¦ iii!iii!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmii 
" ¦:'¦ '¦i:"'i-  0 >::'¦¦:

\ni :: 0' ;i ii'.i! i i ; OO; . : ..-: o

OOo'i'

F-Tsr-* ^y?

/r^v

REVIEW
~nps St

DR. BUSHNELL'S

GOD IN CHEIST."

BY ENOCH POND, D.D.
Psofbbboh in the Tbboloqical Sehimaby, Bahqob, Mains.

BANGOR:
PUBLISHED BY E. F. DUREN.
boston: tappan, whittemore, and mason.
portland : hyde and lord.
1849.

Entered according to Act of Congress, In tbe year 1849,
By E. F. Dram,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the District of Maine.

BOSTON :
KIOK1NBON PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT,
DiMREU. & MOORE.

Mprz7

INTRODUCTION.

The history of this volume* may be given in few
words. Dr. Bushnell had been appointed by the
General Association of Connecticut, at their meet
ing in June last, to deliver the Corcio ad Clerum at
the approaching commencement of Yale College ; and
a subject was assigned him : The Divinity of Christ.
Accordingly, the first discourse in the order of discus
sion, and of publication, though not of delivery, was the
Corcio at New Haven.
The second discourse is on the Atonement, and was
delivered to the Divinity School at Cambridge, July
9, 1848, some five weeks previous to the commence
ment at New Haven. The reason for his selection of
this topic, is thus given by the author. Addressing
the divinity students, he says : " When your letter
was laid upon my table, I was at that moment engaged
in projecting a discourse that should embody what I
dared, somewhat enthusiastically, to hope might prove
a true solution of this momentous, but very difficult
* Entitled, God in Christ. Three Discourses, delivered
at New Haven, Cambridge, and Andover. With a Prelimi
nary Dissertation on Language. By Horace Bushnell.
Hartford : Brown & Parsons, 1849.

IV INTRODUCTION.
subject. Instigated by the same incautious warmth, I
accepted the occasion offered, as offered not to me, but
to my subject, and forthwith set apart one to the uses
ofthe other," p. 186.
The third discourse is entitled " Dogma and Spirit,
or the true Keviving of Religion;" and was delivered
before the Porter Rhetorical Society, in the Theologi
cal Seminary at Andover, at its last anniversary.
These three discourses are all on the same text :
" For the Life was manifested, and we have seen it,
and bear witness, and show unto you that Eternal Life
which was with the Father, and was manifested unto
us," 1 John, 1 : 2. They excited much interest at
the time of their delivery, and the author was request
ed (if we are not mistaken,) to publish them separate
ly, and in the usual form. But he preferred to wait —
to deliberate — to revise, if necessary — and in due time
to publish them together. They have, at length, ap
peared, with a " Preliminary Dissertation" of almost
a hundred pages, and an Introduction of some twenty
pages. Dr. B. seems to have been aware (of what was true,)
that his discourses were deemed heretical by the great
body of his orthodox brethren, at the time of their de
livery ; and much skill and labor have since been ex
pended in endeavoring to allay suspicion, quiet fear,
disarm rebuke, and so prepare the way for their favor
able reception from the press. In the first place, he
tells us that theological differences are often "referable
to causes that lie back of the arguments" by which they
are maintained ; some peculiarity of temperament, some

INTRODUCTION. V
struggle of personal history, the assumption or settle
ment of some supposed law or principle of judgment,
which affects, of course, all subordinate decisions.
" Indeed," says he, "as regards the views presented in
these discourses, I seem to have had only about the same
agency in forming them, that I have in preparing the
blood I circulate, and the anatomic frame I occupy.
They are not my choice or invention, so much as a
a necessary growth, whose process I can hardly trace
myself," pp. 9, 98. As Dr. B. is not responsible for
his blood, or his " anatomic frame," no more is he, on
the ground here taken, for his theological opinions. If
they are erroneous, and injurious, he gives us to un
derstand that they are " a necessary growth," and
consequently that he is not to blame for them.
In the next place, he insists, like every incipient
wanderer from the truth, that his divergences (if they
be such,) are of a very trifling character, and should
not excite suspicion or alarm. " There really does not
seem to me to be anything so peculiar in these views,
that any one need be alarmed or stumbled by them. I
seem to myself to assert nothing which is not substantial
orthodoxy,-— that which contains the real moment of
all our orthodox formulas unabridged. Indeed, I can
not see that there is really more of diversity between
the views here advanced and those commonly accepted,
than there is between Paul and John,, or Paul and
James," p. 11. We shall have occasion to refer to
this passage again. The author essays to comfort his
orthodox friends, by insisting that the differences be
tween himself and them are merely verbal. For surely
A*

yi INTRODUCTION.
he will not say that there are more than verbal differ
ences " between Paul and John, or Paul and James."
Then the whole " Preliminary Dissertation on Lan
guage," is to be regarded as apologetical. The drift
of it is, that owing to the necessary ambiguities of lan
guage, a system of theology cannot be expressed in
words; and, of course, cannot be denied in words.
Hence, Dr. B. wonders that Unitarians should be
afraid of creeds. He has no fear of them. He is
ready to accept any and all that come in his way
(p. 82). For as they can convey no definite meaning,
but may interpreted to signify this or that, they are as
harmless in their operation as bread pills.
We shall, of course, recur to this "preliminary dis
sertation," and go into an examination ofit inanother
place. We speak of it now simply to show the mani
fest design of it. It is ' '-preliminary' ' to the discourses,
and intended to prepare the way for the discourses ;
— intended to satisfy all concerned, that no definite
heresy is inculcated, since, from' the nature of the case,
none can be inculcated in language.
In fact, much of the third discourse, entitled "Dog
ma and Spirit," seems to have been intended to help
out the other two. Else, why the constant deprecia
tion of what the writer calls "dogma," and the setting
ofit in contrast with "spirit," as though the two could
hardly exist together. He sighs for a ministry, who,
"ceasing to be system-makers and place-holders," will
" not preach a catechism, but a gospel. Dialectic
quarrels would then subside, or be drowned in the free
dom of spirit and life. Panics raised over misspelt

INTRODUCTION. Vll
syllables, excommunications dealt upon those who ven
ture on some disagreement with the church, in mat
ters belonging only to the natural understanding,
would be heard of no more," p. 336.
With a view still further to conciliate his orthodox
brethren, Dr. B. denies that he has surrendered any im
portant point to the Unitarians. "I am not aware that I
have surrendered any truth to them — that is, anything
which is truth to me. If I have surrendered some
other man's truth, he must reclaim it for himself."
"I suppose, indeed, that I am really less likely to un
dergo the conversion I speak of," i. e., a conversion
to Unitarianism, "than nineteen-twentieths of our or
thodox teachers, including those, especially, who are
most alarmed, and who suffer, just now, the deepest
nervous horror on my account," pp. 99, 101. Dr.
B. is not aware that he has surrendered anything which
is truth to him, or which he thinks is truth. This
may be so, and yet he may have surrendered important
truth. If it shall appear in the sequel that he has
actually made the conversion here spoken of, of course,
he is no longer in danger of making it.
With a view still further to quiet apprehensions,
Dr. B. assures us that he has advanced nothing in the
discourses, which he did not hold before preparing
them ; "nothing, in fact, which I had not held for
substance, ever since my entrance into the ministry."
My "view of Christ and the Trinity differs, I am aware,
in some respects, from that which is commonly held ;
but I hope the difference will not disturb you. I have
known no other since I began to be a preacher of

VU1 INTRODUCTION.
Christ, and my experience teaches me to want no other,
pp. 101, 180.
Anticipating.that his discourses might provoke criti
cism, and forecasting to abate somewhat of its severity ,-
Dr. B. admits that he has exposed himself.* "I am
perfectly aware that my readers can run me into just
what absurdity they please. Nothing is more easy."
And to show how easy this may be done, our author
makes a show of refuting himself. He goes into an
argument for this very purpose, and thinks his readers
will be satisfied, from the experiment, that he "knows
how to reason correctly," p. 107.
Finally, Dr. B. gives notice, whatever may be said
against him, of his resolution to make no reply. "I
am silenced now, on the publication of my volume."
Believing "that replications are generally of little use,"
"I drop the discourses into the world, leaving them to
care for themselves, and to exert their own power."
" If rejected universally, then I leave them to time, as
the body of Christ was left, believing that after three
days they will rise again, " p. 116.
Our readers will perceive, from the remarks here
made, that between the delivery of the discourses and
their publication— long as the time may have seemed
to some — Dr. B. has not been idle. He has been
surveying the ground, arranging his materials, prepar
ing his "preliminary" and "introductory" statements,
and getting ready to launch upon the sea of time, with
the least offence to all concerned, and the least hazard
to himself. Nor is this to be wondered at. If such a
book was to be issued, and from such a source, it

INTRODUCTION. IX
should not be done inconsiderately or rashly. It
should not be done without preparation and care, and a
due estimate of consequences, near and remote.
' But the volume once brought before the public be
comes, in a sense, its property. It passes over from
the author into other hands. Christian ministers and
others are expected to read it, and to form their own
opinions concerning it. And each one has a right to
express his opinions in his own way, subject only to
such restrictions as are imposed by the spirit and pre
cepts of the Grospel, and the kindly influences of Chris
tian society and Christian sentiment.
In the exercise of this right, we now enter upon the
labor of review. We proceed to remark freely, can
didly, charitably, and (so far as we may) faithfully, upon
the several parts of the volume before us ; "not setting
down aught in malice," or withholding that measure of
praise or of censure which, in our consciences, we think
the cause of truth and righteousness demands.
Of Dr. B. we know nothing personally, and have no
prejudices to consult or to gratify, one way or the other.
He enjoys a high reputation as a writer, which, so
far as style and language are concerned, is well sus
tained in the volume before us. There is, indeed, an
air of obscurity and mystery, not at all to our liking,
thrown over some parts of these discourses ; but they
contain passages of singular beauty, as well as power,
and some to which, if we were allowed to understand them
in an orthodox sense, we could most heartily subscribe-
At the same time, they contain sentiments which in
our consciences we regard as untrue, and of injuri-

X INTRODUCTION.
ous tendency, — whioh we must reject, or reject the
Scriptures. They also discard, or explain away, some
of the most essential doctrines of the Gospel. There
are inconsistencies, too, at which reason revolts, and
which no art of rhetoric can ever reconcile. But,
without anticipating what will be sufficiently apparent
in the progress of the discussion, we proceed directly
to the work before us. We commence with the "Pre
liminary Dissertation on Language."

CONTENTS.

Pago.
Introduction  iii
CHAPTER I.
Remarks on the Preliminary Dissertation,  1
CHAPTER II.
Review of Dr. Bushnell's first Discourse  15
CHAPTER III.
Review of Dr. Bushnell's second Discourse,  3d
CHAPTER IV.
Review of Dr. Bushnell's third Discourse,  60
CHAPTER V.
Remarks on Miscellaneous Topics  82
Conclusion,  112

Errata. On page 72, second line from the foot, for " concert," read
' conceit,"

ERRATA.
Page iii. line 4, 9, for copeib, read concio.
" 56 " 6, for subjected, read subjective.
" 72 " 28, for concert, read conceit.
" 77 " 16, for Fid, read .FeeZ.
" 78 " 10, for spiritually, read spirituality.
" 112 " 14, for turpid, read turgid.

EEYIEW, ETC.

