it with fear and trem
bling. Thus, again, do we see that the law of God is not
made void by the terms of reconciliation which he offers ;
yea, it is rather established.

147 THE ATONEMENT. Ill
One part, therefore, of the doctrine of reconciliation we
can understand perfectly. I mean, so far as it requires a
change in us. The change from worldliness to devotion ;
from rebellion to childlike self-surrender ; from distrust to
faith ; from self-seeking and pride to self-denial and hu
mility. It is a change which begins in a renewed heart
and is completed in a renewed life. This is our reconcil
iation to God. We also understand how it is effected in us.
By the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus ; by the
messages of love which he brings to us from the Father ;
by his holy example ; by his instructions in righteousness ;
by his sufferings and death ; by his promises of eternal
life ; by his resurrection from the dead ; by his ascension
into heaven ; by his intercession for us with the Father ;
and by the influences of the Holy Spirit, which are given
through him; — by the whole Gospel dispensation.
It is not only that Christ has taught us of the Father, but
much more, because the Father is manifest in the Son.
The Divine attributes, however explained to us, we could
but imperfectly understand. We might still have a linger
ing fear, that the justice of an Infinite Being could not be
satisfied, without the full punishment of the offender. But
when we read the history of Christ himself, the image of
the invisible God, and see how perfectly justice and mercy
are joined together in him, not as conflicting attributes, but
as only different exhibitions of the same parental love, stern
or gentle, according to the necessity of each case, we can
understand how God is just and the justifier of those who
believe in Jesus ; how he can condemn sin and yet pardon
the sinner; "not desiring the death of any, but that all
should turn to him and live." It is thus that Christ showed
himself to us, and it is in this attribute of justice, tempered
by mercy, that we receive him as the manifestation of the
vol. xxvi. — no. 292. 2

112 THE ATONEMENT. 148
Father, — the Word made flesh. We contend that there is
no view of God's justice, which can be correct, that does
not find its manifestation and development in Christ.
Such is the effect on us, and such are the means by
which it is produced. This is therefore the practical part
of our subject. So far as we are concerned in the work of
reconciliation with God, this is all that we need to know.
We know that God is willing to receive us ; we know the
conditions on which we shall be received ; every motive
for coming to him, and every encouragement, is given ; we
see from what source help will come to our infirmities ; we
know enough of God's counsels to be sure that our seeking
will not be in vain.
Upon all this there is scarcely any controversy among
Christians. Here, as in almost all other doctrines, the
controversy is not concerning that which is practical, for
the practical is almost always plain. It concerns questions
to which we can give no positive answer. It is upon sub
jects which are for the great part beyond our reach. There
are some points of difficulty of this sort in the doctrine of
atonement ; questions of theology, rather than of religion.
Such for example as these : In the work of reconciliation,
is not a change in God also needed, as well as in us ? How
did the death of Christ make it safe for God to forgive sin
in a sense in which it was not before safe ? What effect
upon the counsels of God does the mediation of Christ
produce ? In what sense did Christ die for us and suffer in
our stead ? The questions are of great interest, but while
I state them you see that they are chiefly above our com
prehension. We may speculate concerning them, but can
not arrive at certain conclusions. We shall attempt to
answer them, however, so far as the Scripture guides us,
next Sunday evening.

THE ATONEMENT.

GOD WAS IN CHRIST, RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF,
NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPASSES UNTO THEM. — 2 Cor. V. 19.
In our inquiries last Sunday, we examined the more
practical part of the doctrine of atonement or reconcilia
tion. We saw that, to effect reconciliation with God, a radi
cal change is needed in us. The question now arises, Is a
corresponding change needed in God himself? Let me
again say, that until we can penetrate more deeply into the
Divine nature than we now can, it is a question to which
we can give no clear answer.
Of all the attributes of God there is none more complete
ly beyond our comprehension than his unchangeableness or
immutability. We are taught, on the one hand, that in
him there is no change, neither shadow of turning ; but on
the other, that he is a Father who pities his children, who
does not afflict willingly, who answers our prayers, who
forgives our sins. All of which implies that his counte
nance towards us changes, that his dealings with us change,
that he regards us with different feelings at different times,
according to the relation in which we stand towards him.
I think that this is the general representation of God in the

114 THE ATONEMENT. 150
Scriptures. He is shown to us, not as an abstract order of
the universe, stern and unvarying, uninfluenced by prayer,
unchanged by repentance, but as a Heavenly Father, with
all the attributes of tenderness and compassion which be
long to that name.
If that is the true representation, it seems impossible that
his feelings should be the same towards the hardened rebel,
and the repentant sinner, and the glorified saint. Our own
hearts tell us that it cannot be. Yet if God is immutable,
how can it be otherwise ? Some will answer, that he is like
the sun in the heavens, always shining with clear and benig
nant rays ; and that the clouds which veil him from our
eyes, namely our sins, work no change m him, although
they change his relation toward us. Perhaps it is a right
answer, but I confess it seems to me to make our whole
relations with God too mechanical. The heart yearns for
personal affection. We long for the smile of approbation,
not a seeming smile, but the real smile of tenderness and
parental love. Whether it is weakness or not, 1 do not
know, but I am sure that our hearts are more moved by
the representation of God in the parable of the Prodigal
Son, where the Father cannot wait to be sought for, but
goes out to meet his returning child and falls upon his neck
and kisses him, than by all the abstract arguments of God's
unchanging goodness that have ever been written. It may
be unphilosophical, but perhaps, when we know more, we
shall find that the philosophy which requires us to be untrue
to our nature is " falsely so called."
I cannot but look with suspicion upon any system of
religion which philosophizes away our natural affections.
When we lie under the burden of sin, our hearts tell us
that we are at enmity with God, and that he is thereby
estranged- from us. Not that he regards us with any thing

151 THE ATONEMENT. 115
like human anger, for he loves us even then ; but there is
the estrangement which holiness must feci towards sin.
There is a desire for our return and the feeling of appro
bation, the renewal of that kind of love which had been
withdrawn, when we come to him and say, " Father, we
have sinned against Heaven and before thee." In our the
ory, we may say that there is no change ; but it is a theory
which our feelings do not recognize. It is an intuition of
our nature that God loves us in a different sense, when we
return to him, from that in which he loved us before.
You will see, however, from my whole manner of speak
ing, that I do not believe in such a change in God as is
sometimes taught. Many persons teach the doctrine of
atonement as though the chief difficulty were on the side
of God, and not on that of the sinner. They speak of
God's being reconciled to man, much more than of man's
being reconciled to God. They represent God as having
been full of anger, of vindictive wrath, ready to hurl pun
ishment upon sinners, unwilling and unable to forgive
them, until his anger was appeased by the sufferings and
death of Christ, who endured the punishment of the guilty.
We reject this view, first, because the Scripture uniform
ly represents that the cause of Christ's coming' into the
world was not the wrath of God, but his love. " God
so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him shtjuld have everlasting life."
" Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved
us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
And still more strongly, " In this was manifested the love of
God towards us, because that God sent his only-begotten
Son into the world, that we might live through him." I
repeat, that this is not the occasional, but the uniform, state
ment of the Scripture. There is no passage which says or
2 *

116 THE ATONEMENT. 152
implies that God's anger with the sinner was the cause of
Christ coming, or that Christ came to make him merciful.
His coming was a proof of mercy ; it was the effect of
God's love. God's anger is not of a kind that needs to be
appeased. Another reason why we reject such a theory of God's
anger is this : The Scriptures represent that Christ is the
manifestation of God. In his character, therefore, we learn
the attributes of God. This is our best instruction concern
ing the meaning of God's justice and mercy, of his anger
and love. But according to the view of the Divine wrath
just now considered, God and Christ are placed in the strong
est contrast ; one all anger, the other all love ; one all jus
tice, the other all mercy ; one seeking to punish, the other
seeking to save. Such a view cannot be correct. God is
love, and Christ is the image of his love. In no respect is
the Son more perfectly the manifestation of the Father,
than in this.
Thirdly : We are confirmed in this view, because there
is not a single passage in the Bible in which God is said to
be reconciled to man, but always that man is to be recon
ciled to God. " For if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Rom. v. 10.
" All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself
by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of recon
ciliation ; namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the
world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,
and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God
did beseech you by us, Be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor.
v. 18 - 20. Here is a full statement of the subject before
us. It is God pleading with us through Christ, as a Father

153 THE ATONEMENT. 117
pleads with his erring children. He is ready to be recon
ciled to them, whenever they will come to him. He en
courages them to come, he waits for them, he goes out to
meet them. In the work of reconciliation which must be
effected before they can be received, the difficulty is not
on his part, but on theirs alone.
If, therefore, we admit that a change takes place in the
feelings of God towards the returning sinner, it is not a
change from vindictive wrath to overflowing love, from a
God who is all justice to a God of all mercy, but it is a
change from one kind of love to another. As the earthly
parent loves his children, both when they are rebellious
and when they are repentant, so does God love us all
and always. If it is a different kind of love, it arises from
the necessity of the case, in the dealings of a being infi
nitely holy towards those who are frail and sinful.
We think that no other view of God is either Scriptural
or reasonable. It presents him to us, not only as a God, but
as a Father, wise in his compassion ; in whom the attri
butes of justice and mercy are only the different exercise of
the same love. . .»
The next question which arises is this : What effect upon
the counsels of God does the mediation of Christ produce ?
By the mediation of Christ we mean, not only his sufferings
and death, but the whole Gospel dispensation. His coming
down from heaven, his instructions, his life and holy exam
ple, his precepts, his sufferings and death, his resurrection,
his ascension into heaven at the right hand of the Father,
to make intercession for us. This is the whole Gospel dis
pensation. We understand it all to be included in Christ's
work as the mediator between God and man.
What effect did it produce upon the counsels of God
towards the sinner ? Here again our limited faculties pre-