CHAPTER I.
Remarks on the " Preliminary Dissertation."
Dr. B. begins by asserting that " all the terms
in language " are applied primarily to objects in
the outer world; and that when taken to denote
spiritual and intellectual objects, they are used
in a tropical, metaphorical sense. That this is
true of many words in our own language, and in
every language, there can be no doubt. That it
ia true of them all, as Dr. B. insists, there is no
sufficient proof, but much evidence to the con
trary. What external objects or acts were ever
denoted by the simple words, smell, taste, feel,
think,' peace, please, and a great many others ?
Our author's next position is, that there is
" some mysterious correspondence or analogy,"
divinely constituted, and which the mind natur
aUy, intuitively perceives, by which terms from
the outer world "are prepared beforehand to
serve as signs or vehicles of spiritual things to
be expressed," p. 26. " The outer world is a

2 REVIEW OE DR. BUSHNELL'S
vast menstruum of thought or intelligence . There
is a logos in the forms of things, by which they
are prepared to serve as types or images of what
is inmost in our souls," p. 30. "Words of thought
and spirit are possible in language, only in virtue
of the fact that there are forms provided in the
world of sense, which are cognate to the mind,
and fitted, by reason of some hidden analogy, to
represent or express its interior sentiments and
thoughts," p. 41. Again, " the whole universe
of nature is a perfect analogon of the whole uni
verse of thought or spirit," p. 78. Still again ;
" the Divine Logos weaves into nature types or
images that have an inscrutable relation to mind
and thought. On the one hand is form; on the
other is the formless. The former represents, and
is somehow fellow to, the other," p. 43.*
*Dr. B. instances numerous words, with, their etymolo
gies, to show to what they were originally applied, and
how, through all changes, their original form has still
clung to them. Some of these are amusing enough.
Take the following as an example : " The Latin -word gres
sus is one that originally describes the measured tread of
dignity, in distinction from the trudge of a clown, or
foot-pad. Hence, the word congress can never after, even
at the distance of thousands of years, be applied to the
meeting or coming together of outlaws, jockeys, or low
persons of any description. It can only be used to denote
assemblages of grave and elevated personages, such as
councillors, men of science, ambassadors, potentates," p.
51. Now it is not true that "the Latin word gressus is

" GOD IN CHRIST." 3
These extracts are sufficient to set forth our
author's theory of language. Our first remark
with regard to it is, that it is essentially un
founded. Beyond question, there is a sufficient
resemblance or analogy between certain external
and internal objects, to lay a foundation forthe
use of metaphors, comparisons, and other figures
of speech. No one has ever doubted this. But
to say that there is a universal and divinely
instituted correspondence between the worlds of
matter and of mind ; that every object in ex
ternal nature is a type of something in the soul ;
one that originally describes the measured tread of dig
nity." It simply means a step, a pace, a going, a gait, of
any kind. Virgil applies it to the feeble step of a wound
ed man, and to the tread of sailors ; Pliny to the gait of a
clown. Nor is it true that congressus " can only be used
to denote assemblages of grave and elevated personages."
Primarily, it does not denote an "assemblage" of any
kind, but only a coming together, a contact, a meeting. Nor
is it confined to the coming together " of grave and eleva
ted personages," but is applied to a conjunction, a coming
together of any sort ; sometimes to a copulation, an engage
ment, si fight.
Dr. B. Says that " persons of only a common education
would be likely to have some sense of discord in the ex
pression, I prefer being behind," p. 62. On the contrary, if
we were to adduce an example, going to show the power
of usage over etymology, to supersede and efface it, we
could hardly select abetter than this. The expression,
"I prefer being behind," we hold to be a fully authorized}
and, therefore, a perfectly proper one; as really so as "I
choose being behind ; perhaps more so."

4 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
and that the soul is so constituted as to perceive
the resemblance, and base upon it a language of
thought, — this is Carrying the matter quite too
far. We could as soon accept the Swedenbor-
gian doctrine of correspondences. There are
many words in our own language, some of which
have been given above, which, so far as we can
discover, are purely of internal application.
Why should there not be? The sensation of
hunger, for example, is a reality, and one with
which man, in the early stages of his existence,
would be likely to become as soon acquainted as
with any external object whatever; and why
should he not as early give it a name ? Why
should he wait till names had been applied to
external things, and then borrow one of these,
and use it metaphorically, to set forth the import
ant fact that he was hungry ? The same reason
ing may be applied to most of the simpler and
more obvious mental affections or states. These
are real ; they are palpable ; a savage, a child,
can come to the knowledge of them — indeed, he
cannot help it ; and why should he not early give
them names ? Accordingly, it will be found that
the names of most of the simpler and more pal
pable of our mental states are not borrowed from
the outer world. So far as we can see or learn,
they are purely of internal application.
Besides, according to the theory of Dr. B.,

"GOD IN CHRIST." 5
words borrowed from the outer world, and applied
analogically to set forth our mental states, should
be used only in a single sense. It is hardly con
ceivable that the same external object should be
a divinely constituted image or type of various
and sometimes opposite internal affections. And
yet Dr. B. admits " that words do, now and then,
present no aspect of agreement, in their senses,
with the types out of which they spring," and
that " they even pass into meanings which seem
to be contrary one to another," p. 53.
We say, then, first of all, that Dr. Bushnell's
theory of correspondences, like that of Sweden
borg, has more in it of fancy than of fact. It
has no solid foundation in truth.*
* Dr. Bushnell's correspondences, and those of Sweden
borg are not, indeed, the same ; and yet there is a resem
blance between them. There is a strong tendency in the
former to run into the latter. There is also a striking
resemblance between the phraseology of Dr. B. and of
Swedenborg on other subjects. For example: Sweden
borg teaches that God exists in a human form. Compare
now with this the following passage : "As the spirit of
man is made in the image of God, and his bodily form is
prepared to be the fit vehicle and outward representation
of his spirit, it follows that his bodily form has also some
inherent, a priori relation to God's own nature ; such, proba
bly, as makes it the truest, most expressive finite type of
him," p. 147. The following mystical, nonsensical passage
might almost be'mistaken for one of Swedenborg's : " Sin,
being a -withdrawal into self and self-hood, separates the
souls of men from the Life, and, as far as their own freedom
1*

6 REVIEW OE DR. BUSHNELL'S
But suppose, in the second place, that it were
true. What is the inference to be drawn from
it, as to the definiteness, the certitude of language,
in its application to spiritual things ? Obviously,
one would think, if language is (as Dr. B. sup
poses) a Divinely constituted medium of setting
forth our thoughts and feelings, it ought to be a
very definite medium — not less so, certainly,
in its internal applications, than in those which
are external. For what is the doctrine ? " Ob
jects in sense have some mysterious correspond
ence or analogy, by which they are prepared
beforehand," and that, too, by God himself, " to
serve as signs or vehicles of spiritual things to be
expressed." Again, " forms are provided in the
world of sense, which are cognate to the mind,
and fitted, by reason of some hidden analogy,"
contrived by God, " to express its interior senti
ments and thoughts." Still again : " The whole
universe of nature is a perfect analogon of the
whole universe of thought and spirit" — an an
alogon arranged and appointed by the Divine
is concerned, denies all influx of the Divine into their
character, and, their religious nature. Passing thus into
a state of negation, as regards the Divine all-sustaining
life, they become imprisoned in darkness, and a general
captivity to sense," p. 188. Dr. B.'s doctrine of "recep
tivities" and " influx," which he introduces more than
once, is very .similar to that of Swedenborg on the same
subjects.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 7
Logos, and to the perceiving of which the mind
of man is constitutionally adapted.
Such is the theory ; and now, if all this be
true, what room is there for doubt or mistake ?
If sensible objects are prepared by G-od before
hand, " to serve as signs or vehicles of spiritual
things to be expressed," then will they not express
them ? If " forms are provided in the world of
sense, which are cognate to the mind," and are
fitted by God " to express its interior sentiments
and thoughts," we ask again, will they not ex
press them ? Will they not express them accu
rately and truly ? If " the whole universe of
nature is a, perfect analogon of the whole universe
of thought or spirit," — an analogon arranged
and appointed by, "the Divine Logos," and to
the perceiving of which the mind of man is con
stitutionally adapted — then what room is there
for doubt or mistake ? Who can impute any
want of definiteness and certainty here, without
impeaching the wisdom and goodness of the
Creator ?
The theory of language under consideration
we do not ourselves admit. We hold it to be
baseless and delusive. But, certainly, if we did
admit it, we could not fail to draw the conclusion
from it to which we have here come. The Swe-
denborgian is in no doubt as to the import of his
correspondences ; and we see not but Dr. Bush-

8 REVIEW OE DR. BUSHNELL'S
nell's analogies ought to be quite as certain; more
especially as the latter " are cognate to the mind,"
and do not require a supernatural key in order to
their being opened.
Yet, strange as it may seem, the conclusion
which Dr. B. actually draws from his theory is just
the opposite of this. We will give it in his own
Words. As the language of thought " is only tropical,
the meanings, of course, are indefinitely variable"
p. 62. It is " an instrument wholly inadequate
to the exact representation of thought," p. 94.
" No two minds ever had the same impression of"
the word sin, p. 47. " We have just a hundred
different meanings in the simple formula — man
thinks" p. 61. " Words of thought or spirit are
not only inexact in their significance, never measur
ing the truth, or giving its precise equivalent, but
they always affirm something which is false, or con
trary to the truth intended," p. 48. " I see not,
therefore, how the subject matter of mental
science and religion can ever be included under
the fixed forms of dogma. Definitions cannot
bring us over the difficulty, for definitions are, in
fact, only changes of symbol, and if we take them
to be more, they will infallibly lead us into error.
In fact, no man is more certain to run himself
into mischievous error, than he who places implicit
confidence in definitions. After all, definitions

" GOD IN CHRIST." 9
will be words, and science will be words, and
words, place them in whatever shapes we may,
will be only shadows of truth," p. 72.
We give these several extracts, that the views
of the author may be understood. We have
before presented his theory of language. We
have here the conclusion which he himself draws
from it. And a more palpable non sequitur, we
think, was never perpetrated. The conclusion
and the premises have no affinity, and never can
stand together. If the former is retained, the
latter must be given up, and vice versa. If, as —
before stated, " forms are provided in the world
of sense, which are cognate to the mind, and
fitted, by reason of some hidden analogy," con
trived by God, " to express its interior sentiments
and thoughts," then they will, undoubtedly, be
expressed, and the language of thought will be
at least as definite as the language of sense. Or
if (to turn the matter round) tbe language of
thought " is indefinitely variable," and " wholly
inadequate to the exact representation of thought,"
then " forms are" not " provided in the world of
sense, whieh are cognate to the mind, and fitted
to express its interior sentiments and thoughts,"
nor are sensible objects prepared by God before- -
hand, " to serve as signs or vehicles of spiritual
things to be expressed."
But we will not dwell on this palpable incon-

10 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
sistency. It is all straight to the mind of Dr. B.,
and the conclusion is one in which he has evidently
much satisfaction, for it enables him to set aside
all formulas of Christian doctrine, and yet escape
the imputation of positive error. A system of
theology, he says, cannot be taught in words.
" Language does not seem to be adequate to any
such use or purpose," p. 77. And if language
cannot teach a system of theology, no more can
language undermine and subvert it. If words
are insufficient to inculcate orthodoxy, they are as
insufficient to inculcate heterodoxy, and hence
Dr. B. may be as far from heresy as the soundest,
straitest of his brethren. A very comforting con
clusion to the Doctor, we have no doubt ; or
rather, it would be a comforting conclusion, if
it would but stop here ; but it will not. It insists
on going farther ; and so far as to peril, if not
spoil, all the consolation which it had before
imparted. How unfortunate that Dr. B. was under the
necessity of writing his book in words. If he
could have constructed a set of geometrical fig
ures, or algebraic signs, he might have indulged
the hope of making himself understood ; but with
nought for a vehicle but «' winged words" — words,
which at best are but " the shadows of the truth,"
all ground of hope, it would seem, must have
been precluded. We wonder how he contrives

"GOD IN CHRIST." 11
to hold conversation with his family, or 1» make
known his thoughts and wishes, his affections and
aversions, (for all these are internal,) to his most
intimate friends. With his views as to the in
sufficiency of language — seeing not less than a
hundred .different meanings hanging around the*
simplest forms - of speech, we should despair ut
terly, not only of express^g.our theological opin
ions, but of telling when> we were hungry or
thirsty, or of making, known our simplest personal
wants. With his peculiar opinions as to language, it
might be expected that Dr. B. would think lightly
of reason and of logic. " Logic," he says, " is a
defective and often deeeitful instrument." " No
turn of logical deduction can prove anything by
itself, not previously known by inspection or in
sight," p. 58. It is impossible to prove the
existence of God ; we can only see him. " An
effect, we are told, infers a cause ; a design, a
designer. It was by just this kind ,of process,
that Shelley, at Oxford, became an atheist; as
all the scholars of that great university might;
properly be," p. 65. "These great investigar
tors and provers, who think that nothing is real
ly established until it is proved," are denounced
by Dr. B. as "mere logickers" — "male spinsters
of logic" — who " are generally the worst propa
gators of falsehood in the world," p. 58.

12 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
It is a very common impression- among Chris
tians, that the Apostle Paul was a reasoner. At
Ephesus, " he entered into the synagogue, and
reasoned with the Jews." At Corinth, "he rea
soned in the synagogue every sabbath, and per
suaded the Jews and the Greeks. At Thessa
lonica, too, " he found a synagogue of the Jews ;
and as his manner was, he went in unto them,
and reasoned with them out of the Scriptures."
He reasoned before Felix " of righteousness, tem
perance, and judgment to come." And for the
space of two years, " he disputed daily in the
school of one Tyrannus." After, all, Dr. B. can
not be persuaded that Paul was a reasoner. He
is not " to be called a dogmatiser, or a dialectic
writer, in any proper sense of the term. True,
there is a form of reasoning and argumentation
about him, and he abounds in illatives, piling For
upon For, in constant succession. But if he is
narrowly watched, it will be seen that this is only
a dialectic form, that had settled on his language
under his old theologic discipline, previous to
his conversion. Besides, it will be clear, on ex
amination, that bis illatives often miscarry, 'when
taken as mere instruments or terms of logic."
In other words, judged of as a reasoner, Paul is
often found to reason badly ! pp. 75, 76.
After all that Dr. B. has said to the disparage
ment of reason, it is almost incredible that, in this

" GOD IN CHRIST." 13
very book, he should himself descend to it, and
confide in it, and (what is worse) that he should
reason in words. But it is even so. Witness his
ten arguments for what he calls the Divinity of
Christ; also his labored attempts to refute the
doctrine of the Trinity in his first discourse, and
the commonly received doctrine of atonement
in the second. If it is impossible to prove or
disprove a point by reason and argument ; if " no
turn of logical deduction can establish anything
not previously known;" then why shoidd our
author deign to enter the arena, and become a
" mere logicker," a " male spinster of logic," for
such a purpose ?
But we must take leave of the " Preliminary
Dissertation on Language." Whatever may be
thought of the speculations of Dr. B. on other
subjects, as to his theory of language there can
be but one opinion. So far as credited and im
bibed, it must be of disastrous influence. That
there are imperfections in language — ambiguities
in words and phrases — so that they fail, in some
instances, precisely to express our thoughts and
feelings, no one at all acquainted with the subject
will deny. Still, we are to regard language
(such as it is) as one of the richest, noblest gifts
of God. We are to be thankful for our own lan
guage, so full, so flexible, and yet so strong; so
well adapted, not only to answer all the common

14 REVIEW, ETC.
purposes of speech, but to express the nicer
shades of thought, and the varied emotions, and
affections of our souls. And woe be to the man
who, for any purpose whatever, shall undertake
to rob us of this precious gift. It may seem a
small matter to some, to cast doubt upon the
settled significance of language, and destroy con
fidence in it, in its application to the subject of
rehgion ; but it must be remembered that there is
no stopping place here. The foundations of hu
man intercourse, and with them of society, are
disturbed, and a mischief is perpetrated for. which
there is no remedy. It may seem a Hght thing
to say that a system of theology cannot be
taught in words ; but if theology cannot be taught
in words, no more can psychology, morality, or
anything else. If a creed or a catechism can
not be understood, no more can the Bible ; no
more can Dr. Bushnell's discourses ; no more can
the household words of common life. In short,
if, to save or destroy a creed, the foundations of
language must be broken up, then we are all
afloat together. We have come to another tower
of Babel, and as the tongues are again con
founded, it is time that the earth were again di
vided.

CHAPTER II.
Review of Dr. Bushnell's First Discourse.
We proceed now to a consideration of Dr.
Bushnell's discourses. And we begin with that
upon the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ.
Dr. B. calls this discourse an "argument," and
he enters at once on the proof of our Saviour's
Divinity ; so it seems, after all his contempt for
logic, that he can argue, and reason, and exhibit
proofs, like other men.
But what shall be said of his proofs, of the Di
vinity of Christ? In so plain a case, they surely
ought to have been, as they might have been, of
the most direct and conclusive character. But
such, we are sorry to say, is not their character.
So far from it, the most of his alleged proofs do
not reach the point at all. They merely prove
that our Savior was super-human, perhaps super
angelic, but not that he was properly Divine.
For example, he first argues the Divinity of
Christ from his preexistence. But this obviously
does not prove it. An Arian would say that our
Savior was preexistent. If he had been no more
than an incarnate aeon or angel, he must have
existed previous to-his incarnation.

16 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
Dr. B.'s second argument for our Savior's Di
vinity is drawn from his miraculous birth. But
this, again, does not reach the point. Thousands
of professed Unitarians beheve in " the miracu
lous birth of Christ." His miraculous birth does
indeed " denote the entrance into humanity of
something that is distinct from it ;" but was this
something properly a Divine person ?
Dr. B. urges, in the third place, that " the in
carnation is plainly asserted." So indeed it is.
But the incarnation of what ? Of an aeon, an
angel, a super-angelic being, or a Divine person ?
These are the questions in dispute ; and these
questions our author does not care to answer.
Dr. B.'s fourth and fifth arguments are drawn
directly from the Scriptures, and some of the
passages quoted do prove, undoubtedly, the Di
vinity of Christ.
His sixth argument is a very strange one. It
is founded on the declaration, " My Father is
greater than I;" and on the numerous expressions
in which Christ calls himself " the Son of man."
We have often heard these passages quoted to
disprove the Divinity of Christ, but not often to
prove it. They do not prove it. They imply, we
think, Christ's super-human character, but not
necessarily his Divine character, To rest on such
an argument is rather to betray our Savior's Di
vinity than to establish it.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 17
Dr. B.'s seventh argument is founded on our
Savior's " assumed relation to the world," indi
cated in declarations such as these : " I am the
light of the world ;" " I am the way, and the
truth, and the life." But though a Socinian
might be stumbled with these passages, a high
Arian would not be at all. He would declare
them to be just as consistent with his theory of
the Savior's person, as they are with that of the
Trinitarian. The eighth proof pf the Divinity of Chris_t is
made to rest upon his sinlessness. But this, ob
viously, is defective. An incarnate angel might
be sinless ; nor is there any thing impossible in the
supposition of a perfectly sinless man. Man once
was sinless ; he ought to be sinless now ; and the
fact that he is not so admits of no good excuse.
In further proof of Christ's Divinity, Dr. B.
urges, ninthly, our conscious need of a Divine
Savior; and, tenthly, the formula of baptism.
These both may be valid arguments in the case.
The last one undoubtedly is. But, taking the
whole process of proof together, it certainly is
the most lame and unsatisfactory that we ever
saw exhibited by any professed behever in the
Divinity of Christ. If a student in one of our
theological seminaries had undertaken to frame
an argument on the subject, and had succeeded
2*

18 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
no better, his instructor would have required him
to try his hand again.
However, Dr. B. professes to believe, and in a
modified sense, no doubt, does beheve, in the Di
vinity of Christ. What this modified sense is,
remains to be seen.
Our author next proceeds to examine, and as
he thinks, to refute, the commonly received no
tions respecting the Trinity, or the doctrine of
three persons in one God. _ And here again we
find him reasoning, disputing, arguing, objecting,
and this, too, in words, the " Prehminary Disser
tation" to the contrary notwithstanding. And
worse than all, we find him arguing just like the
Unitarians ; drawing out and pointing their old,
worn-out weapons, affirming their legitimacy, and
arraying them anew against the shield of truth.
The only real plausibility of these objections,
whether in the hands of Unitarians, or of any one
else, grows out of the attempt to force upon us
a meaning of the word person, which we do not
accept. Trinitarians have said a thousand times,
that they use the word person, in this connection,
not in its ordinary acceptation, as signifying a
separate, individual being ; not as denoting a per
fectly distinct consciousness, understanding, and
will. They use it in place of a better word, (as
they have a perfect right to do, defining the
sense,) to set forth one of the ineffable personal

" GOD IN CHRIST." 19
distinctions in the mysterious and adorable unity
of the Godhead. And to impose upon them a
sense of this term which they have so often dis
claimed, and then to argue from it as though they
received it, and there could be no other, telling
of absurdities, and difficulties, and confusion of
thought, of merging the three in the one, and the
one in the three, and so becoming either tri-
theists, or simple Unitarians ; all this may serve
to answer a purpose. But it can have no other
effect upon an inteUigent Trinitarian, than to con
vince him of the weakness and unfairness of his
opponents, and attach him the more strongly to
the faith of the gospel.
But if Dr. B. rejects the commonly received
orthodox view of the Trinity, what sort of Trinity
does he profess to hold, and how does he connect
it with the Divinity of Christ ? This question
we propose to answer, to the best of our abihty,
and in the fewest words.
First, then, Dr. B. holds to " the strict personal
unity of God " — one God in one person. The
doctrine of three eternal distinctions, commonly
called persons, in the one God, he entirely rejects.
Secondly, he holds that this one God is not the
Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor all
three united; but "the Absolute Being — the
Infinite — the I am that I am" — without mo
tion, without thought, without feeling of any kind,

20 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
" dwelling in eternal silence," " the unapproach
able, and, as far as all, measures of thought and
conception are concerned, the unrepresentable
God," * pp. 138, 173.
What, then, it will be asked, is Dr. Bushnell's
Trinity ? What ideas does he form of the Fa
ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ? To his mind,
these have, of course, no real, personal, eternal
existence, but are rather figurative existences —
" the dramatis personam of revelation." They are
the personified manifestations of the Absolute.
Or they are the personified " struggles " of the
Absolute, to reveal himself to the minds and
hearts of creatures.f He could reveal himself in
no other way. " In these three persons, or im
personations, I see only a revelation of the Ab
solute Being, under just such relatives as, by
their mutual play, in and before our imaginative
* A strange idea of the Christian's God, truly — very
like to that which has been entertained of him by some
of the wiser heathen. Plato, in the Parmenides, thus
describes the Absolute Divinity : " The One, therefore, in
no respect is. Por to say that he is, would be to ascribe
to him being and essence, whereas he is above being itself."
Again : " The One neither is one, nor is ; neither does any
name belong to him, nor discourse, nor science, nor sense,
nor opinion. He can neither be named, nor spoken of, nor
conceived by opinion, nor be known, nor be perceived by
any being." How much better is such a Divinity than
no God at all ?
t And yet the Absolute is without motion, without
thought, without feeling of any kind !

" GOD IN CHRIST." 21
sense, will produce in us the truest knowledge of
God — render him most conversable, bring him
closest to feeling, give him the freest, least ob
structed access, as a quickening power, to our
hearts," p. 148.
By the Logos, Dr. B. understands " the power
of self-representation in God " — that " peculiar
power in the Divine nature by which God is able
to represent himself outwardly, in the forms of
things," pp. 177, 187. In other places, this
power is spoken of as "a capacity of self-expres
sion, a generative power of form, a creative
imagination;" not very unlike the imagination
in us, only that " our imagination is stored with
forms, colors, and types of words from without,"
while " God has all such forms in himself; and
this is the Logos,"* p. 145. This power of which
we speak, and which God possessed from eternity,
was first exercised in the work of creation.
" What we call the creation, is, in another view,
only a revelation of God — his first revelation,"
p. 146. This was performed through the power
above described, or, which is the same, through
the Logos. Hence the propriety gf John's decla
ration, that through the Logos all things were
made. * The Logos of the Platonists was " that power or per
son, which held up to view the idea, the pattern, according
to which everything was to be made."