118 THE ATONEMENT. 154
sent a difficulty. It is a question which we cannot answer
perfectly, until by our searching we can find out God, and
enter into the secret places of his wisdom. We believe
the Gospel dispensation was needful. It does not express
the whole truth to say that the coming of Christ was desira
ble, as a means of salvation, for it was indispensable.
From the beginning, it was a part of God's counsel towards
man. It is an essential link in the chain, by which God
draws the sinner to himself. In the plan of salvation we
cannot dispense with Christ : " No man," he says, " can
come to the Father but by me." " I am the vine, ye are
the branches. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,
except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye
abide in me." Words cannot express more strongly than
these, the personal necessity of Christ to us. I could give
you a hundred instances of the same sort, teaching in the
strongest terms our dependence upon the Gospel dispensa
tion, for the hope, and in the work, of salvation.
But if you ask me why God has so appointed, or if he
could not have devised some other means by which the
same gracious work would have been accomplished, you
ask me unwisely, and it would be unwise in me to attempt
an answer. It is enough for us that there is one way;
that if we come to God in penitence and faith, as Christ
has taught us to come, we shall find forgiveness and accept
ance with him ; that under the Gospel dispensation there is
no stumbling-block in our path to heaven, except deliberate
and continued sin. If we are delivered from the body of
this death, we should thank God, through our Lord Jesus
Christ, without being too curious to know whether God
could not have found some other means, equally effectual,
for our deliverance.
There is no difficulty in the belief that man's salvation

155 THE ATONEMENT. 119
depends upon the mediation of Christ. Consider it either
as a work done for us, or as a prayer offered for our sake.
In either case, the Scripture doctrine of the absolute neces
sity of Christ's coming, and of his sufferings and death, is
according to the analogy of God's general dealing with us,
and to our belief as Christians in the efficacy of prayer.
Nearly all the blessings which come to the world, come
through the faithful exertions of the good. It is to the
holy throng of apostles and martyrs, God's saints on earth,
that all progress in wisdom and goodness, and all triumphs
over evil, are due. If they had not lived, or if they had
been unfaithful, a thousand blessings for which we are now
thankful would never have reached us. It is in accordance
with the same law, although in a higher exemplification of
it, that the work of Christ was performed. We may not
understand its full efficacy, but we can understand its neces
sity, and that from its faithful performance our salvation
proceeds. And so, if we consider Christ's mediation as a prayer,
or continued intercession with God for our sake, the Scrip
tural doctrine of its efficacy presents no greater difficulty
than the doctrine of prayer in general. We believe that
our prayers are answered ; that God is more ready to give
his Holy Spirit to those that ask him, than an earthly parent
is to bestow good gifts upon his children. But who shall
explain this ? Who shall tell us how prayer is answered ?
How can human asking change the mind of God towards
us ? We do not know, yet our affections, our inward expe
rience, not less than the Scriptures, assure us that prayer
is answered ; that by prayer, and in answer to prayer, we
obtain blessings which otherwise would never come to us.
Nor can I perceive any greater unreasonableness in the
belief that our prayers, one for another, are answered.

120 THE ATONEMENT. 156
It is an instinct to pray for those we love. We cannot
explain how the prayer can bring the blessing, but yet we
cannot help praying. Such spiritual instincts should not be
slighted because they are beyond the reach of intellect.
To me they carry their own evidence. I believe in God,
not so much because it can be proved by argument, as
because it is a necessity of my nature. For the same rea
son I believe in prayer, and the Scripture strongly confirms
the belief. It teaches that the effectual, fervent prayer of a
righteous man availeth much. If we knew more of God,
and of the spiritual world, and of the laws by which all
spiritual beings are bound together in one mysterious chain,
from the lowest to the highest, we might be able to under
stand how the prayers of the good may be answered in
behalf of the wicked, and that the nearer to God we come
in purity and love, the more effectual our prayers will be.
We then might understand how the intercession of one
like Jesus, the beloved Son of God, can be an indispensa
ble influence and a real agency in the redemption of the
world. Such, at least, is the Scriptural doctrine, and as
such we are content to receive it. Christ then becomes to
us the living head of the Church. He is not only our bene
factor thorough his life and sufferings on earth, but he also
liveth to make intercession for us with the Father. In our
stragglings against sin and our efforts to rise, it is an un
speakable comfort to know, that we have the sympathy and
prayers and spiritual aid of one so pure and good, who was
tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, who was
made perfect through suffering, and is now exalted at the
right hand of God.
We now proceed to a point which has involved much
discussion and given rise to a multitude of theories. How
did the sufferings and death of Christ make it safe for God

157 THE ATONEMENT. 121
to forgive sin, in a sense in which it was not before safe ?
There are some who say, that it was by Christ's suffering
the full penalty of sin, and thereby making full satisfaction
to the law, that he enabled the sinner to go free. A theoiy
which we cannot receive, chiefly for two reasons.
First, it leaves no room for God's mercy. If a debt is
fully paid, we owe thanks to him who paid it, but not to
him who exacts the payment. Such is not the doctrine of
the Bible, which teaches us that God freely forgives ;. that
our trespasses are not imputed to us, " through his forbear
ance," not through his exaction of the penalty from another.
Christ teaches us to pray, " Forgive us our trespasses, as we
forgive those who trespass against us," which is not con
sistent with the idea of the debts being paid, either by the
offender himself, or by any one else for him. If a debt is
paid, there can be a release, but, properly speaking, there is
no room for remission.
Secondly, the chief penalty of sin, the only real penalty,
is remorse of conscience and estrangement from God,
and by the nature of the soul no one can endure this pen
alty for another. As a matter of fact, also, Christ did
not endure it. No remorse of conscience ever visited him.
However mysterious and inexplicable his sufferings may
have been, this never made any part of them. Never for
a moment did he feel estrangement from God ; never for a
moment was the love of God withdrawn from him. In the
agony of human suffering, he exclaimed, " My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But perhaps even
these words were spoken, as calling to his mind the whole
of the triumphant psalm of David from which they are
taken; and even in that dreadful hour we perceive his
nearness to God, in the comforting words spoken to the
repentant criminal, and in his prayer for his enemies, and

122 THE ATONEMENT. 158
in his dying words, " Into thy hands I commend my spirit."
No ; Christ truly suffered, the just for the unjust, but he did
not suffer as a sinner, and therefore he did not suffer the
punishment of sin. By the blindness of human judgment,
he was numbered among the transgressors, and suffered an
ignominious and cruel death, but he was always the beloved
Son, in whom God was well pleased. He was never nearer
to God, he was never further removed from the punishment
of sin, than when his sufferings for our sake were the most
terrible. We cannot believe, therefore, in the theory of Christ's
sufferings just stated. But we can perceive that in another
way the Gospel dispensation, in which we include the suf
ferings and death of Christ, has made it safe that sin should
be forgiven, under God's moral government, in a sense in
which it might not otherwise have been safe. The two
essential requisites to make pardon safe are these : first, to
secure in the offender such a disposition as will lead him to
a true and permanent reformation ; and secondly, to main
tain the sanctity of the law so that it shall not be brought
into contempt, but that, while the sinner is forgiven, his
abhorrence of sin may be increased, and the heinousness
of sin, in God's sight, be made more plainly to appear.
When these two requisites are attained, forgiveness of sin
becomes safe. It is safe to the sinner himself, because his
reformation is secure ; it is safe to the moral government
of God, because his law is not brought into contempt, but
is honored even more highly. This is precisely the result
which the Gospel dispensation accomplishes. It arouses the
sinner to those emotions, by which alone his reconciliation
with God can be effected, and his reformation secured, —
the emotions of repentance, of self-renunciation, of love,
— which are in themselves a complete renewal of the in-

159 THE ATONEMENT. 123
ward life, and thus brings him to such a relation towards
God, that the word of pardon can be safely spoken.
Such has been the experience of hundreds of thousands.
The ministry of Christ, and especially his sufferings and
death, have been the influence by which more souls have
been aroused from the sleep of sin, than by all others
beside. But at the same time the hatred of sin has been
increased. The manner in which pardon is brought to the
sinner is the most dreadful condemnation of sin. It is
offered to us at the expense of so much suffering, that when
we read the account of it, we lament our sins, by which it
was made necessary, more bitterly than at any other time.
If it had been proclaimed from heaven, that God is ready
to forgive the repenting sinner, the message would have
been the same that we have now received, but how different
would have been the effect ! We might then indeed have
supposed that sin is a light evil, and its record easily blotted
out. But when we read the narrative of Christ's sufferings,
we perceive how heinous sin must be in the sight of God ;
our consciences are awakened to discern how terrible its
consequences must be, here and hereafter. If it were a
small evil, if escape from it were easy, if its consequences
were temporary and trivial, would the Heavenly Father
have appointed his holy child Jesus to a life of such suf
fering, and to a death of such agony, for its removal ? We
think not; nay, we are sure that it could not be. The
whole Gospel dispensation, as God has directed it, impresses
us deeply with the awfulness of sin ; it brings before us the
vision of its terrible consequences more distinctly, by its
accents of love mingled with the records of suffering, than
could have been done by the most fearful threats of pun
ishment, or the most vindictive execution of the law.
Something of the same benignant purpose we see in
vol. xxvi. — no. 292. 3

124 THE ATONEMENT. 160
God's general providence. It is through the suffering and
sacrifices of the good, through their pains, self-denials and
martyrdoms, that the sins of the wicked receive their
sternest rebuke, and the sinner himself is reformed. Nor
are there any circumstances, under which we hate our sins
so much, as when suffering is endured by those whom we
love, for the sake of their removal. How much more do
we feel this, when brought home to us by the sufferings of
one at the same time so pure and so exalted as Jesus Christ !
In proportion as we believe in them, the effect is deepened ;
it grows with our spiritual growth, it strengthens with our
spiritual strength. It is not a mysterious influence, but
natural and unavoidable ; the working of the human heart,
when softened by the dews of God's grace. It leads to the
perfect vindication of the sacredness of God's law, at the
same time that pardon is offered to the sinner and his
return to righteousness secured.
There is one other question under the doctrine of Atone
ment, which we must consider, although in but very few
words. In what sense did Christ die for us? The lan
guage of Scripture with reference to it is various and strong,
— sometimes figurative, sometimes literal, sometimes ob
scure. *He is our ransom, our sacrifice, our sin-offering;
he is made sin for us, he bore our punishment, the chastise
ment of our peace is laid upon him, by his stripes we are
healed ; he has borne our griefs, he was bruised for our
iniquities, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of
us all. All of this is Scriptural language. What does it
mean ? A part of it is manifestly figurative, as when it is
said "he hath made him to be sin for us," and "upon him
is laid the iniquity of us all." Some persons have under
stood even this literally, and thus Martin Luther taught that
Christ was the greatest sinner, murderer, robber, and the