22 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
It follows from this view that all created things,
even the most unsightly and insignificant, are so
many representations of God. And so Dr. B.
understands it. " God has produced himself in
all the finite forms of beings" — "in all the
created objects of the world ; " so that " in the
smaUest things, the minutest specks of being,"
we may see God, * pp. 146, 151.
God represented himself, through the Logos,
in the first human pair ; but more illustriously in
the person of Jesus Christ. The Logos now be
came incarnate — "was made flesh," or, to speak
more literally, God's "pecuhar power of self-
representation" now united itself to the man
Christ Jesus, dwelt in him, and thus he became the
most signal manifestation of God. And here is
precisely what our author means by the Divinity
of Christ ; not that he possesses a Divine nature,
or the Divine nature, but only a Divine power, —
that "peculiar power of self-representation." f
To show us how much he means by the incar-
* We should like to know how much this differs from
the Pantheism of the German philosophers. God in every
thing, and every*thing in God! God manifest in ail
flesh, as really, though not as illustriously, as in the flesh
of the Saviour !
f In other passages, Dr. B. asserts that Christ had a Di
vide nature. " Consider, that in the outward humanity
of Jesus, there is held, in some close and mysterious union,
a Divine nature,'' p. 231.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 23
nation, Dr. B. uses another comparison. " Just
as the Logos is incarnated in the flesh, so the
Spirit makes his advent under physical signs ap
propriate to his office ; coming in a rushing mighty
wind; tipping the heads of an assembly with
lambent flames ; endowing men with gifts above
their human capacity," p. 172. The Logos,
then, was in the man Christ Jesus just so much
(and no more) as the Spirit was in the " rushing
mighty wind," and " the lambent flames," and
the miraculous gifts which he imparted.
Did our Savior possess a human nature, or more
specifically, a human soul? This question Dr.
B. does not care to answer, any further than to
say that he had no distinct human soul. As the
person of Christ is one, so his nature is one.
" There is no foundation for the common Trinita
rian theory of two distinct subsistences," or na
tures, " in the person of Christ," p. 155. And
if it be inquired how the Divine in Christ (be it
what it may) could be hungry, thirsty, and weary ;
could eat, drink, and sleep ; could " grow in wis
dom and in stature ;" could weep, and worship,
and suffer, and die ; Dr. B. does not deny that
all this took place ; but then such facts are not
more mysterious than a great many others. How
can the Divine in an insect fly, or in a reptile
crawl, or in a nightingale sing ? The least object
in nature is as real a manifestation of God, though

24 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
not so illustrious a manifestation, as that made in
the person of Christ. " The reahty of Christ is
what he expresses of God, not what he is in his
physical conditions or under his human limita
tions," p. 156. " God certamly is able to as
sume the human so far as to express his union to
it, and set himself, in historic and real connection
with it. He tells us plainly that he has done it,"
p. 157. " Regarding Christ in this exterior, and
as it were, esthetic way, he is that holy thing in
which my God is brought to me — brought even
down to a fellow relation with me. I shall not
call him two. I shall not decompose him and
label off his doings, one to the credit of his Divin
ity, and another to the credit of his humanity. I
shall receive him as my one Lord and Savior ; nor
any the less so, that he is my brother," p. 163.
We have presented these quotations, that Dr.
B. may have the advantage of speaking for him
self.. His views of the person of Christ, though
much mystified by an obscure, transcendental
phraseology, are yet inteUigible. Christ had not
a Divine and a human nature ; he was not God
and man, mysteriously united in one person ; but
he was a man in whom dwelt a divine power —
that "pecuhar power of self-representation," some
times caUed the Logos — which was in God from
all eternity, which is bodied forth, measurably, in
every created thing, but more illustriously in the

" GOD IN CHRIST." 25
person of Jesus Christ. The bodying forth of
this power in Christ is what is called his incarna
tion ; and it is the possession of this power in an
eminent degree, which entitles our Savior to be
caUed a Divine person.
Dr. B. admits that the view he has presented
differs but slightly from that of some Unitarians ;
differs " only as a sw5-carnation from an in-carna
tion," p. 169. We doubt whether they will think
that he differs from them even so much as this.
Dr. B. supposes that there was no Trimty —
there could have been none — previous to the
birth of Christ. There was the absolute Divin
ity in possession of the Logos, or " the power of
self-representation," from all eternity, and in the
exercise of this power, or through the Logos,
" the first revelations of God " had been made.
But there was as yet no Trinity. At length,
" the Divine word or Logos, who is from eternity
the Form or in the Form of God, after having
first bodied him forth in the creation and govern
ment of the world, now makes another outgoing
from the absolute into the human, to reside in the
human, as being of it ; thus to communicate God
to the world, and thus to ingenerate in the world
goodness and life as from him. To make his ap
proach to man as close as possible, he appears, or
makes his advent, through a human birth, son of
man, and son also of God. Regarding him now

26 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
in this light, as set out before the absolute Being,
who he representatively is, existing under the con
ditions of the finite and relative, we see at once,
that for our sakes, if not for his own, he must
have set over against him, in the finite, his appro
priate relative term or impersonation," p. 168.
In other words, as there is, now a Son, there must
be a Father. The Father, as one of " the dram
atis persons of revelation," had not been seen
on the stage before. We hear occasionally of a
Father in the old Testament, but not of the
Father. But " as Christ now appears in the
finite, he calls out into the finite with him, if I
may so speak, another representative of the abso-
solute — one that is conceived to reside in the
heavens, as he himself is seen to walk upon the
earth. This he does to comfort his attitude, or,
more probably, to make it intelligible " Christ
" does not say, I came forth from the One, the
absolute, from him that dwells above time, silent,
never moving, without parts or emotions ; but he,
gives, us the conception of an active, choosing,
feeling Spirit, and says, I came forth from the
Father," p. 169.
" But in order to the full and complete appre
hension of God, a third personality, the Holy
Spirit, needs to appear. By the Logos in
the creation, and then by the Logos in the
incarnation, assisted or set off by the Father,

" GOD IN CHRIST." 27
as a relative personality, God's character, feel
ing, and truth are now expressed." " But
there is yet needed, to complete our sense of
God, the absolute, another kind of expression,
which will require the introduction of yet
another and distinct kind of impersonation.
We not only want a conception of God, in his
character and feehng towards us, but we want
also to conceive him as in act within us, work
ing in us spiritual results of quickening, dehver
ance, and purification from evU." " God, in
act, wUl therefore be given us, by another
finite, relative impersonation. Accordingly, the
natural image, spirit, i. e. breath, is taken up,
and clothed with a personal activity." " Now,
the absolute Being, of whom we could predicate
no motion or proceeding, becomes a Vital Pre
sence, residing ever with us, to work in us all
that we need, and strengthen us to that which
none but a divine power can support." '
"Thus we have three persons, or impersona
tions, aU existing under finite conditions or
conceptions. They are relatives, and in that
view are not infinites ; for relative infinites are
impossible. And yet, taken representatively,
they are each and all infinites ; because they
stand for and express the infinite Jehovah."
" The Father plans, presides, and purposes for
us ; the ' Son . expresses his intended mercy,

28 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
proves it, brings it down even to the level of
a fellow feehng ; the Spirit works within us the
beauty he reveals, and the glory beheld in his
life. The Father sends the Son; the Son de
livers the grace of the Father. The Father
dispenses, and the Son procures the Spirit.
The Spirit proceeds from sthe Father and the
Son, to fulfil the purpose of the one, and the
expressed feeling of the other. Each and aU
together dramatize, and bring forth into life
about us that Infinite One, who, to our mere
thought, were no better than Brama, sleeping
on eternity and the stars." pp. 171 — 173.
Dr. B. calls his Trinity " an instrumental
Trinity, and the persons instrumental persons"
p. 175. They are but figurative, representative
persons, or rather personifications — " the dram
atis personal of revelation," — with no actual
subsistence in the Divine nature, and " having
their reality in what they express, when taken
as the wording forth of God." And " God may
as well offer himself to me in these persons, as
through trees, or storms, or stars ; " at the same
time, " they involve as httle contrariety, and
yield as much more of warmth, as they have
more of life," p. 176.
Dr. B. closes his discussion of this deep and
awful subject, by disclaiming anew, and in the
strongest terms, any belief in the existence of

" GOD IN CHRIST." 29
essential, personal distinctions in the Godhead.
" We are to have it for a fixed, first truth, that
God is, in the most perfect and rigid sense, one
Being ; a pure intelligence, undivided, indivis
ible, and infinite." The persons of the Trinity
are but " instrumentally three ; — three, simply
as related to our finite apprehension, and the
communication of God's incommunicable nature,"
p. 177.
It wiU be inquired here, What position is Dr.
B. henceforward entitled to hold in the theologi
cal world ? Is he a Trinitarian, or a Unitarian ?
That we may answer this question inteUigently,
it will be necessary to ascertain what constitutes
a Trinitarian, and what a Unitarian ; or what is
the precise point of difference between them.
The difference, obviously, is not this, that the
one believes, and the other denies, the unity of
God ; for both parties are the professed receivers
and advocates of the Divine unity. Nor is the
difference this, that the one professes to be a
Trinitarian, while the other does not ; for a vast
many Unitarians, perhaps the most of them, have
professed and claimed to be Trinitarians. They
have held to something which they called a Trinity
— some philosophical or dramatical figment, on
the ground of which they chose to be known as
Trinitarians. But the difference lies exactly
here : The Unitarian believes in one God in one
3*

30 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
person ;t while the Trinitarian believes in one God
in three persons. And those three must be, not
fictitious, dramatic, representative persons, hke
the characters in a romance, or a play, but real,
substantial, eternal distinctions, in the one undi
vided essence of the Godhead. So the church
has always understood the subject. So it is
understood by the most inteUigent Christians, on
both sides, at the present day. So the matter
must be understood ; or there is no real, valid
distinction between the Trinitarian and the Uni
tarian — none which is at all worth contending
for — none which does not he in mere words,
and fancies, and figures of speech.
But if the distinction be as we have indicated,
no one can doubt on which side Dr. B. must fall."
He would not himself hesitate a moment. He
has declared his rejection of the three eternal,
substantial, personal distinctions in the Godhead ;
or, in other words, of the doctrine of the Trinity,
as that term has been understood in the church
from its first adoption to the present time, and
has thus ranged himself (we are grieved to say
it) on the side of the Unitarians. His one God
exists in one person only.
But the word Unitarian is one of some latitude.
There are several classes of Unitarians. To
which of these 'classes does Dr. B. belong ? He
cannot be called a Socinian ; for he believes in

" GOD IN CHRIST." 31
something more than the mere humanity of Christ.
He is not an Arian ; for he does not regard Christ
as a super-angehc nature — the first and greatest
of all created beings. Neither is he a semi-
arian ; holding Christ to be of the same sub
stance with the Father, though an emanation
from him. By what name, then, shall he be
called; and where, among Unitarians, shaU he
be classed ? We answer ; by his own confes
sion, Dr. B. is substantially a SabeUian.
The late Dr. Schleiermacher, of Berlin, pre
pared^ an elaborate article on Sabellius, with
whom he is supposed to have harmonized in doc
trine, which article was translated and published
by Prof. Stuart, with additional remarks, in the
American Biblical Repository, for July, 1835.
Referring to this, Dr. B. says : " It wiU be dis
covered that the general view of the Trinity,
given in that article, coincides with the view
which I have presented, though the reasonings
are not in all points the same," p. 112. Now
any one who wiU read the article referred to
will perceive that this is a true testimony.
There is a shght difference in some of the state
ments, but the general view of the Trinity is in
both the same. Dr. B. and Sabellius both say,
that " the whole Trinity is God revealed ; but
the Divine Being, as he is, in and of himself, in
his simple unity, is God concealed ox unrevealed."

32- REVIEW OE DR. BUSHNELL'S
Both agree that " Trinity was not essential to
the Godhead, as in itself considered, but only
in reference to created beings, and on their ac
count." Both agree, too, " that the Divine
Being, as in himself considered, is not the sub
ject of hypostatic distinctions, these having com
menced in time." The only difference between
them relates to the periods of the respective de
velopments of the Father and the Son; Sabel
lius holding that the Father was first manifested
in the creation, and the Son in the incarnation ;
while Dr. B. is of the opinion that the Logos or
Son appeared first in the creation, and the Father
not till the incarnation. But this, it will be seen,
is no more than a circumstantial difference. The
general view in both is, as Dr. B. allows, the
same. Dr. B. does great injustice, in this connection,
to Prof. Stuart, whom he represents as harmo
nizing, except in one unimportant particular, with
Sabellius, with Schleiermacher, and with himself.
(See p. 112.) Now the truth is, that Prof. Stu
art expressly dissents from the main feature of
the SabeUian theory, and argues at length against
it. " There is a reason, a ground, in God's very
being, for his developments as Trinity ; else they
would not be made. These developments neces
sarily presuppose distinctions belonging to his
nature." "That God has manifested himself in re-

" GOD IN CHRIST." S3
demption, as Father, Son, and Spirit, and that this
is the great and peculiar manifestation of the Trin
ity, I have no doubt. But I am not wilhng to stop
here, nor to conclude that a distinction, hke that
of Father, Son, and Spirit, in the Godhead, has
commenced altogether in time, and has no founda
tion in the Divine Being himself." " God must be,
in seipso, what he has revealed mmself to be."*
Such is the language of Prof. Stuart on this
subject ; and much more to the same effect might
be quoted. In using thi3 language, Prof. Stuart
plainly declares himself a Trinitarian ; while in
rejecting it, and using the. opposite, Dr. B. as
plainly declares himself a Unitarian, a Sabellian.f
The reasoning of Prof. Stuart against SabeUius
and Schleiermacher, is of equal force and perti
nency against Dr. B. We commend it to his
serious consideration. The Trinity, you say, is a
revelation of God. Must it not be supposed,
then, to reveal him as he is ? And as it actually
does reveal him, under a three-fold distinction of
persons, are we not to beheve that he so exists ?
Would the great I AM make to his creatures a
false representation of himself ? Would he make
* Am. Bib. Bepos. vol. vi. pp. 87, 94, 96.
f Dr. B. does equal injustice to Neander, with whom
he professes, in general, to coincide ; whereas it may be
shown that Neander holds the doctrines of the Trinity,
and of atonement by the sufferings and death of Christ.

34 REVIEW, ETC.
a representation by which ninety-nine hundredths
of his professed foUowers, from the time of the
revelation to the present hour, have been de
ceived ?
But we cannot pursue this inquiry farther. We
dismiss, for the present, the first of the discourses,
and enter on an examination of the second.

CHAPTER IH.
Review of Dr. Bushnell's Second Discourse.
The subject of this discourse, it will be recol
lected, is the atonement ; of which, says Dr. B.,
" the Scriptures advance two distinct views, which
yet are radically one and the same : First, a sub
jective, speculative view — - one that contemplates
the work of Christ in its ends, and views it as a
power related to its ends. And, secondly, an
objective, ritualistic view — one without which, as
an altar form for the soul, he would not be the
power intended, or work the ends appointed,"
p. 189.
Under the first of these heads, Dr. B. " affirms,
without hesitation, that whenever the question is
about the end of Christ's work, the answer of the
Scripture will be, that he comes to renovate char
acter; to quicken by the infusion of the Divine life ;
or to save his people from their sins," p. 191.
" The very end and aim of Christ's mission is to
recover man to God and obedience." Again;
" the only object of his mission is, to bring us.
back into a free obedience to the Divine require
ments," pp. 227, 228. StUl again; "we de
clare a great and real truth, when we say that

36 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
the reconciliation of man to God, is the sole ob
ject of Christ's mission," p. 269.
This statement, it wiU be seen, excludes entire
ly the common view of the atonement, in which
Christ is regarded as our substitute; suffering,
bleeding, dying for us ; offering up himself a sacri
fice to satisfy Divine justice, and open a way for
our forgiveness and salvation. The end of Christ's
mission, as set forth in this discourse, is precisely
that which has all along been insisted on by Uni
tarians ; to renovate character, to affect the heart,
to lead the sinner to repentance, to reclaim the
wandering soul to God. This is what Christ came
for, and all that he came for. " We declare a
great and real truth, when we say that the recon
ciliation of man to God is the sole object of Christ's
mission." Accordingly, Dr. B. sets himself, in
good earnest, to refute the commonly received
doctrine of the atonement, urging against it the
old Unitarian objections, and making them as im
posing and formidable as possible. He has no
fear of dogmas, and definitions, and aU sorts of
theological weapons, when they can be employed
in such a work as this.
It wUl not be necessary to foUow our author in
his objections and reasonings against the atone
ment. He has urged nothing new — nothing
which has not been as forcibly said by Dr. Dewey,

" GOD IN CHRIST." 37
Dr. Channing, and other Unitarians who have
treated of the subject.
There is one point, however, which we will ven
ture to urge upon his attention. Dr. B. will not
deny that the death of Christ was an event in
Divine providence, and as such, an infliction of
God ; and he says expressly that " bodUy death is
the natural doom of wrong " — " the type and the
fruit of sin," pp. 231, 232. For whose sins,
then, did our Savior suffer and die ? Certainly
not for his own, for he had none. He needed no
correction for his own sake. He deserved no
penal inflictions. Why, then, did he suffer and
die ? For what did it " please the Lord to bruise
him, and put him to grief?" To this question
the prophet Isaiah gives a direct and positive an
swer ; and aside from this, no possible answer can
be given. " He was wounded for our transgres
sions ; he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chas
tisement of our peace was upon him, and with his
stripes we are healed. All we, like sheep, have
gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own
way ; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all." Is. 53: 5, 6. Christ was, then, our
substitute. He did suffer in our room and stead.*

* Dr. B. supposes that our Savior suffered incidentally; or
that his death was but an incident in- his history. He ex
cited the anger of the Jews, who plotted against him, and
took his life, p. 202. But the Scriptures look much far-
4

38 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
Otherwise, no reason can be given why he should
ever have suffered at aU. _, Reason as we may,
object and cavil as we may, " the Son of Man
came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many." Matt.
20: 28.
In pursuing what he cans the subjective view of
Christ's mission, and in further illustrating its
reforming power, Dr. B. begins with his obedient
life. This alone is " sufficient to change the des
tinies of the race." " It is a perfect vital force,
that cannot die. It must of necessity organize
a kingdom of hfe, and reign," pp. 205, 206%
More especially will the perfect life of Jesus
exert a controlling power over men, when regard
ed as the life of their Divine Immanuel. " Their
words' will be«sanctified by his uses. Their works
will be animated by his spirit. A divine vigor
from the Life manifested among them will pene
trate their feehng, elevating their ideas and pur-
ther and higher than this. They not only make his death
a Divine infliction, but carry us back into the counsels of
eternity, and represent it as having been planned and pur
posed there. "Him, being delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by
wicked hands have crucified and slain." "Against thy
holy child, Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod
and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of
Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy
hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." Acts 2 :
23; 4: 28.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 39
poses, and even their capacity of good itself,"
p. 207. When God appears in his beauty, as he
does in the manifested example of Christ, " the
good, the glory, the sun-light of the soul, the af
fections previously dead wake into life and joyful
play, and what was before only a self-lifting and
slavish effort, becomes an exulting spirit of liberty.
The body of sin and death that lay upon the soul,
is heaved off, and the law of the spirit of life in
Christ Jesus quickens it in good, and makes it
free," p. 212.
The revelations whieh God makes of himself,
through Christ, are, moreover, sufficient to allay
the fears of guilty men, to give them confidence*
"to chase away from the soul the demons of
wrath and despair, and help it to return to God
in courage." " And here," says Dr. B., " if we
desire to find it, is the true idea of Christian jus
tification," p. 214. We hope this passage wiU
be remembered. Justification, as here exhibited,
is not " an act of God's free grace, wherein he
pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as right
eous in his sight." It is not an act of God at all.
It is rather a feeling in the heart of the sinner ;
a feehng of restored courage and confidence — a
feeling of pardon, ingenerated in the soul by
what God expresses of himself in the loving ex
ample of the Savior.
The death of Christ is also of great use and

40 REVIEW OF DR.
power, to recover the sinner from his evU ways,
and give him confidence in the Divine forgive
ness ; or, in other words, to justify him. It is a
moving, melting subject. It expresses transcend-
ently the " Divine feeling ;" and in this, says Dr.
B., is all its value. " CaU what of this feeling
you receive the reality. AU else," in the death
of Christ, " is but the machina Dei for the ex
pression of this," p. 215.
t " But what, in this view, some wiU ask, be
comes of the law and the justice of God ?" Dr.
B. himself proposes this question, and he pro
ceeds to answer it. He discards anew every
thing vicarious or penal in the sufferings of Christ,
but still thinks that his mission and work had an
influence, in several ways, to honor the law.
Christ honored the law " by his teaching concern
ing it ;" by his " obedience to it ;" by " expense
and pains taking ;" and " by the offering of his
life as a sacred contribution." In none of these
ways, however, was anything done to sustain law
under the remission of its penalty ; or to vindicate
the injured authority of the Law-giver ; or to sat
isfy the demands of justice. Nothing of all this
was necessary. But Christ made the impression
in each of the ways above mentioned — more es
pecially in the last — that the law of God was a
good law, a strict law, a just law, a law which
ought to be obeyed, and for his disobedience to

" GOD IN CHRIST." 41
which the sinner must repent, or must suffer the
consequences of his sins. Thus Christ honored,
or (to use Dr. B.'s own phraseology) " reconse
crated," "sanctified" the law, and sent forth an
influence to draw the sinner back to his allegiance
and his duty. He sanctified the Divine law much,
as Lycurgus sanctified his iron code, by volunta
rily dying to increase its authority.*
Dr. B. holds that the chief, if not the only
value of sacrifices under the former dispensation,
consisted in their reforming power. God was in
no sense propitiated or pacified by them ; nor did
the worshipper regard or embrace them, as typi
fying the atonement of Christ. " He had no such
conception," p. 223. But "the1 value of the
sacrifice terminated, principally, in the power it
had over the rehgious character ; the impressions,
exercises, aids, and principles which, as a liturgy,
it wrought in the soul ofthe worshipper," p. 225.
To be sure, the sacrifices in Israel are often rep
resented as constituting an atonement, a pro
pitiation, and as exerting a pacifying influence
upon God; but to the mind of Dr. B., such re
presentations, as we shall see, are all figurative,
artistic, the Divinely contrived machinery of the
great tragedy of salvation.
* Dr. B. speaks of Christ, in one place, as a martyr. He
was " a pious Jew, just about to suffer martyrdom," p.
261. i*

42 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
Most Christians have regarded our Savior's
agony, and his exclamation on the cross, as indi
cations of the nature and object of his sufferings.
Having consented to become our substitute, and
to bear our sins in his own body on the tree, it
was necessary that the Father should withdraw,
for a time, the wonted tokens of his love ; " My
God, my God, why hast - thou forsaken me ! "
But this mysterious exclamation has no such
meaning to the mind of Dr. B. Indeed, it has
almost no meaning at all. It is " only the lan
guage of intense suffering ; an interjection, so to
speak, of anguish ; " " the common outcry of dis
tress. And to hold it in cool, historic, or dog
matic sense, is to violate aU dignified laws of in
terpretation," p. 230. What, then, must it be
to strip it of aU sense ; to reduce it to a mere
shriek of passion, an " outcry of distress ! "
Dr. B. has much to say, in one connection, of
the holiness and sacredness of the law, and of the
strong expression which our Savior made of this,
in his teachings, his life, and his death. But in
another connection, he uses a very different lan
guage. The " law, taken by itself, can establish
nothing. There is an a priori necessity, and of
course a historic certainty, that the training of an
empire of free beings " will result in transgres
sion, and in a consequent change of administration
from one of law to one of grace. " The law is

" GOD IN CHRIST." 43
an iron fence, that stiffens around thesoul. Will
she keep within her inclosures ? " " Or if she
does stay in her iron inclosure, only because it is
iron, she would seem to be governed in the good
she follows by constraint, which can hardly be
regarded as a state of perfected virtue. It is a
prudential, and even cringing virtue, more than a
virtue of liberty. Accordingly, we look for a
lapse, under [this first disciphne of law. Feeling
its bars, as the bars of a cage about her, the soul
begins to chafe against them, and so she learns
the law ; first, by attrition against it, and then
by bondage under it. This is her fall. Having
come to this, law, by itself, can do no more. The
cage cannot reconcile the prisoner. Indeed, the
law, urged home only by penalties, becomes even
a hindrance to his recovery. For it is the very
misery and death of sin, that it enthrones self-
interest, and makes the man a centre to himself.
And therefore mere law, goading him still by ap
peals to self-interest, only holds him to that which
is the essential bondage and mischief of his con
dition," pp. 239, 240.
We introduce this remarkable passage, not
with a view to any speculations as to the origin
or introduction of sin, but simply to inquire into
the justice of such representations, as to the char
acter of the Divine law. It is a hard law — an
" iron fence " — its bars " the bars of a cage, "