161 THE ATONEMENT. 125
like, that the world ever saw, because all the sins of all the
world were accumulated in him, to receive their condem
nation and their punishment. I do not know what men
mean, when they use such language, and it is charitable to
suppose that they do not know themselves. There is no
danger of any one using it at the present day, and no need
of proving its absurdity.
In the same manner the word ransom has been interpret
ed literally, and some of the Christian Fathers taught that
the sufferings of Christ were the ransom, or purchase-mon
ey, paid by God and received by the enemy of souls, the
Devil, as the price of the sinner's release. We shall not
follow such interpretations further; they belong to days
gone by, and are a monument of human weakness.
The whole language which we have quoted we think
means no more nor less than this : that Christ suffered for
us, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. Whatever
is expressed more than these words imply is figurative, and
not literal. The sufferings and death of Christ were neces
sary as a means of our redemption from sin ; they were
therefore endu sd in consequence or on account of our
sins ; they were our ransom, the price paid for us, the cost
of our deliverance. " The chastisement of our peace was
laid upon him," because this was the means through which
our peace was obtained. " By his stripes we are healed,"
because the healing of our souls, in the forgiveness of our
sins, is the result of that dispensation of which his suffer
ings were a needful part. " We are washed in his blood,"
because the shedding of his blood leads to our cleansing.
He suffered and died in our stead, (although this is not a
Scriptural expression,) because his sufferings and death save
us from condemnation. As to all this language, there has
been much disputing about words. I find in orthodox

126 THE ATONEMENT. 162
creeds and books a great deal to which I cannot assent.
But whenever I converse with individuals who receive such
creeds, and learn what they mean by the words used, the
differences gradually fade away. I believe that the majority
of them hold in fact nearly the same doctrine which I have
now explained. Even when they speak of a vicarious
atonement, they very often mean no more than we can
accept. There is a plain and real sense in which I can use
that word, for it is true that Christ suffered for us, and by
this means, through the grace of God, we escape the suf
fering which our sins would otherwise have brought upon
us. If he had not come upon earth and fulfilled his minis
try, we must have died in our sins, for we are not able to
guide ourselves nor save ourselves, and it is through him
alone that we come near to God. There may be others
who believe more than these words convey, and who teach
that the wrath of God was literally laid on Jesus Christ ;
but I seldom meet them, and think that their number is
daily becoming less. For ourselves, we are satisfied to
know that " God commendeth his love towards us, in that,
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The way
for our return to God is open, and he is waiting to be
gracious!

REGENERATION.

JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HIM, VERILY, VERILY, I SAY
UNTO THEE, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT SEE THE
KINGDOM OF GOD. THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH,
AND THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT. — John iii. 3, 6.
Our subject this evening is the Christian doctrine of Re
generation, or the new birth ; the nature of the change
implied in those words, the means and agency by which it
is produced, and the evidences by which we may judge of
its reality. It is a subject whose importance all Christians
acknowledge, for whatever views we take of it, as theolo
gians, we must admit that in practical religion every thing
depends upon its applicatibn. To ask who is regenerate is
to ask who is a Christian. To become regenerate is to
become a Christian. We may dispute as to what the new
birth is, but we cannot dispute the Saviour's words, that
" unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
of God." There are some persons who suppose that
Unitarians deny this doctrine. But there could not be a
greater mistake. It would be the same as denying that a
man can become a Christian, or that there is any real dif
ference between good men and bad, between those who
serve God and those who serve him not. There are some

128 REGENERATION. 166
explanations of the doctrine which we reject, because they
are unsound and unscriptural, but we do not reject the doc
trine itself.
For example, we do not believe in an instantaneous and
miraculous change, by virtue of which he who is at one
moment totally depraved can become in the next one of
God's saints. But we do believe, that by the blessing of
God a radical change may begin at any time, by which the
direction of a man's life may be changed from that which
leads downward to that which leads upward.
We do not believe that this change will always be ac
companied, either with the panic of an agonized conscience,
or the ecstasies of rejoicing, but that its inward experience
will be different in different individuals, according to their
various temperament and education, to the degrees of their
guilt, and to the influences under which they have been
placed. The outward evidences of the change will also
differ in an equal degree. I have seen men at a camp-
meeting under such strong excitement, that they have been
tied, hand and foot, to prevent them from some bodily injury ;
others pass through an equally strong experience, to whom
the kingdom of God comes without observation. We do
not deny^the reality of the change effected in either case.
We must judge of them both, as we judge of the tree, by
its fruit. We give our preference indeed to the latter, be
cause observation leads us to distrust all violent excitements.
There is danger that they will not last, and that the spiritual
fever will be followed by a corresponding and perhaps fatal
prostration. This is particularly true, where the excitement
is produced by artificial means, by the sympathy of crowds
and the appliances of fear. At such times men are car
ried beyond their own convictions, and are very liable to be
deceived as to their real feelings. The result very often is,

167 REGENERATION. 129
that after a few days they see every thing in a different
light, and sometimes the Scripture is fulfilled in them, that
the last stage of such men is worse than the first. We
have greater confidence in the change which comes through
the quietness of thought. It may promise less at first, but
will accomplish more in the end. It may be accompanied
with less of the rapture of religious triumph, but it is more
likely to bring us to that peace which passeth all under
standing. For such reasons, we do not enter into what are
called " revivals of religion," and the protracted meetings
by which they are generally excited. Our observation of
them has not been favorable to their permanent usefulness.
It is not that we deny the change of heart which is needed
in becoming a Christian, nor that we would limit the action
of God's spirit in producing it. We may rightly pray to
him, " Revive thy work in the midst of the years "; and in
the progress of every religious society, as in the experience
of every individual, there will be times of awakening, in
which the lukewarm become zealous, and the cold-hearted
and sinful are rebuked. Such seasons of refreshing, when
they come from the use of the ordinary Gospel means, are
always to be welcomed, and their result is always good.
But when they are brought on almost forcibly, by "the use
of what we may call religious machinery, it is quite a dif
ferent thing. They are artificial in their origin and unnatu
ral in their result. Their good effect, which seems at first
very great, is seldom permanent. I have known instances
in which, out of a hundred converts, less than one tenth
held fast to their profession for six months. In such cases
the evil is greater than the good, and it is from the fear of
such results that we prefer more quiet modes of pro
ceeding. Once more : we believe that every real change in the
vol. xxvi. — no. 294. 1*

130 REGENERATION. 168
character and in the heart must be begun, continued, and
ended in God. It is he " who worketh in us both to will
and to do, of his good pleasure." In the Christian course,
from the very first to the last, we are dependent upon him.
As in the natural world, the seed is formed by his creative
power, and germinates and grows up and is developed into
a plant or tree, through the benign influences of nature,
which are only another name for the Divine working, so it
is in the human soul that the seed of righteousness is at
first planted, and is developed by the sweet influences of
God's grace. With this difference, however, which should
be carefully remarked, that in the latter case the soul
must acknowledge the working of God and feel itself sus
tained by his presence. In proportion as we feel our de
pendence on God, we become strong. If we rely upon
ourselves alone, we become weak. We are never so much
in danger of falling, as when we boast in our hearts that
we stand firmly. It is thus that God teaches us, by the
practical experience of life, that we depend on him, that
we are not sufficient to ourselves.
But while we receive this as the Scriptural doctrine of
God's grace, we do not the less insist upon the necessity
of our own working. In one sense, we depend for the
whole work of our salvation, from the first dawning thought
of goodness to the last complete triumph of Christian faith,
upon the awakening and saving influences of God's spirit ;
and we can therefore join in the prayer of the poet, —
" Direct, suggest, control, this day,
All we design or do or say.''
And in that of the Psalmist David, "Create in me a clean
heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me ; " for it
is the prayer not only of weakness, but of faith, and to

169 REGENERATION. 131
every sincere Christian it will surely be answered. But on
the other hand we too must work ; we have no rio-ht to
expect miracles to be done for us. We have no right to
expect that the spirit of God will come to us unsought.
God helps those who try to help themselves. He will not
save us in spite of ourselves. It is of those who are striv
ing to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling,
that the Scripture says, " God worketh in them both to will
and to do." To those only who use what they already
have, is it promised that more will be given.
Nor can we separate the Divine working from that which
we call the natural operation of our own minds, and the
natural influences of our daily life. A thought of righteous
ness comes to the hardened sinner, he scarcely knows how,
nor is it important that he should know. It is of God's
sending, whether you call it the direct suggestion of his
Spirit or not. It is an angel visitant, and if cordially re
ceived others will follow in its train, until the heart becomes
the temple of the living God, full of his ministering spirits.
From that first impulse towards goodness, as he advances,
step by step, contending against sin, reaching towards
heaven, the Christian can never tell exactly how much de
pends upon his own exertion, and how much upon a higher
power. He knows that when his heart is full of prayer,
he progresses most rapidly ; but he also knows that a bless
ing never comes upon his indolence. He finds no en
couragement to wait until God does his work, but no sooner
does he take hold of it than he feels sure that God is help
ing him. He thus feels the equal necessity of his own
exertions and of the Divine blessing, and is kept in that
healthy progress of mind and character, which belongs to
the true Christian life. Such we think is the wise ordering
of God. In the influences of his Spirit upon the soul we

132 REGENERATION. 170
cannot say, " Lo here ! or Lo there ! " " he cometh down
like rain upon the mown grass, as showers that water the
earth," and the proof of his coming is found in the fruits
of righteousness, in pure and holy thoughts, in heavenly
aspirings, and in every Christian grace.
It is supposed by many persons, that the doctrine of Re
generation depends upon what are called the doctrines of
Original Sin and Total Depravity. This is a mistake which
it is important to remove. We must therefore consider
these doctrines for a few moments before going further.
In fact, there are few persons who explain them at the
present day in the same manner in which they were
taught fifty years ago. The Calvinistic doctrine of origi
nal sin is, that in the fall of Adam the whole human race
were made sinners ; that in consequence thereof, sin is
imputed to every human being at his birth, in such a sense
that he is under the wrath of God and is subject to eternal
damnation ; that his nature, being essentially corrupt, is
capable of no good thing, not even to wish or pray for
good. Its best actions therefore are hateful in the sight of
God, and absolute, total depravity is the necessary result of
its development. For a nature such as this, there is but
one hope, of salvation, which is in the miraculous and irre
sistible grace of God. The change of heart is therefore,
according to this view, an absolute change of nature ; it
comes not because of a man's own seeking, but irrespect
ively thereof. Those to whom it comes are thereby God's
elect. Those to whom it does not come remain under the
sentence of condemnation, from which they cannot by any
means escape.
Such is the theory which Calvin taught. But I think very
few of his adherents now receive it. It is so much modi
fied, that, even when the same words are used, different

171 REGENERATION. 133
ideas are conveyed. By original sin, the majority under
stand no more than original imperfection ; and by the impu
tation of Adam's sin, no more than the evil consequences
which the child inherits from his parents, in an impaired
physical and mental constitution. In this sense, we believe
in original sin. We are certainly born imperfect, with
many tendencies to evil. These tendencies are also, to
some extent, inherited. In this sense, the sins of the fa
ther may be said to be visited on the children, as I have
known whole families to be born with depraved appetites,
which have followed them to their graves. But if, on the
one side, there are evil tendencies, there are, on the other,
equally strong tendencies to good ; amiable dispositions and
a natural love of truth and purity. These also come to us
in part as our birthright. We do not call them virtue or
religion, nor do we say that these alone make us acceptable
to God. Nor, on the other hand, do we say that the evil
tendencies with which we are born make us hateful to God.
In both cases, the natural constitution of our minds, together
with all the circumstances of our birth and education, will
be taken into account by a just and merciful God, in his
final judgment of us. To whom much is given, of him
much will be required. To whom little is given, of him
little will be required. No one will be condemned because
of the sins which his father committed, although he may
suffer in consequence of them. " The soul that sinneth, it
shall die." Such is the theory of original imperfection,
which is sometimes improperly called original sin.
With regard also to total depravity, most persons who pro
fess to believe it mean nothing more than this, that the best
actions of a selfish and worldly man partake of his selfish
ness and worldliness ; that until we have learned to deny
ourselves and to take the law of God as our supreme law,
L

134 REGENERATION. 172
our most amiable qualities partake of the character of sin.
In such a sense, therefore, you may say that the unregen-
erate man is totally depraved, because there is no part of
his conduct or his character which is fully conformed to the
Divine law. The pervading principle of his life iswvrong,
and, in this sense, all is wrong. Change that pervading
principle, and you change every thing. It is like infusing
healthy blood into the physical frame. It will gradually,
but certainly, change every part of the physical and men
tal constitution.
We shall not follow this train of thought further. What
I have said will serve my purpose to show, that, while the
doctrines in question continue the same in words, they may
be very different in idea.
The truth concerning our nature by birth, and the spirit
ual condition to which we are brought by regeneration, or
the new birth, seems to be this. We are born with a mixed
constitution, physical, intellectual, and moral. These, as
they originally came from the creative hand of God, were
pronounced to be good. The moral nature is the highest,
that is the soul, and to this the physical and intellectual, the
body and the mind, should minister. But, by the necessity
of the case, the physical is developed first, " the first man
is of the earth, earthy." Our first wants, our first enjoy
ments and sufferings, are purely physical. The first exer
cise of the faculty of thought takes that direction. Self-
love, which is needful for self-preservation, is thus early
developed. Self-indulgence in what is pleasant, and angry
resistance to what is unpleasant, are the natural conse
quences. All this is not sinful, it is simply of the earth,
earthy. It is our physical nature. Gradually the higher
nature begins to appear. The sweet affections of the
child, pure and truthful, begin to expand. A sense of

173 REGENERATION. 135
right, of justice, and of truth, gradually shows itself. At
first very weak, but also very correct, for the instincts of
childhood upon all moral subjects are sure to be right. In
the progress of development, the intellect adds strength
either to the physical or moral constitution, according to
the natural temperament and the circumstances of educa
tion and example.
The period when moral responsibility begins is hard to
determine. It certainly does not begin until there is a
clear perception of right and wrong, and a choice of one or
the other; but whenever it begins, the child is conscious
of difficulties. His first exercise, as a moral being, is a
struggle, a conflict. There is an enemy to be conquered,
a victory to be won. Conscience claims the supremacy ;
it says, Thou must, or Thou must not ; but the body, with
its wants and its enjoyments, resists its commands. Reason
pleads for the right, passion and appetite for the wrong.
It is the struggle of life commenced, the spirit against the
flesh, and the flesh against the spirit. The result, if human
weakness receives no heavenly aid, is but too evident. The
physical, that is to say the powers of the flesh, being first
developed, is strong and vigorous, while the moral has but
an infant's strength and soon gives way. The passions
gain strength by what they feed on ; the intellect is brutal
ized and brought into their service ; the conscience is
buried under the accumulated rubbish of sin.
Even in Christian lands, and under the influences of
Christian education and Christian example, which is a
strong divine helping to the principle of right, the great
majority of men and women, when they come to the age
of mature life, find that the work of moral discipline is still
to be accomplished. There is a difference in their degrees
of sinfulness ; but with nine out of ten, the pervading prin-

136 REGENERATION. 174
ciple of conduct is self-love, or self-indulgence, or worldly
ambition. In nine cases out of ten, therefore, a radical
change is needed, before they can properly be called
Christians. I call it a radical change, for if you change
the principle of life, as I have already said, you change
every thing. It is not only an outward change, for the pro
prieties of life may already be observed. It is chiefly an
inward change, which concerns the motives and the affec
tions. In many instances where the outward conduct contin
ues the same, the real change of character is equally great.
I have said, in nine cases out of ten, that such will be
the result ; perhaps I might have used even stronger lan
guage, for there are very few persons who are not under
the necessity, sooner or later, of that strong moral exercise,
through which, by the blessing of God, the worldly and
selfish heart becomes religious. Sometimes it is a violent
and short struggle, sometimes a slow and laborious self-
discipline ; sometimes we can tell the day and the hour
when it begins, and sometimes we almost doubt whether it
has commenced or not, until it is accomplished. But with
nearly all, in some way or other, the change must be
accomplished from the earthly to the spiritual, from the
worldly t9 the religious, from the selfish to the self-deny
ing character, after we have come to the years of con
scious self-direction.
In a few instances, equally rare and beautiful, the devel
opment of our nature is so healthy, that the soul, almost
from the first, asserts its rightful supremacy. This is
sometimes the result of pure Christian influences, the wise
training of parents, the example of good and pious teachers,
which may be called the human agency by which the Di
vine Spirit is working. Sometimes, even when surrounded
by the worst influences of sin, in the dens of iniquity, or in

175 REGENERATION. 137
the high places of worldliness, the child is seen to grow up
with almost stainless purity, through some mysterious guid
ing of which it is not conscious, but which leads heaven
ward, as by an angel's hand. In such cases there seems
never to be a struggle between the flesh and the spirit.
The soul grows up to the heavenly life, almost as the seed
grows up to its appointed beauty. Yet I believe that, even in
such cases, if we could understand the full working of the
soul, we should find here, as elsewhere, what is called the
new birth, which is the passing from the earthly or natural
state to the spiritual or heavenly. It may take place very
early and very gradually, but I think that it is not the less
real. The life of the spirit is not that to which we are first
born, but the life of the flesh. The second man, and not
the first, is the Lord from heaven. When Christ is formed
in the soul, it is the redemption of the soul from the natural
earthly influence. If it is effected before that influence has
brought degradation, the thanksgiving to God may be
greater, but it is not less a redemption.
Upon this subject, however, I would not dispute. Such
instances are as rare as they are blessed. With by far the
greater part of the human family, the experience is very
different and far more painful. We find ourselves laden
with sins, we scarcely know how. We are walking in a
wrong direction, almost before we have thought whither the
path leads. Our first serious thoughts of heaven are awa
kened, by our seeing that our faces are not turned heaven
ward. It is the restlessness of the soul under the bondage
of sin, that arouses us to assert its true dignity. Through
some human agency, or through the working of our own
mind, God speaks to us, and if we hearken, the conflict
begins, the result of which is properly called a deliverance
and a victory.
vol. xxvi. — no. 294. 2

138 REGENERATION. 176
From what has been now said, although in a desultory
manner, you will understand my views upon this important
topic, the doctrine of Regeneration. By this new birth, we
mean a change from the carnal to the spiritual ; that is, not
an absolute change of nature, which would be the creation
of a new soul, but the subjection of the lower principles of
our nature, which are of the flesh, to the higher principles,
which are of the spirit. It is a change, therefore, in the
motives and the affections, that is a change of heart. It is
a new direction given both to the inward and outward life,
and the whole meaning of life is thereby changed. I do
not mean any thing mystical or mysterious by this ; in pro
portion as we become religious persons, we shall under
stand it.
Secondly : It is a change needed by all. Sooner or
later it must be experienced by all, before they can be
called the followers of Christ. For we are not born
Christians. Innocence, or freedom from actual transgres
sion, is the utmost we can claim, which is a very different
thing from moral excellence or righteousness. This must
come from the discipline of life, and to accomplish it is
precisely the purpose of our being placed in the present
state of probation.
Thirdly: The manner and process of this change, of
this spiritual development and growth, are very different in
different individuals; — as different as men's natural con
stitutions and the circumstances under which they are
placed. To prescribe an invariable rule by which the
spiritual experience of all shall be governed, is nothing but
religious empiricism, and is the mark of a narrow-minded
teacher. It is not necessary that all should walk in the
same company and wear the same badge, to be followers
of the same Master.

177 REGENERATION. 139
Fourthly : In the formation of our religious character,
which is our Regeneration, we are chiefly indebted, as we
are in every thing, to the Divine guidance and help. With
out God, we are nothing and can do nothing. But we too
must work. His working is through our working, nor can
we, generally speaking, separate the one from the other.
The operation of the Divine Spirit is real and effectual :
but as " the wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the
sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh or whither
it goeth, so is every one born of the Spirit."
Finally : The proof of Regeneration is in the life. "Let
no man deceive you ; he that doeth righteousness is
righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John iii. 7.) It is
not in professions, nor in ecstasies, nor in flaming zeal,
much less in the self-righteous condemnation of others ;
but in a life of genuine goodness, purity, and truth. The
evidence of the Christian spirit is in the Christian character.
By their fruits shall ye know them. " Pure religion and
undefiled before God the Father is this, To visit the father
less and widows in their affliction, and to keep ourselves
unspotted from the world."