44 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL' S
against which the imprisoned soul " begins to
chafe," and over which, from an " a priori neces
sity," it must at some time break its way ? Is
such the law which Christ came to honor, or, as
Dr. B. says, to " sanctify ? " Is such the law
which the blessed angels keep in heaven, and in
the keeping of which all heaven consists? Is
theirs " a prudential, and even cringing virtue,
more than a virtue of liberty ? "
We inquire again, whether the appeals of the Di
vine law are made alone to " self-interest." They
are made, some of them (and so are some of the
appeals ofthe gospel), to our instinctive desire of
happiness, and aversion to misery ; but this is a
very different matter from self-interest. If the
appeals of the Divine law are made alone to self-
interest, we see not but it must be the very en
thronement of selfishness. The empire which it
constitutes is an empire of selfishness. And why
should selfish beings ever break over such a law ?
Or if they had broken over, why should they not
return ? One would think that " appeals to self-
interest" would be of all others the most power
ful in their bearing upon such characters, and
that such a law would be to them of all others
the most agreeable.
We have hinted at only a few of the theologi
cal absurdities involved in this offensive passage.
Our limits forbid that we should pursue it farther.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 45
The apparent object of Dr. B., in thus deprecia
ting the character and power of the law, is to
exalt, in comparison, the power of the gospel;
more especially the dying scene of the Savior.
" Before his cross, we feel ourselves weak in evU.
Into our angry spirit, chafing against the rule of
the law, there steals a gentler feeling. Some
secret centurion, hid in the heart's inmost cell,
whispers, " Truly this was the Son of God."
And then embracing as love, what we had reject
ed as law, or commandment, we do, in fact, ac-
'cept all law," p. 242. Yes, we now " accept all
law;" — "iron fence," "bars," " cage," " ap
peals to self-interest," and all! The object of
Christ's mission is accomplished in us, when
he has reformed us, brought us back to law, (the
law of self-interest I ) and we have become its
wUling subjects.
Here Dr. B. closes the discussion of what he
calls " the subjective view of Christ's mission ; "
and he immediately raises the question — " Is it
satisfactory? Is it the gospel of Christ?" To
these questions he answers that, " taken by itself,
it is not satisfactory, I could not offer it, as the
full and complete gospel of Christ," p. 245.
But why not ? " The sole object of Christ's mis
sion is the reconciliation of man to God ;" and if
we are to believe Dr. B., abundant provision is
made in the teachings, the life, and the death of

46 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
Christ, for the accomplishment of this object
The obedient life of Christ is alone " sufficient t
change the destinies of the race." " It is a vita
force, which must, of necessity, organize a king
dorn of life, and reign." When God appears ii
his beauty, as he does in the manifested exampl
of Christ, " the good, the glory, the tsunlight o
the soul, the affections previously dead waki
into life, and what before was only a self-liftini
and slavish effort, becomes an exulting spirit o
liberty. The body of sin and death that lay upoi
the soul is heaved off, and the law of the spirit o
hfe in Christ Jesus quickens it in good, an<
makes it free." And then the amazing reform
ing power attributed to the Savior's death, " Be
fore his cross, we feel Ourselves weak in evil
Into our angry spirit, chafing against .the rule o
law, there steals a gentler feeling. Some secre
centurion, hid in the heart's inmost cell, whispers
' Truly this was the Son of God.' And thei
embracing as love, what we had rejected as law
or commandment, we do, in fact, accept all law,'
p. 242.
. Such is the reforming power of the subjectivi
view of Christ's mission and work ; and whj
ought not Dr. B. to be satisfied with it ? Here
is set before us the sole object of the gospel ; here
is abundant provision made for the accomplish

" GOD IN CHRIST." 47
ment. of this object ; and what can he want
more ?
" I observe in the Scriptures," says he, " a
long class of representations, — such as speak of
the atonement by Christ, his sacrifice, his offering,
his bearing the sins of many, the holiest opened
by his blood, the curse he became, the wrath he
suffered, the righteousness he provided, — which
do not seem to have their proper, natural place
and significance, in the view here presented,"
p. 245.
Very well. All this is very true ; and what
ought the writer to have inferred from these man
ifold representations of the Bible ? Undoubtedly,
as it seems to us, that his own views, as to the
great object and end for which Christ came into
the world, were defective, as he freely confesses
they- are unscriptural. One part of the object
for which Christ came into the world, was to
recover man from his wanderings, and bring him
into a state of reconcihation with God ; and this
part of the object of his mission is clearly stated
in several Scriptures, — the same which Dr. B
quotes. But there is another and larger class of
Scriptures, which prove that this was not the sole
object of the Savior's mission. There were
obstacles in the way of a reconchiation, to be re
moved, on the part of God's government. The
claims of justice must be satisfied ; a full atone-

48 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'8
ment must be made ; a way must be opened in
which God can be just — just to himself, to his
law, and to all the interests ofthe universe, while
he pardons and saves the returning soul. AU
this the representations of Scripture abundantly
prove. Dr. B. admits that there are such repre
sentations — " a large class" of them. Why,
then, does he not receive the proper doctrine of
atonement ? Why does he insist that " the only
object of Christ's mission was to bring man back
into a state of obedience " ? Why does he thus
array one part of Scripture against another ; or
(what is worse) try to interpret *away " a large
class " of Scriptures, and so bring them into con
formity with the rest ?
Dr. B. further says, in reference to what he
calls the objective view of the ends of Christ's
mission : "I recoUect that around these terms of
grace," such as atonement, sacrifice, offering, &c,
" the whole church of God, with but a few limited
exceptions, have hung their tenderest emotions,
and shed their freest tears of repentance ; that
by these the saints and martyrs of past ages have
supported the trial of their faith; that before
these they have stood, as their altar of peace, and
sung their hymn of praise to the Lamb that was
slain ; and, remembering this, I cannot cqnvince
myself that they were wholly mistaken, or that
they were not receiving here, in the hving earnest

" GOD IN CHRIST." 49
of their spirit, something that belongs to the pro
foundest verity and value of the cross," p. 245.
Very well again. This is a true account of the
faith and feehng of saints and martyrs, and of
nearly the whole church, from the beginning to
the present time. But then it must be remem
bered that these saints and martyrs, these holy
men and women of the church, have all been
believers in Christ's atonement. They may have
differed in opinion somewhat as to the nature of
the atonement, but they have believed and con
fided in the thing itself; and they have confided
in it, not as an artistic show — the machinery of
a grand tragedy got up and presented for effect,
but as a substantial verity — the foundation stone
of the whole fabric of the gospel. Not one of
them could have said, with Dr. B., that " the
only object of Christ's mission was to bring man
back into a state of obedience." This was a part
of the object, but not the whole. As before re
marked, there were obstacles to be removed on
the part of the Divine government ; a way of
reconciliation to be prepared ; channels of mercy
to be opened, in which the abounding grace of
God might freely and consistently flow forth.
And now, if Dr. B. has so much respect for saints
and martyrs, and the holy of other ages, that he
is unwilling to dispense with a phraseology which
was inexpressibly dear to them, why not carry

50 REVIEW OF DR.
his respect so far as to receive the doctrine in
tended by this phraseology ? They did not live
upon mere phrases and figures, and imposing
artistic shows. It was the solid truth which sus
tained them. Nothing less could have sustained
them in the fiery scenes through which they were
called to pass ; and the man who has so much
respect for their language — which is the identical
language of the Bible — ought surely to have an
equal respect for the truth which this language
was intended to convey.
But Dr.B. sets no value upon a rigid consis
tency. He does not profess it, and hence it need
not surprise us, if he does not practise it. He
thinks the ^subjective view of Christ's mission is
not enough ; and therefore he proceeds to con
nect with it what he calls an objective view.
" All religions," he says, " have taken, as it
were by instinct, an objective form." " Such
was the religion of the Jews." It consisted " in
a scheme of ritualities, so adjusted as to work sen
timents, states, and, moral effects in the worship
pers, which as yet they were unable to conceive
or speak of themselves." " They had their
Edwards on the affections in altars, unblemished
bullocks and lambs, bloody sprinklings, smokes
rolling up to heaven, and solemn feasts. "
" There was an artistic power in their rites, such
that, in being simply transacted, they carried

" GOD IN CHRIST." • 51
impressions so efficacious in the production of a
religious spirit, that many, without the least con
ception of religion as a subjective experience,
were undoubtedly brought into a state of real
penitence and vital union with God," pp. 247,
248. The artistic machinery of the Jews' religion,
Dr. B. says, was contrived by God ; and by him
it has been, in a sense, transferred to Christianity.
" The sacrifices and other Jewish machineries are
gone ; and yet they are all here. Indeed, they
never found their true significance, till Christ
came and took them up into their higher use, as
vehicles of his Divine truth." " The sublime art
of Christianity is," indeed, " concealed from us.
We do not conceive it as art, _but only as a
didactic power, a doctrine, a divine philosophy.
Whereas a great part of its dignity and efficacy
consists in the artistic power of its form, as an
objective religion ; a religion for the soul, and
before it, so intensely efficient to operate a religion
in it," pp. 249, 250.
These extracts are sufficient to show our
author's meaning, in what he calls the objective
view of Christ's mission. He does not mean that
there is anything, in reality, to answer to this
objective view. He does not mean that Christ's
death is a real sacrifice for sin — a real atonement
or expiation — anything which has had an effect

52 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
upon God, or his government, to open a way of
reconcihation. He does not mean to retract
aught of his fundamental dogma (for Dr. B.'s
theology is sufficiently dogmatic), that " the
reconcihation of man to God was the sole object
of Christ's mission." But he means that this
" altar form of Christianity," as he expresses it
— this Jewish, ritualistic mode of expression —
this representing our Savior as a sacrifice, an
oblation, a propitiation, an atonement, is a sublime
objective imagery, contrived by God the more
surely and deeply to affect our hearts. It is the
divinely appointed, but wisely concealed art of
the poem ; the machinery of the grand tragedy
of salvation, without which our deliverance from
sin could hardly have been effected. The real
work to be done is all subjective — all within us ;
but then, this might never be done, certainly not
done so well, were it not for this imposing, object
tive imagery. Hence God has in mercy appointed
it, prepared it, and is employing it for our good.
That we do not mistake the real intent of our
author on this cardinal point, is evident from his
own extended illustrations. " The ground of
justification is subjectively prepared in us; viz.,
in a state, or impression, or sense " of pardon, as
before stated. " But we cannot think of it in
this artificial way ; most persons could make noth
ing of it. We must transfer this subjective state

" GOD IN CHRIST." 53
or impression, this ground of justification, and
produce it outwardly, if possible, in some object
ive form ; as if it had some effect upon the law,
or on God. The Jew had done the same before
us, and we follow him ; representing Christ as
our sacrifice, sin offering, atonement, or sprink
ling of blood. Now, in all these terms, we re
present a work as done outwardly for us, which is
really done in us, and through impressions pre
pared in us but the more adequately and truly,
for the reason that we have it in mystic terms be
fore us," p. 254. In other words, we impose
upon ourselves, and the Bible imposes upon us,
in representing the ground of our justification
without us, while it is really within us ; but then
the imposition is well contrived, and very useful,
inasmuch as, by means of it, our justification be
comes the more sure. So Christ is called " our
righteousness," not because he is our righteous
ness in any sense, but because of his " power to
regenerate character, and restore us to the right
eousness of life," p. 255. Also, he is said to
" bear our sins, to suffer, the just for the unjust,
and to be made a curse for us," not because there
is any truth in such representations, but because,
under the influence of such objective representa
tions, we shall be led, " with the humblest and
most subduing confessions, to deposit our soul
tenderly and gratefully in his mercy."
6*

54 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
The same may be said of all " the sacrificial
terms," such as " sacrifice, passover, lamb, blood
of sprinkling," &c, which are applied to Christ in
the gospel. He is said by John to be u the pro
pitiation for our sins," not because he really is
such, but because "by embracing him in this
altar form, there wiU be a simplicity in our moral
attitude which will favor the transforming and
reconciling power of his life, as no attempt to
apply him artificially and reflectively would do ;
therefore, with a more certain and deeper effect,"
p. 256.
It follows from these statements, that much of
the language of the New Testament, and that,
too, around which, to use Dr. B's. own words,
" the whole church of God, with but few limited
exceptions, have hung their tenderest emotions,
and shed their freest tears of repentance," is no
better than a grand deception. It is an imposi
tion upon our faith. God holds up as true, and
that without an intimation to the contrary (for all
the power of the fiction consists in its being con
cealed), what has in reality no truth in it, but was
only intended for effect.
When a tragedian or poet deals in fictions, and
employs artistic imagery, there is an implied un
derstanding to this effect, so that no one is likely
to be deceived by it. But there is not the shght
est intimation in the book of God, that the ob-

" GOD IN CHRIST." 55
jective terms, applied to the mission and work of
the Savior, are of this character. So far from
it, we have every assurance which language can
give us, that it is not so. Christ did " die, the
just for the unjust." " He is the propitiation for
our sins." Hence, on the ground taken by Dr.
B., there is a gross imposition, a deception here ;
and what is worse, it is a deception contrived by
God! For our author affirms, and argues at
length, that the machinery of this great poem of
redemption is all of Divine origin. " It is a Divine
ritual, for the working of the world's mind ;" " a
principal vehicle of Christ's reconciling power,"
pp. 258, 269.
When treating of the subjective view of Christ's
mission, Dr. B. attributed great power to his life,
his example, and his death. The obedient life of
Christ is alone " sufficient to change the destinies
of the race." " It is a vital force, wliich must,
of necessity, organize a kingdom of life, and
reign." When God appears in his beauty, as he
does in the manifested example of Christ, " the
good, the glory, the sun-light of the soul, the
affections previously dead wake into life ; the
body of sin and death that lay upon the soul, is
heaved off," &c. " Before the cross of Christ,
we feel ourselves weak in evil. Into our angry
spirit, chafing against the rule of law, there steals
a gentler feeling. And then embracing as love,

56 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
what we had rejected as law, we do accept all
law." Such is the power which Dr. B. had be
fore attributed to the hfe and the death of Christ,
contemplated and applied subjectively. But now
he says, " Christianity, set forth as a mere sub
jected, phUosophic doctrine, would fail just where
all philosophies have failed," p. 262. A man's
redemption can never be effected, while he is " try
ing, by subjective applications made to himself,
to foment new and better qualities in his heart,"
p. 263. "If the soul, then, is ever to get her
health and freedom in goodness, she must have
the gospel, not as a doctrine only, but as a rite
before her, a righteousness, a ransom, a sacrifice,
a lamb slain, a blood offering for her cleansing
before Jehovah's altar," p. 266.
Our readers will perceive the palpable incon
sistency between these two classes of representa
tions. First, the subjective view of Christ's mis
sion is exhibited as all powerful — " a vital force,
which must, of necessity, organize a kingdom of
life, and reign " — sufficient of itself " to change
the destinies of the race." But when our author
comes to speak of the objective view, the other is
regarded as quite insufficient. It must ufail
just where all philosophies have failed." A man's
redemption can never be effected, while he is
" trying, by subjective applications, to foment
new and better qualities in his heart." " If the

" GOD IN CHRIST." 57
soul is ever to get her freedom in goodness, she
must have the gospel before her as a rite."
And yet (if it will be believed) our author,
before he is through, turns quite round again, and
exhibits the objective view of Christ, considered
more especially as the ground of justification, as
without hfe, and as " narrowing down the gospel
of heaven's love and light almost to a superstition."
Christ " is regarded, not as power, but more
as a pay-master ; not as coming to bring us life
and take us to his bosom, but in dogmatic verity to
suffer God's displeasure in our stead, and so to
reconcUe God to us. Taken as he stands theo
logically represented, there is nothing given to us
of Christ which is closer to feeling, than that he
fills out a judicial machinery, and is good as a
legal tender for our sins. Diminished thus by
dogma, Christ ceases to be ihe life. We only look
to see how he brings us by the law. He is a
mere forensic entity," p. 344. It is not with
out reason, surely, that our author despises con
sistency and logic. A man that is so incapable of
either, might not be expected to know how to ap
preciate them.
But to return to his remarks as to the necessity
of the objective view. " If the soul is ever to
get into her health and freedom in goodness, she-
must have the gospel, not as a doctrine only, but
as a rite before her, a righteousness, a ransom, a

58 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
sacrifice, a lamb slain, a blood offering for her
cleansing before Jehovah's altar." This all
would be well, very weU, if there was any
reality in it. But according to Dr. B., there
is none. This " ransom," this " sacrifice," this
" lamb slain," this " blood offering for cleans
ing before Jehovah's altar," is all — I will not say
a sham, — but a myth, a fiction ; — a fiction wisely
contrived, divinely contrived, to give power to
subjective philosophic truth; and divinely con
cealed, too, that it might have the greater power.
WhUe men in their simplicity take God's word to
be true, and confide in it as true, " the divine art
hidden in it transforms their inner life ; and see
ing now their peace, not in themselves, where it
is, but in God," where it is not, " they rejoice"
in what they suppose to be the truth, but what
is a he — " that God is reconcUed, and his anger
smoothed away," p. 267.
What a pity that Dr. B. has discovered and
disclosed the benevolent trick which God has
been so long practising upon men for their good !
Does it not seem almost cruel ? Is there not rea
son to fear that henceforth the artistic power of
the gospel will be vastly diminished, if not in
great measure lost ?
Dr. B. concludes his discourse on the atone
ment, by congratulating himself that the view he
has presented " finds a central truth in all the

" GOD IN CHRIST." 59
principal forms of doctrine that have prevailed in
the Christian church, whether Protestant, Uni
tarian, or Roman Catholic." " At-one-ment and
atonement" he thinks he has been enabled fairly
to reconcUe. But now has he reconciled them ?
By representing the Unitarian " at-one-ment" as
being the real subjective truth, whUe the orthodox
" atonement " is no more than & powerful impres
sive fiction ; in other words, by embracing the
former, and rejecting the latter.

CHAPTER IV.
Review of Dr. Bushnell's Third Discourse.
We come now to the third of these discourses,
entitled " Dogma and Spirit, or the true Reviving
of Religion." This has been " recast," since it
was dehvered, and the import of it somewhat va
ried. It is an immethodical, heterogenous perform
ance, after all.
Dr. B. commences with the anticipation " of
some new religious era ;" not of revivals, of
which he entertains no very favorable opinion, but
of general religious quickening or reviving ; not
of doctrinal religion, but of spiritual religion.
Indeed,:he regards doctrine, theology, or what he
calls dogma, as the grand spoiler and corrupter of
the church.* It divided and weakened the prim-
* " Nothing, in fact, is so unsolid — no figment so vacant
of meaning, as that dead body of abstractions, or logical
propositions, called theology ; which, professing to give us
the contents of God's truth, puts us off, too generally,
-n-ith the mere exuviae of reason ; which extinguishes the
living fires of truth, to show us the figures it can draw in
the ashes." Dr. B. has about the same reason for his treat-
7

" GOD IN CHRIST." 61
itive church, and most of the evils which the
church has suffered, from those times to the pres
ent, are to be attributed to the same cause.
The age of the apostles was one, " not of dog
mas or speculations, but of gifts, utterances, and
mighty works." The preaching of the apostles
was " testimony, publication, prophesying, not
theology." " They had no theology at all, in our
modern sense of the term." Hence, their minis
try was one of power ; and " something hke it
will always appear, when religion casts off the in
crustations of dogma, and emerges into life," pp.
284,285. The reign of dogma commenced in the church
with the conversion of some of the Greek philoso
phers. These " teachers thought that they were
shedding great hght upon the new religion ; but
we, looking back, perceive a dark age just there,
gathering in upon Christendom. Dogma has
eclipsed the sun. Even the religion of Jesus it
self begins to wear the -look of darkness."
" Dreadful was the confusion that foUowed." The
church " took hell into her bosom, and fanned the
ment of theology, that he has for despising logic ; viz., his
utter incapacity for either. He may be a poet, a mystic, an
original thinker, (though he has vastly too much affecta
tion of originality) and a racy, pleasing, discursive writer.
But he had better not dabble with logic ; he had better
let theology alone. He never can be — he does not wish
to be — a theologian. 6

62 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
fire with her prayers till the fuel was exhausted,"
pp. 288, 325.
Luther corrected some abuses, but he left the
reign of dogma untouched. He did not restore
the ministration of the Spirit."* Hence, the
darkness which has since settled down upon Ger
many. And " we are destined to experience the
same shade of obscuration here, unless we let go
the reign of dogma, and ascend into the hfe of
the spirit," p. 293.
It is obvious from these quotations, that Dr. B.
considers " the reign of dogma," and " the minis
tration and life of the spirit," as incompatible.
The two cannot exist together. As soon as dog
ma invaded the primitive chureh, the life of the
spirit was quenched. Nor can the church now
come into the life of the spirit, and enter upon that
new religious era which our author anticipates,
unless she shall cast away her dogmas and return
to the simplicity of the apostles.
Nor have we yet discovered all the evUs of
dogma, as set forth by Dr. B. Being made a
test of fellowship, and a bond of union — a kind
of union of which " Christ and his apostles man
ifestly had no conception," — it has been a perpet
ual source of division and contention in the
church. " 0 this wretched babble of opinions,
* This is precisely the charge brought against Luther by
Munzer, Stubner, Storck, and their legions.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 63
mutual barricading of opinions, by which Christian
souls are forced away from each other, and, if
possible, from the hfe of God." " We go on to
talk, debate, measure, and judge one another,
and quarrel religion from age to age, without so
much, it may be, as one spiritual apprehension of
God, or of Christ, as the life of the world.
Opinions, deductions of men, logic, dogmas, im
potent and dry, discussed, debated, stood for by
some, rejected by others, yielding to none the
true food of life, — these, with such intermixtures
of strife and fire as are naturally to be expected,
constitue the history of religion,"* pf 338.
It was dogma which separated the churches of
New England, and brought in the Unitarian spec
ulations. Dogma is also a limitation upon piety it
self. " Dogmatic piety ! What a picture ! It
rises clear before you, and your heart sickens at
the view of it." "Calvinistic piety" — " Episcopal
piety" — " Presbyterian piety" — "a Quaker, a
Methodist piety ! " " What sight more sad than
to behold poor, unsuspecting disciples thus labeUed
* Is this fact, or is it fancy ? Is it truth or is it scandal 1
Where was Dr. B. brought up ? "Where has he lived ?
Fathers of Connecticut, the living and the dead ! Ye
Hookers, and Trumbulls, and Dwights, and Strongs ! Is
this a veritable history of your churches ? Is this a sober
and faithful account f Or has a son been reared up in your
bosom, and taken possession of one of your high places,
to reproach and slander you $

64 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
off, and standing up before God and men, as illus
trations of the extent to which mere human no
tions and conceits of the human understanding
may limit the freedom of grace, and distort the
beauty, even of spiritual life," p.346.
That we may form a judgment of these various
representations, and ascertain whether they are
true or not, we must first know what is meant by
dogma. What are we to understand by this oft
recurring word ? What ideas does our author
himself attach to it ? " Two elements," he says,
" enter into the notion of dogma ; first, an opin
ion, which is some decision of natural judgment,
or some merely theologic conclusion. Secondly,
the propounding or holding of that opinion, as a
rule to the opinions, the faith, or the Christian ex
perience, whether of ourselves or others," p. 301.
When Dr. B. speaks of dogma as a " decision
of natural judgment," he does not, of course,
confine it to the judgment of natural, unrenewed
men. A real Christian may form opinions on the
subject of religion, and hold to " theologic conclu
sions," as well as others. By " natural judg
ment," he can only mean that natural, mental
faculty which we call judgment. Accordingly he
speaks of dogma, in the next paragraph, as
" some perception, cognition, or judgment that
we produced out of our natural activity, as intel
ligent beings."