RETRIBUTION.

THE STING OF DEATH IS SIN ; AND THB STRENGTH OF SIN IS
THE LAW. BUT THANKS BE TO GOD, WHICH GIVETH US THE
VICTORY THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CnRIST. THEREFORE, MY
BELOVED BRETHREN, BE YE STEADFAST, UNMOVABLE, ALWAYS
ABOUNDING IN THB WORK OF THB LORD, FORASMUCn AS YE
KNOW THAT TOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE LORD. 
1 Cor. xv. 56-58.
The subject of my present discourse is the doctrine of
Future Retribution. If nothing had been said in the Bible
directly concerning it, I think that it might be inferred from
the manner in which the sacred writers speak of sin as the
great evil, and of salvation from it as the great redemption.
The whole Gospel dispensation implies that there is a terri
ble danger to which we are exposed through sin, and a glo
rious deliverance which is offered through Jesus Christ.
" Who shall deliver me," said the Apostle, " from the body
of this death ? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them who are
in Christ Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in him,
hath made me free from the law of sin and death." This
is the uniform tone in which the Scriptures speak of sin
and redemption. I cannot understand it, unless the conse
quences of sin extend to the future life.

142 RETRIBUTION. 182
If they were confined to this world, sin would be com
paratively a small evil. If they were found only in the oc
casional loss of friends and of health, or even if they ex
tended so far as to make the whole of the present life miser
able, yet if death were sure to bring the end of all, nay, if
it were in our power to seek death ourselves, and thereby
to open for the weary soul the never-ending bliss of heaven,
we might look upon sin itself with feelings comparatively
calm and quiet. It would be sad to see the degradation of
those who barter their present happiness for debasing pleas
ures. It would be sad to think of the years which they
waste, of the shame which they bring upon themselves and
their kindred. But if we could say to them, " The degra
dation shall soon be changed to infinite glory, the shame
shall soon pass into rejoicing, the fire which conscience has
kindled shall soon be quenched in the stream which sepa
rates time from eternity," the remaining evil might be easily
borne. If we could say to him who is now striving to make
himself a brute, and who succeeds in making himself a
fiend, " Do your very worst ; drink of the cup of iniquity
to its dregs ; bury your soul in earthly lusts, until none but
the eye of God can discern that a soul is there ; yet, when
a few short years are past, thou shalt lie down in the sleep
of death, from which thou shalt awake an angel of God,
pure and spotless," — our feelings with regard to sin and the
sinner would be entirely changed. Sin would still be an
evil, but how much less than it now appears. It would
stand among other evils, like ignorance, or poverty ; a
serious evil, greater perhaps than the rest, and carefully to
be avoided, but at the worst only temporary, and soon to be
followed by infinite good. How different are our feelings
when we think of it as the beginning here of what must
continue hereafter ; when we think that a sinful life works

183 RETRIBUTION. 143
in the soul a character which remains after the body dies ;
when we think of that poor, degraded spirit, passing from
a life of shame and guilt into a life where it is incapable of
receiving any reward except " the things done in the body " ;
when we think that he who has already forfeited all the
best happiness of this life, has nothing to look forward to,
except to reap that which he has sown, the fearful looking
for of judgment !
I would not underrate the evil of sin in its present de
velopment. The wasted features of the drunkard, the cold
and malignant look of the gambler, the mean and tricky
glance of the thief, the sensual expression of the licentious,
the bloodthirsty eye of the murderer, — these are terrible to
look upon. We shrink from them with loathing and dis
gust. The way of the transgressor is hard ; his sins pun
ish themselves, and the baseness to which they bring him
is fearful. But our horror is increased, while at the same
time we are filled with unutterable pity, when we are
taught that this is but the beginning of sorrow. O my
God, what must be the awaking from such a sleep as this !
with every faculty of thought degraded ; with every desire
made corrupt ; with the tastes perverted from good and
fixed upon evil ; with selfishness as the only rule of action
and sin the only object of pursuit ; with not even enough of
goodness left to make him repent of the wrong done, and
throw himself, with cries for pardon, upon the mercies of
his God !
Being such a one, when he passes from this life to the
future, where shall the sinner appear ? What has he to do
with the pure and good ? What enjoyment can he find in
holiness and truth ? How can he enter upon the service
of God, that heavenly service, which begins in self-renun
ciation, and is perfected in love ? Place him among the
vol. xxvi. — no. 295. 1 *

144 RETRIBUTION. 184
just made perfect, who hunger and thirst after righteous
ness, among the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and what
companionship would he find ? Alas ! it is not the suffering
which sin brings with it now, although its present retribu
tion is severe, — it is not this, but the ruin which it works
in the soul itself, that makes it so terrible. The present
evil soon must cease, but the ruin remains.
It will be seen from my manner of speaking, that the ret
ribution in which I believe is both present and future. It
is the execution, now and hereafter, of the laws under which
we live : laws which were made in wisdom, and which are
executed with apparent sternness, but in real love. Many
persons take for granted that by proving a law of retribu
tion in this life, under which we suffer for wrong-doing,
they disprove the existence of such a law in the world to
come. I think they are in error. The existence of such a
law here is a proof that it will continue there. It is the
same soul that passes from time to eternity, the same God
reigns there and here, the same great purposes are to be
accomplished, and we have reason to believe that the same
principles of moral government will continue. I would be
at pains, therefore, in proving the doctrine of future retribu
tion, to make the fact of present retribution prominent and
clear. By doing this, we shall at the same time prove the
existence of a general law, under which we now live, and
which we have no right to suppose will be abrogated by
death ; and we shall also see that the operation of this law
is here so imperfect, so often interrupted by causes which
must evidently cease with the present life, that there is still
stronger reason to believe that, in a higher sphere of action,
the essential laws of our being will find their more per
fect development.
Retribution here is of several kinds. First is that which

185 RETRIBUTION. 145
we suffer, not as human beings, but in common with all
the animal creation. We may call it natural retribu
tion. There are certain laws, the observance of which is
essential to continued life and health. Food of a proper
kind and in sufficient quantity must be provided ; that
which is unwholesome must be avoided ; the strength must
be matured by exercise, and not over-exerted ; and other
laws of our physical nature must be observed, or evil con
sequences result. There are similar conditions on wliich
the healthful development of the mind depends. If it is
brought too early or too strongly into action, if it is devel
oped too rapidly and without regard to the equal claims of
the body, not only is the bodily health lost, but the mind also
too often becomes unsound, the powers of thought weak
ened, and the balance of judgment destroyed. Or if the
mind is left indolent, if it is suffered to remain torpid or un
educated, the physical nature is brutalized and its real vigor
ultimately lost. There are laws, therefore, which belong to
the body, and there are laws upon which the healthful con
nection between the body and the mind depends. Their
violation must always bring loss and suffering, to a greater
or less degree, for wherever law exists, penalty for its
violation must be annexed.
But of these laws we must observe two things, impor
tant to our present subject ; first, the penalty annexed is
just the same, whether their violation is attended with guilt
or not. It may be voluntary or involuntary, yet the suffer
ing will be the same. It may come in the performance of
unavoidable duty, yet its severity is not relaxed. You may
rush into a burning house, to rescue a child from death,
yet you will come out with a scarred and tortured body, as
much as if you had exposed yourself to the same danger
in wantonness, or in the commission of crime. If you are

146 RETRIBUTION. 186
so ignorant of the laws of physical health as to spend all
your days in the closet, and rob the nights of sleep, cheat
ing the body of needful exercise and wholesome food, stim
ulating the brain with hurtful drugs which destroy the
nerves, the consequence will be equally certain and severe,
whether the folly has been committed in the pursuit of
knowledge, of pleasure, or of gain. If you over-exert
your strength, though it may be in support of a widowed
mother, in the care of the sick, in works of philanthropy,
or in the service of religion, yet the consequence will be
an invalid frame and premature death, just as certainly as
if the same over-exertion had been induced by avarice or
ambition. Unnatural and long-continued excitement will
produce insanity, whether it is in the church, in the ball
room, or at the gambling-table.
These are facts which, however startling, cannot be de
nied. The retribution, therefore, of which we now speak, is
not moral retribution. It comes not in punishment of guilt
nor in reward of virtue. It may indeed be mingled with
moral retribution, and may often seem to come as the pun
ishment of guilt. But in itself considered it has no regard
to merit or demerit. Ignorance will not exempt us from
it ; the best intention will not enable us to avoid it.
We observe, secondly, that, so far as human judgment
can discern, this retribution is not impartial. Some men
are endowed with a physical constitution so. strong and
elastic, that the utmost irregularities seem to do them no
harm ; others are so weak, that the slightest departure from
prudence brings suffering or death. The same degree of
indulgence which, in one family, will make children vic
tims of disease, will, in another, be consistent with tlieir
vigorous and healthy growth. And so in all the depart
ments of life, the bad results, under the law we now con-

187 RETRIBUTION. 147
sider, not only come without regard to the intention of the
offender, but, so far as we can see, bear no equal pro
portion to the offence itself. I have no doubt, that, if we
were able to take a view of the whole, it would seem other
wise ; for the circumstances which produce these apparent
inequalities are, perhaps, themselves the result of previ
ous action of the same laws. The frail constitution may be
the result of some violation of physical law by our parents,
or by our ancestry a hundred years ago. The causes,
which in one family produce disease and in another do no
harm, seem to us the same, but, through some influence
unknown to us, may be entirely different. Still, so far
as moral government is concerned, the effect upon indi
viduals is the same. The retribution is not impartial. It
comes upon us like blows struck in the dark. The com
paratively guilty escape, the comparatively innocent suffer.
It may serve under our present subject as an illustration of
a general law, but it is not the kind of retribution needed
for moral discipline.
There is a second kind of retribution which we may call
social. It consists in the loss of reputation, of friends, of so
cial position, and of every thing outward which makes life
pleasant or desirable. The drunkard becomes an object
of disgust, and the finger of scorn is pointed at him. The
licentious man is marked as one to be avoided. The thief
is branded with a harsh epithet and immured in the walls
of a prison. Public opinion, the usages of society, the
criminal code, the laws of friendship and kindred, all
minister to this social retribution of wrong-doing. If the
usages of society were always correct, if human laws were
perfect and perfectly administered, if public opinion were
sound and in accordance with Christian principles, this ret
ribution would go far to answer all the purposes of moral

148 RETRIBUTION. 188
discipline. But unfortunately, nothing can be more un
equal, more arbitrary, or unjust. Taking the world as it
is, looking at the facts as they really are, the social ret
ribution visited upon crime, so far from answering the
purpose of moral discipline, is one of the greatest obstacles
in its way. Society does not punish sin according to its
real enormity, but to the circumstances under which it is
committed.. This is done, not by any rule of justice, but in
the most partial and tyrannical manner. Those who have
the least excuse for crime are most likely to escape punish
ment, while those whose temptations were so great that re
sistance was almost impossible, are punished to the utmost
extent of the law, and exposed to the worst censure of pub
lic opinion. Children, who grow up in some den of iniqui
ty, whose parents praise them when they steal and punish
them when they are honest, who are educated by all the
influences around them to become the pests of society,
when they are a little older commit some felony or some
act of violence, and for a theft of a few dollars are sent to
the penitentiary for two or three years, from which they
come out, with almost no possibility before them but a life
of wickedness and shame. How different is the sentence
which society passes upon the man who, in his childhood,
had every advantage of Christian education and good ex
ample, and who has grown up among influences which
make virtue easy and remove the worst temptations of vice !
Such a man, when guilty, we do not now say of theft, but
of peculation to a hundred times the amount, under cir
cumstances, perhaps, where there is the most inexcusable
breach of trust, and the most heartless wrong committed
against his best friends, will escape comparatively unpun
ished. There may be a temporary loss of credit, but if he
has been successful in his villany, it all comes right with

189 RETRIBUTION. 149
him very soon ; he is again numbered among the respecta
ble men of the community, and his children grow up in the
best society.
We might give a thousand illustrations of the same sort.
The gambler, who stakes a few dollars on a throw and
whose sphere of action is low and vulgar, is called by his
right name and regarded with the contempt which he de
serves. But he who is able to stake thousands, and whose
gambling-table stands in the carpeted room of a gentle
man's residence, may be guilty of the same crime without
losing caste and almost without censure. Intemperance
in the rich is a very different thing from intemperance
in the poor. And so it happens that the advantages of so
cial position, which make the sin itself greater, shield the
sinner from the punishment he deserves. Society is full of
such injustice. The tribunal of public opinion is one where
a bribe is never refused.
It is evident, therefore, that neither natural nor social
retribution is sufficient for the purposes of moral discipline.
We need a retribution which is certain, impartial, and in
exact proportion to the guilt committed. And this leads us
to consider a third kind of retribution, which, beginning in
this world, will be perfected in the world to come, — the
retribution of conscience. It certainly begins here. We
never commit sin intentionally without feeling rebuked for it,
and sometimes the punishment which a sensitive conscience
inflicts is so severe, that it seems beyond the offence com
mitted. There are some who believe that this retribution of con
science is perfect and complete in the present life ; that
every sin is certainly punished, and in exact proportion to
the degree of guilt; but I cannot agree with them. Nei
ther my experience nor my observation confirms it. 1 am

150 RETRIBUTION. 190
willing to admit that the tendency of this retribution is to
become more and more just. If all adventitious circum
stances were removed, if conscience had a fair and open
field of action, its decisions would be just and in all cases
governed by the offence. But this I believe rarely takes
place in this world. Practically speaking, its decisions are
continually warped and its sentence is continually avoided ;
so that, although it gives plain indication of what it may
become in the future life, it is at present an uncertain and
insufficient tribunal. For in the first place, it is more or
less quick and severe in its action, according to the physi
cal constitution. The man of sensitive nerves and deli
cate frame has a conscience so tender, that every slight
departure from duty gives him pain, and often it becomes
so morbid, that he is kept in constant misery, where no
wrong has been intended. Others, naturally of a coarser
temperament, have no desire to be better than their neigh
bors, and live in the daily commission of faults, without the
least self-reproach.
Again, the circumstance of failure or success has a strange
effect upon the decisions of conscience, although it can have
none upon the act itself. A course of iniquity which hap
pens to end in good results, fails to excite those severe com
punctions which would have arisen from the same crime if
unsuccessful. A fraud which makes me rich, does not
trouble me so much as the same fraud, when it makes me
poor. Only in the latter case does conscience see and de
clare the truth.
In the same manner, the concealment of sin often keeps
the conscience comparatively quiet, through long years, even
to the end of life ; when, if it had been revealed to the world,
and the scorn of good men and the estrangement of friends
had been thereby visited upon us, conscience would at the

191 RETRIBUTION. 151
same time have awaked, like a wild beast from his lair, to
rend our hearts in pieces. It seems as if the veil of secrecy
hides the fault, not only from the eyes of others, but from
our own. Discovery is needed to show us what we are.
Yet it is evident that continued concealment sometimes in
creases the sin by the added guilt of hypocrisy.
Add to these things the complication which comes from
the unequal working of the natural and social retribution
to which we have already referred. The decisions of con
science are continually overborne by influences beyond its
control. We easily reconcile ourselves to sins which are
countenanced in society. The whisperings of conscience
are hushed, and we forget to condemn ourselves for doing
what others do. The individual conscience rarely speaks,
but instead of it a conventional or average conscience,
which is far less sensitive and correct. The external re
wards of life come with so unequal regard to our real deserv
ing, we are so often sufferers in ourselves and in our families,
for actions well intended and in themselves right, that it re
quires a degree of faithfulness which few men exercise, to
keep the conscience itself from being hardened or perverted.
It is easy to say that the consciousness of right rewards
us sufficiently, let the loss and suffering be what they may ;
but to make it so requires a degree of moral elevation sel
dom attained. If we analyze our feelings in times of such
experience, we shall find that it is not the present award of
conscience which upholds us, so much as the belief that its
sentence will be confirmed hereafter. We rest patiently
under the loss, we cheerfully endure the pain, because we
are assured that the victory now accomplished is an eternal
victory, and that the light affliction, which is but for the
moment, is working for us a far more exceeding, even an
eternal weight of glory. This demands our careful consid-
vol. xxvi. — no. 295. 2

152 RETRIBUTION. 192
eration. The healthy action of conscience in the present
life depends upon our belief that the consequences of sin
extend to the future. It is this belief which shows the enor
mity of sin and the real injury it does to the soul. I do not
advocate a slavish fear of punishment, but I believe that
the retribution which conscience now imposes is derived, in
a great part, from the knowledge that it will go on to its
perfect fulfilment beyond the grave. It is, therefore, although
a present retribution, chiefly the anticipation of the future.
There is another kind of moral retribution, which comes
from the application of the general law to our moral nature.
It consists in the formation of character. By our manner
of life, the soul is moulded into certain shapes of beauty
or deformity ; its capacities enlarged or contracted ; its
perceptions quickened or made dull ; its tastes purified or
debased ; its inward life made heavenly or vile. We there
fore suffer retribution by what we are. The present char
acter for good or evil is retributive of the past. Each day
lays up for the morrow a retribution which is absolutely sure
to come. It is also progressive and cumulative, for the
present character is the result of all that has gone before.
In this manner, as we enter upon each successive stage of
life, from childhood to youth, from youth to manhood, from
manhood to mature and advancing age, we carry with us
the results of the past, — an actual retribution, in the moral
habits, in the greater or less development of the mind, in
the actual, although acquired, nature of the soul.
This also, like the direct retribution of conscience, would
be in exact accordance with justice, were there no disturb
ing influences. But in fact, we are not the absolute framers
of our own character. The moral position in which we
stand is not altogether the result of our own merit or de
merit. We are moulded as much by the influences of

193 RETRIBUTION. 153
education and early example, of country and climate and
other external forces, as by our own exertions. Our present
character, therefore, being the consequence of all that has
gone before, may be considered under the natural law as
an exact retribution of the past. But under the moral law,
which has regard only to moral desert, it is very far from
being a just or impartial award.
I am well aware that considerations such as I have now
brought forward lead us into a labyrinth of thought, from
which we cannot alone find a return. If we imagine our
selves to be placed upon the seat of judgment, to pass sen
tence upon each individual according to his real desert, we
must acknowledge that to our finite faculties the task would
be impossible. It is a work which belongs only to an infi
nite mind. God alone can discern the real truth in every
heart. He alone can untangle the perplexed thread of life,
so that each one shall feel that he is fairly dealt with, ac
cording to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good
or evil. For this reason, there are no circumstances under
which we should dare to anticipate the judgment of God.
As the poor widow, who cast in one mite, was said to have
given more than all the rest, because it was more in propor
tion to her ability, so may it often be in God's judgment,
when our full account is rendered. The seeming saint and
the despised sinner may then change places ; " the last
shall be the first, and the first last." It is for God alone to
administer and execute the laws which God alone has made.
But although it would be arrogant in us to assume his place,
as many do, in pronouncing sentence upon the offender, we
may yet believe that in the infinite wisdom of God a just
sentence shall be pronounced. We may perceive that
there are principles of justice, applicable to every case,
although we are not competent to apply them. We may

154 RETRIBUTION. 194
rest satisfied in believing that God is greater than the heart
and knoweth all things. He who is the Judge of all the
earth will do only that which is right.
From the course of thought which we have now followed,
as the result of experience and observation, we arrive at
these conclusions. First, that the great law of our lives
is the law of retribution. The present is answering for
the past, the future must answer for the present. God's
laws cannot be violated with impunity. That which we
sow, we also reap. This, in its various developments, is the
primal, essential law of our being. Secondly, considered
as a moral retribution, the action of this great law is, in
this world, imperfect and unequal. The disturbing influen
ces are so many, that, although we may discern a tendency
towards justice, impartial justice is not here attained. The
punishment of sin is not according to the degree of sin,
but is made greater or less by a thousand circumstances,
which do not affect the degree of guilt. Thirdly, both of
these conclusions lead us to a third, namely, that the same
general law of retribution, which seems to be the condition
of life itself, shall continue in the soul as long as the soul
lives. There is nothing to indicate that it belongs to this
world only. Let the fact of a future life be admitted, and
it seems to follow, as a matter of necessity, that this lavv
shall continue. If so, it will become, as a moral retribution,
just and equal. The disturbing influences will cease. They
belong only to a state of probation, the infancy of the soul's
life, and will have no place there. Here we see through
a glass darkly, there face to face. The principles of God's
moral government, which are here but imperfectly devel
oped, will there obtain a full and perfect administration.
Such is the logical conclusion with regard to the future
from the premises given here.

195 RETRIBUTION. 155
It seems to me, therefore, that when we come to the Gos
pel, as the revelation of God, we do not so much need that
the law of retribution should be announced or confirmed, as
that it should be restrained. It is a law so absolute, so rad
ical, so unsparing, so fearful, that we can find no escape
from it. Under the light of reason alone, scarcely any
hope is given ; we find no shelter from the impending wrath.
He who believes in a future life, and who sees the stern,
relentless law under which the soul now lives, — a law
whose present execution is stayed, but still threatens to
come when the soul is exposed defenceless to its power, —
does not need to be told of the terrors of the Lord, so
much as of his forbearance and loving-kindness and tender
mercy. We need to be taught, not so much that destruction
is impending, as that a way of escape is provided. I con
fess that, as a believer in eternity, if reason were my only
guide, I should shudder whenever I think of death. Then
indeed it would be a " fearful thing to fall into the hands
of the living God." A dim and uncertain hope of his mer
cy might come, to save us from absolute despair, but the
sins that rise up in judgment against us are so many, that
we need an assurance of pardon, almost before we dare to
hope. It is this assurance that the Gospel gives. It teaches
that through the redemption in Jesus Christ, a limit to that
fearful law of retribution is found. There is forgiveness
with God. He will not exact the payment of the uttermost
farthing, but will freely forgive us " all that debt." To make
this known was the great object of Christ's coming. As it
is written, " the law came by Moses, but grace and truth
by our Lord Jesus Christ." It is the Gospel of redemption,
not of condemnation. It came to inspire hope, not to increase
despair. It changes the law of retribution, under which we
reap only that which we sow, to a law of reconciliation,
2*

156 RETRIBUTION. 196
under which all estrangement from God, the worst penalty
of sin, is removed, and the returning prodigal is restored to
the arms of a father's love.
But to whom is this promise given ? To whom is this
pardon offered? Even in his mercy God is just, and while
a way of escape for the sinner is provided, his condemna
tion upon sin remains.
There is no passage in the Bible, so far as I know, which
offers pardon, except on condition of repentance and a re
newed life. If there is any exception to this, it is where
faith in Christ is declared the sole condition of eternal
life. But those who understand the meaning of faith, in the
New Testament, know that it is a state of mind and charac
ter, which includes repentance and self-consecration to God.
The third chapter of the Gospel of John insists equally upon
the necessity of the new birth and upon the supreme impor
tance of faith in Christ. They both imply the same spirit
ual experience which is the condition on which forgiveness
is promised.I state this, therefore, as the First Scriptural argument for
the continuance of the law of retribution in the future life ;
namely, that although the great object of the Gospel is to
reveal the mercy of God and his willingness to forgive, yet
we are encouraged to hope for pardon only upon the condi
tion which I have named. The inference is most plain, that
to those who continue in sin forgiveness is not offered.
They abide under the law of condemnation from which
they refuse to escape.
Another Scriptural argument to the same effect is found
in the manner in which the doctrine of future retribution is
often taken for granted, as the basis on which instruction is
given. When the Saviour says, " He that loses his life for
my sake shall find it," we can give no full meaning to his

197 RETRIBUTION. 157
words, except on the supposition that, although we lose
every thing in this life, we gain more in the future. If that
future were the same to us, whether we are faithful or un
faithful here, his words would scarcely have been true.
When the Scripture says, " Be thou faithful unto death, and
I will give thee a crown of life," we are plainly taught that
to those who are unfaithful that crown is not offered. In
the chapter from which my text is taken, the object of
the Apostle is simply to prove the doctrine of a future life.
He says nothing directly of retribution, but declares that all
of us shall be raised again by the power of God in such a
body as may please him. Yet he concludes his discourse
with the words, " Therefore be ye steadfast, unmovable, al
ways abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye
know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." There
fore ? why ? Why is the fact of a future life an argument
for our being steadfast and unmovable ? Because the future
must answer for the present. Because the pure in heart
alone can see God. Because we have no right to hope for
acceptance, unless we can comply with the conditions on
which it is offered. Believing this, we know that our labor
is not in vain in the Lord. But if good and bad shall ap
pear before him, in equal glory and in equal favor, the
Apostle's words seem to me without force, and the motive
which he urges for our faithfulness is taken away.
We might give many other instances like this. Even
the prodigal son is required to return, with the words of
confession on his lips and with a heart full of penitence, be
fore his father comes out to meet him. A broad distinc
tion is made between the good and bad, the penitent and
impenitent, whenever a- future life is mentioned, and it is
taken for granted that it will continue there. I attach more
importance to this form of argument than I do to the literal

158 RETRIBUTION. 198
interpretation of words, and think that it is much less likely
to mislead us. The plainest language may be explained
away, and we may be deceived as to its meaning. But this
argument does not depend on verbal criticism. When the
doctrine of a future life is used as a motive for faithfulness
and obedience, it is an evident declaration, that that un
known world is not the same to the good and bad, but that
the future must answer for the present.
Thirdly, there are, however, many direct assertions of the
same truth. The ingenuity of criticism may throw a doubt
over some of them, but they are so many, and their obvious
interpretation seems to me so evidently their true meaning,
that, although I would not impute intentional unfairness to
those who explain them away, I cannot help feeling sur
prised at the boldness of their undertaking. " Except your
righteousness shall exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." " If
ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Fa
ther in heaven forgive your trespasses." " Not every
one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven, but he who doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven." " Fear not them which kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell." " For we
must all appear," said the Apostle Paul, " before the judg
ment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things
done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether
it be good or bad." " Know this, that no unclean person
hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."
Again, after enumerating the works of the flesh, he says,
" Of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in
times past, that they who do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God." For " God will render to every man

199 RETRIBUTION. 159
according to his deeds ; to them who, by patient continu
ance in well-doing, seek for glory and honor and immortal
ity, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious and
do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation
and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man
that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile ; but
glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good, to
the Jew first, and also to the Gentile ; for there is no respect
of persons with God." " For the wages of sin is death, but
the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Chnst our
Lord." I do not see how this language can be fairly explained,
except as teaching the doctrine of future retribution for sin.
So far as I can understand their words, this is what the
Saviour and his Apostles meant to teach, and therefore I
believe it.
It is important for me here to refer more particularly to
the Scripture use of the word Hell, because it not only af
fords an argument for the doctrine to be proved, but also
removes some of the most popular objections brought
against it. In the Old Testament the word, properly speak
ing, never occurs, for although we find it in our translation,
the original word in Hebrew is Sheol, which corresponds
with the Greek word Hades, and means the place of de
parted spirits, or the grave. See Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; xiii.
38; where it is so translated, and we have the authority
of the Septuagint for the same translation in all cases.
In the common version of the New Testament, it occurs
twenty times. In ten of which the Greek word is Hades,
and should have been accordingly translated. See Luke
xvi. 23 ; Acts ii. 31 ; and elsewhere. In the other ten
passages where the word occurs, the original is not Hades,
but Gehenna, by looking at which we shall understand

160 RETRIBUTION. 200
most of the language applied by Scripture to the punish
ment of the wicked. It is a Hebrew word properly signi
fying the valley of Hinnom, a beautiful valley near Jerusa
lem, by the brook Kidron, where Solomon at the time of
his apostasy from God set up a brazen image of Moloch,
before which the idolatrous Jews offered, not only the usual
sacrifices, but even their own children. 1 Kings xi. 7 ;
2 Chron. xxviii. 3. This valley was called by the prophet
Jeremiah, Tophet, Jer. vii. 31, 32, from a word signify
ing Tympanum, because in those sacrifices the priests beat
violently the Tympana, lest the shrieks of the burning chil
dren should be heard by the worshippers. When these
horrible rites were abolished by Josias, 2 Kings xxiii. 10,
and the Jews were reclaimed to the worship of God, they
detested this valley, the scene of their guilt, so much, that
they made it the receptacle, not only of all the filth of the
city, but of dead animals and of the bodies of executed
criminals ; and to prevent the pollution of the air from
this mass of decayed matter, fires were kept incessantly
burning, night and day, from the beginning to the end of
the year. Hence, the valley of Hinnom or Gehenna soon
passed into a proverb or common expression for any severe
punishment, and especially for any disgraceful kind of
death, and ultimately was applied to the miserable condition
of those who, in the future life, suffer the agonies of guilt ;
so that, in the time of Christ, one of the common meanings
of Gehenna was what we understand by the word Hell.*
This, however, was not its only use, and therefore, in

* " The word Gehenna is used in this way (viz. for the place of
punishment beyond the grave) very frequently in Oriental writers, as
far as India. Compare Wetstein's New Testament, at Matt. v. 22."
— Jahn's Archaeology, § 411.

201 RETRIBUTION. 161
reading the New Testament, we must be guided by the
context to determine the meaning in each case. But in
several of the passages it undoubtedly refers to the doom of
the wicked ; as in the text already quoted, " Fear him who
is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," Matt. x. 28,
any other construction of which seems to me very forced
and unnatural.
This word Gehenna, derived as I have shown it to be,
but transferred from its original meaning and applied to
express figuratively the condition of the wicked, contains
in itself the germ and explanation of all the various terms
which the Scriptures use to describe future punishment.
To call the abode of the condemned Gehenna, to a Jewish
ear included the fire which is never quenched, and the un
dying worm, and the lake of fire burning with brimstone.
These particulars were only the completion of the first idea.
To us they seem to add a great deal to the simple term
Gehenna, but to a Jew that word embraced within itself all
that is horrible and loathsome, all that is disgraceful and
revolting, all that is agonizing, in ignominious punishment
and death. To the application of this term to the place
of punishment, we may therefore with certainty attribute
those figurative expressions, in which it is spoken of as a
place of darkness and fierce burning and torture. All these
expressions are figures derived from that awful valley,
whose name was borrowed to describe the state of being
we call Hell.
I call them figures, in which probably few persons will
disagree with roe. The believers in a hell of literal fire
and brimstone are fast passing away. It is an idea too
gross, too shocking, to be long retained by a civilized and
educated people. There is something so like savage cru
elty in the thought of casting a living being into eternal

162 RETRIBUTION. 202
flames, to live for ever the prey of devouring but never
destroying fire, that we instinctively shrink from it, as un
worthy of a good and wise God. It is astonishing to me,
that for so long a time men clung to this literal language,
and insisted upon the existence of the lake of fire and
brimstone, in which the body is tormented ; and that even
now, the favorite mode of bringing men to God is by hold
ing up a picture of exquisitely contrived torture, to scare
their imaginations and frighten them out of sin. It is called
preaching the terrors of the Lord. But I do not believe
that God means to arm those who preach his word with a
whip of scorpions by which to drive men to heaven. He
has given us no authority to represent him as a cruel, un
feeling, relentless being, who looks with complacency upon
the miserable victims of ceaseless burning. The effect of
such representations is to create distrust of all retribution.
It becomes associated with so much that is horrible and
disgusting, it is made to appear so unlike that treatment
which we have a right to expect from a just and merciful
God, that we turn our minds away from it and refuse belief
in the truth itself.
But let me not be misunderstood, I would not lessen the
fear which. sin brings to the guilty man. It cannot be too
great, so long as it is calm and rational, arising from our
knowledge of the ruin which sin brings upon the soul now,
and the dread of what it may do hereafter. The terms
used by the Scripture, though strongly figurative, are not
unmeaning words. We may divest ourselves of the horror
which their literal interpretation would convey, but We can
not set them aside. The Saviour, in adopting as the ex
pression for the punishment of the wicked a word so full
of terror as the valley of Hinnom, took the surest way of
declaring that the sorrow of the sinful soul hereafter is be
yond the power of tame words to describe.

203

RETRIBUTION. 163

Figurative language is used to convey greater strength
and intensity of meaning. Are we yet so ignorant as not
to know, so brutish as not to understand, that there is no
torture of these frail sinews, no agony which can be
brought on this crumbling body, so dreadful as the rising
of an abused conscience to assert its stern dominion over
the guilty soul. There are hundreds of instances in this
world, where the perpetrators of heinous crimes have fled
to the punishment of the dungeon and the gallows, as if to
a mother's arms, because they could no longer bear the
secret lashing of their conscience. And, on the other hand,
there are those who so value the peace of mind which a
conscience void of offence brings, that they would not bar
ter it for all earthly good, nor lose it to avoid the worst and
longest torture which the body is able to endure. There is
a story of an English martyr, who, when bound to the
stake, held his right hand in the fire until it was burned off,
declaring that the hand which had signed his recantation
should suffer first. The pain of his body was nothing com
pared with the anguish of his mind.
Such things go far to explain the figurative language of
the Scripture. The stings of guilt are not easily to be
borne. Who has not felt enough in his own heart to know
this ? If we wished to picture to ourselves the real climax
of suffering, it would be to place the soul, not in outward
fire, but in the midst of beauty and external delight, with
this curse upon it, that neither day nor night should the
serpent teeth of remorse cease to gnaw and devour.
That curse would convert all things into instruments of
torture, and outward flames would not be wanting to in
crease the woe.
The principal argument against the doctrine of future
punishment is founded upon mistaken ideas of God's be-
vol. xxvi. — no. 295. 3

164 RETRIBUTION. 204
nevolence. If he is a good being, — it is urged, — if he is
our Heavenly Father, how is it possible that such dreadful
suffering can be in store for any of his creatures ?
There are some theories of future punishment, as we
have already seen, against which this objection may be
fairly brought. When God is represented as a vindictive
being, who for his own glory appoints a large part of his
human family to the endurance of eternal and hopeless
suffering, in punishment for sins committed in these few
years of mortal life, we cannot reconcile it with his good
ness and his love. I cannot believe that any part of his
creatures are subject to a destiny so terrible as this. But
on the other hand, we should remember that our knowledge
of the Divine attributes, and of the real claims of justice
and mercy, is very limited. God seeth not as man seeth,
for he sees the whole and man only a part. It may here
after appear that many things which seem to us inconsist
ent with God's love, are in"fact its most perfect exercise.
The goodness of God, according to the teaching of
Scripture and of enlightened reason, is not the goodness
of indulgence and weakness. It is that of a wise Father,
who seeks the real good of his children. Which one of
us, who is a parent, would not consent to the infliction of
the severest pain for months and years upon his child, if it
were needful to save him from drunkenness or dishonesty ?
What degree of suffering would not be considered a bless
ing, in the accomplishment of a work like this ? And so,
in the dealings of our Heavenly Father towards us. Even
in this world, we see many instances in which the Divine
love does not shrink from the infliction of long-continued
and terrible suffering, as the punishment of sin, or for the
purification of the soul. Sometimes we can see the reason
of such inflictions ; sometimes they are so veiled in mys-

205 RETRIBUTION. 165
teiy that we can explain them only by saying, that in the
future world what is now dark will be made clear. In
such cases, however, we do not think of disputing the
Divine benevolence, but say that there are undoubtedly
sufficient reasons for whatever suffering may come, and
that it is intended for the good of those who bear it. Why
should not the same faith in Divine goodness extend to the
future world ? The real life of the soul can be found only
in purity and truth, and whatever degree of suffering may
be needful, either in this world or in the world to come, for
our education therein, should be considered as a proof of
the highest love. If the way to goodness lies through suf
fering and pain, it is the part of kindness to lead us there.
If it is true that the soul shall live for ever, and is capable
of the highest exaltation through holiness and the lowest
degradation through sin ; if its dignity and true happiness
can be found only in voluntary obedience to the will of
God, — then we can understand how the paternal love of
God may subject us to a law of retribution, which seems
stern and terrible, but which is the chastening of a Father's
hand. But it will be asked, How is such a theory as this consist
ent with the doctrine of eternal punishment ? If the suf
fering is inflicted for the sake of him who suffers, must it
not have an end ? Must not a day come for the final res
toration of all ? And if so, what does the Scripture mean
when it speaks of " endless punishment," and " the fire
that never dies " ? I would answer these questions with
diffidence, and do not seek to be wise above what is
written. There are certainly some passages of Scripture which
seem to imply that the time will come, when all resistance
to the power of God shall cease, and all souls be brought

166 RETRIBUTION. 206
under subjection to the word of Christ ; a subjection which
cannot be perfect, except through willing obedience. Nor
is the use of the word " eternal," with reference to future
suffering, an absolute contradiction of this view ; for it can
be plainly shown that that word, and others like it, are fre
quently used in the Bible with reference to limited duration.
It is almost certain, indeed, that there was no word in the
Hebrew or Greek language, which conveyed to those who
used it the idea which we now conceive of absolute eternity.
But on the other hand, it is also true that the strongest
words which those languages afford were applied to future
punishment, and are the same which are applied to the
promises of future happiness.
Again, although there are some hints given of a final
restoration of all things, and although our belief in the
paternal goodness of God seems to lead to the same result,
yet there are obvious difficulties in the way. By the nature
of the soul, its return to goodness must be voluntary. It
cannot be compelled, even for its own benefit, without a
destruction of its best capacities. The same voluntary
resistance to God which is begun here, may therefore con
tinue through unknown ages, and we have no right to ex
pect that God will ever impose upon us a necessity of being
good. It is therefore a fearful risk which we run, in suffer
ing ourselves to become more and more hardened in sin.
We do not know how far the capacity of goodness may
die. We do not know but that we may separate ourselves
so far from God, as to make our return impossible. Such
thoughts are well calculated to awaken fear and trembling.
The immortal soul is not to be trifled with, and those who
bury it under sin are incurring a risk, greater perhaps than
we can understand.
Yet my own disposition inclines to hope. I cannot help

207 RETRIBUTION. 167
believing that God in his infinite wisdom and goodness will
find a way of return for all, without violation of the laws
by which the soul lives. At all events, we may be sure
that the punishment which he inflicts will never be vindic
tive. He will never forget a Father's love in the severity
of his judgment. No one of his creatures will ever be be
yond the reach of his infinite pity.
In entertaining this hope, however, we do not assert that
the consequences of long-continued sin, to those who slight
the offers of mercy made to us here, will ever completely
cease. A wasted life may leave, and it is reasonable to
suppose will leave, an ineradicable stain upon the soul. Our
capacity of happiness may be thereby for ever lessened.
Even if restored to the favor of God, and to a measure of
happiness which fills our heart with gratitude to him, we
may for ever feel that an irreparable loss has been sus
tained. For there is no reason to suppose that all who are
happy in the world to come enjoy an equal degree of bliss.
We may therefore see that there is a sense in which the
consequences of a sinful life may be an eternal retribution,
without violence to God's goodness and mercy.
But I never engage in speculations such as these, without
feeling how completely they are beyond my reach. They
give me little satisfaction or concern, and I have now en
tered upon them more for the sake of frankness than any
thing else. The Scriptures teach that forgiveness of sin
is freely offered to all who comply with the conditions of
the Gospel of Christ; that to those who will not comply
with such conditions, but continue in a sinful and impenitent
life, a just and severe retribution is appointed in the future
world; that the Saviour to whom all judgment is com
mitted, is the same who died for us ; and that the God from
whom all judgment comes, is our Heavenly Father. Thus

168 RETRIBUTION. 208
far the instruction is plain, and to my mind unquestionable.
I do not seek to go beyond it.
There are many questions which we naturally ask, but
to which the Scripture gives no complete answer. When
the disciples inquired, " Are there few that be saved ? "
Jesus said, " Strive ye to enter in at the strait, gate " ;
and this is to all of us the only practical and needful reply.
The secrets of the unknown world are but imperfectly re
vealed, but we know enough for our present guidance,
enough to inspire hope and to awaken fear. The hope
rests upon God's mercy, the fear looks to his justice ; but
they unite to lead us in the paths of righteousness, for the
mercy and the justice of God are alike inseparable from a
Father's love. " Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye
steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the
Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in
vain in the Lord."

9002 07617 3005

:! 1

1 1

»fiiiifii
rtflHMHN»trtlttftlfUIHI(flfftllllWllHlllllllllllllfi||lllllll|l|l|H|,l(lj)|M|lt(|J|l|(l|
, . , . . , : i : . : : i i , ..... i ¦ ¦ ¦ . . . i i . ¦ ; :,:.,.;,'.,:'¦  .ill.  : . , ' I . : i ] M 1 1 , i .:.!¦; : .

!!H!|!

Idti

l,llllllli.

a

ititiiiiii liifililiiiiiiii