" GOD IN' CHRIST." 65
Our author generally use3 the word dogma, as
synonymous with theology. A system of theology
is made up of dogmas. He also uses it as synony
mous with doctrine. It is doctrine, when passed
beyond the simplest facts, the unexplained state
ments of the gospel history. Thus dogmatic the
ology is doctrinal theology ; and dogmatic history
is a history of doctrines.- The orthodox doctrines
of the Trinity, of depravity, of atonement, of re
generation, of justification, of perseverance, are
all of them, in the sense of our author, dogmas.
, And so his doctrines of the Trinity, of the person
of Christ, of atonement, of regeneration, and jus
tification, are equally dogmas. Dogma, whether
in his system or our own, is but another name for
doctrine. The second part of our author's definition also
requires some explanation. When he speaks of
our dogmas^or opinions " as a rule to the opinions
and the faith of others," the word rule must be
interpreted in a modified sense ; else " the reign
of dogma has long since passed away, at least in
the American church. There are those in this
land (Dr. B. among the rest) who have their own
opinions on the subject of religion ; who prefer
their own opinions to those of others ; who think
that the man who differs from them is in error ;
and if he differs essentially, that he is in essential
error ; so essential, it may be, as to justify a with-
6*

66

holding of Christian feUowship. There are those
among us undoubtedly who go as far as this, and
this is as far as Protestant Christians in America
do go. Where is the Protestant in New England
wh<5 thinks himself entitled to establish rules of
faith for his fellow Christians, and to enforce these
rules upon them under penalty of his sore dis
pleasure ? We know of no such among us ; and
if Dr. B. does, we can only say that he has been
more conversant with the reign of dogma, than
ourselves. With these explanations, which seem to us in
disputably just, and from which Dr. B. himself
we presume would not dissent, we are prepared to
turn back, and inquire into the propriety and ac
curacy of some of the foregoing statements in
respect to dogma. There was no theology, no
dogma, our author says, in the apostolic church.
Is it true then, that the apostles had no opinions
on the subject of religion ; that they held to no
system of doctrines ; that they came to no " theo
logic conclusions ?" Had they no creed, no partic
ular behef, in respect to Godj his character, pur
poses, works, and worship ; in respect to Christ,
his person, his teachings, his example, his death,
burial, resurrection, and ascension ; in respect to
the Holy Spirit, his personality, his Divinity, his
offices and agency ; and in respect to man, his
native character, his necessities as a sinner, and

" GOD IN CHRIST." 67
the method of his recovery and salvation ? Can
it possibly be true, that the apostles had no fixed
opinions, no doctrine, no theologic behef, on sub
jects of this nature ?
But it wiU be said, perhaps, that whatever doc
trines the apostles may have had, they did not make
them a rule to others. But did they not as really,
and as far, as Christian ministers now do in the
United : States ? They certainly had their own
opinions on religious subjects ; they knew what
these were ; they knew when others swerved
from them ; and if they swerved essentially, they
withdrew from them, as from those who had
" made shipwreck of the faith," and " brought in
damnable heresies." Thus far went the apos
tles ; and we see not but they were as really in
dogma, and as far in it, as ourselves.
And Dr. B. will not deny that the apostles
were in the spirit. Hence, dogma and spirit are
not incompatible. They may exist, for they
actually have existed, together.
And this conclusion is reached, not only (as
above) in the case of the apostles, but in thou
sands of other cases. Indeed, it is confirmed, we
had almost said, in the whole history of the
church. The most pious and devoted Christians
who have ever lived in our own country, — those
who have given the most evidence of being in the
spirit, — such men as Cotton, and Hooker, and

68 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
Shepard, and the Mather^, and Pres. Edwards,
and David Brainerd, — have all been the most
steadfast defenders of the doctrines of religion.
While those who have given the least evidence of
piety, — liberalists, sceptics, worldly, selfish, am
bitious men, who have had little more than a name
to hve in the church of Christ, — have been prover
bially indifferent as to doctrine. Their motto has
been, " No matter what a man believes ; creeds
are of no importance."
Nor is it true, that the decline of religion, in
the third and fourth centuries, was brought about
by a relapse of the church into dogma. For, in
the first place, there was no such relapse. The
church was in dogma, as we have seen, from the
first. In other words, the apostles had a system
of religious doctrines which they loved, embraced,
taught, and defended. And if any one departed
essentially from these doctrines, they separated
from him, and had no more fellowship with him.
That the mingling of Christianity with the
philosophic element was an injury to it, and a
great means of corrupting it, there can be no
doubt ; not because it produced a relapse into
dogma, but because it obscured and perverted
dogma. The minglings of philosophy corrupted
the holy doctrines of religion ; led some to pervert
them, others to deny them, and others still to
defend them, not always in the most happy man-

"GOD IN CHRIST." 69
ner. In the disputes of the fourth and fifth
centuries respecting the person of Christ, we see
much to pity and deplore on all sides; not
because there was observable, anywhere, a too
strict regard for revealed doctrines, but because
these doctrines were, by many, corrupted or re
jected, and by others, defended with improper
weapons, and in a cavilling and captious spirit.
But even this was not the sole cause of the
decline of religion at the period referred to.
There were other causes in existence, which prob
ably exerted a stronger influence ; such as the
increased wealth of the church, its unnatural
connection with the state, the changes which it
had undergone in its form of government, the
ambition and worldhness of the higher orders of
the clergy. These and other like causes of de
cline, had, doubtless, a wider and more injurious
influence, than any of a merely dogmatic char
acter. Dr. B. says, in one of the passages quoted
above, that " Christ and his apostles had no con
ception " of a doctrinal unity in the church, and
set no value upon it, p. 336. I3 this true ? If
it be so, what mean the following apostolic injunc
tions and exhortations : " Be of the same mind
one towards another " — ¦ " speak the same
things" — "be perfectly joined together in the
same mind, and the same judgment " — " be not

70

carried about with divers and strange doctrines "
— " hold fast the form of sound words which thou
hast heard of me " — " contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints " ? What
mean, also, the earnest endeavors of the apostles
to defend established Christian doctrines against
those which impugned them ; — for example, the
efforts of Paul against the Judaisers, who rejected
the doctrine of justification by faith, and against
the Gnosticizers, who denied the resurrection of
the "body ; the efforts of James against Anti
nomians ; and of John against those who disbe
lieved the proper incarnation of the Savior ?
" Many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist." 2 John, 7.
More especially ; if the apostles had no concep
tion of a doctrinal unity, and set no value upon it,
why did they direct their followers to withdraw
fellowship from those who broke this unity, and
departed from the faith of the gospel ? " Mark
them which cause divisions and offences, contrary
to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid
them." Rom. 16 : 17. " If there come any unto
you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
into your house, neither bid him God speed ; for
he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his
evil deeds." 2 John, 10 : 11. In short, on the
principle set up by Dr. B., how is it possible to

" GOD IN CHRIST." 71
ascertain what was the faith of the church in the
age of the apostles, or whether it had any faith
at all ? The history of doctrines during that
period has been laboriously investigated, and often
written ; but if the first teachers of the church
had no conception of a doctrinal unity, and set no
value upon it, it would seem that aU has been
written in vain.*
Dr. B. further charges upon dogma, or doc
trine, the fomenting of most, if not all, of the
divisions that have ever existed in the Christian
church. " 0, this wretched babble of opinions,
this mutual barricading of opinions, by which
Christian souls are forced away from each other,
and, if possible, from the life of God ! " p. 338.
Christian doctrine has caused divisions in the
church, much as it was said of Christianity, by
the Savior himself, that it would be a means of
dividing and distracting families. " I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and
the daughter against her mother, and the daugh
ter-in-law against her mother-in-law." Christianity,
in its onward progress in those early times, often
found its way into Pagan and Jewish famihes,
* Dr. B. supposes (absurdly enough) that the apostles'
creed began to be written in the first, century, p. 115.
But why was this (on'supposition it be so), if the apostles
had no conception of a doctrinal unity, and set no value
upon it ?

72 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
some of the members of which would be converted.
These converted members were as good after
wards as before, and even better, — more kind,
more gentle, more condescending and obliging.
But the unconverted part of the household are
disturbed and angry. They storm, they rage,
they threaten, they persecute, they set every
thing about them in confusion and uproar ; .and
now they .begin to curse Christianity, as a mean3
of dividing and distracting families, and as the
fruitful cause of domestic troubles.
In much the same sense, a love of truth, an
earnest regard for Christian doctrine, may be
said to be the occasion of divisions among Chris
tians. This feeling springs up, we will suppose,
and begins to develop itself — quietly, unobtru
sively: — in the midst of surrounding indifference
and error. No sooner is it perceived, than it
begins to be opposed, resisted, reproached, vUi-
fied. It becomes the occasion of division. " These
men that have turned the world upside down have
come hither also."
Or we may suppose another case. In a com
munity of Christians, all harmonizing in the truths
of the gospel, and prospering together under their
influence, some Hymeneus or Alexander makes
his appearance. He is artful, imposing, insolent,
puffed up with a concert of his own attainments,
and perfectly confident of the correctness of his

" GOD IN CHRIST." 73
views, and of the ignorance and error of those
around him. Proselytes are flocking to his stand
ard, and his " word is eating like a canker." If
now his movements are not noticed, unless it be
to approve and recommend them ; if he is suffered
to go on, with favoring gales, and accomplish his
work of ruin and of death, he wiU probably Jbe
very complaisant and quiet. But the moment he
begins to be opposed — the moment an effort is
made to unmask him, to resist him, to stay the
progress of his delusions, and save the community
from the evUs which threaten it, he is "aggrieved,
he is excited, he is enraged. " 0 the multiform
mischiefs of creeds, and confessions, and other
defences of the gospel ! 0 the divisions and con
tentions, the scandals and miseries, which these
things have occasioned to the church and world !
0 this wretched babble of opinions, by which
Christian souls are forced away from each other,
and, if possible, from the life of ,God ! " Every
one at all acquainted with the history of the
church, or with the genius of Christianity, knows
that this is the only way in which a love of the
truth, a regard for the holy doctrines of the gos
pel, has ever been the occasion of contentions and
divisions. How much of the blame of such divi
sions is chargeable upon the truth itself, or upon
the love of it, our readers will be able to decide.
Dr. B. charges upon " dogmatism," or a zeal
7

74 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
for doctrine, the introduction of Unitarianism into
New England, and " the mournful separation
which has taken place in our churches," p. 338.
But it is historically certain that the very oppo
site of this is the truth. Unitarianism gained
footing in New England, not from a too great re
gard for doctrine, but under the influence of a
criminal indifference to doctrine. We claim to
have knowledge on this subject, and to speak ad
visedly. Almost a hundred years ago, long be
fore there was a Unitarian in the country, or any
professed departure from the faith ofthe Pilgrims,
individuals began to prate against creeds, and
confessions of faith, and the examination of candi
dates for the church and the mmistry. The per
nicious sentiment was passed round from mouth
to mouth. " No matter what a man beheves.
The life is everything. Doctrines are of no im
portance, one way or the other." It was under
the influence of this feeling, that the churches of
New England were corrupted, and then divided.
First, there was poured in upon us a strong in
fusion of Arminianism, then of Arianism, then of
Socinianism, and, finaUy, of German transcend
entalism, Parkerism, and infidelity; the whole
choir chanting, as they passed down the steep :
" Away with creeds ; away with confessions ;
Por modes of faith, let graceless zealots fight ;
His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right."

"GOD IN CHRIST." 75
Dr. B. further complains of dogma as " a hmi
tation upon piety itself," p. 343. If his mean
ing is, that sound doctrinal influences tend to
check fanatical flights and fancies, to prevent ex
travagances, to sober the piety and zeal of the
church, and keep them in their proper channels,
aU this is true — very true. And not only so,
it is very important truth. A thousand examples,
mournful and deplorable, staring upon us from
the past, go to illustrate and impress its impor
tance. Even Dr. B. himself is not insensible of
the importance of the hmitation, in this view;
for he urges it as a reason why his recommenda
tion of the mystics is not hkely to be foUowed by
their " wild extravagances," that he " gives ample
room for a strong theological activity," and even
" raises a demand for it," p. 355.
But this is not the sense in which our author
complains of a limitation of piety. He means,
undoubtedly, that the influence of dogma or doc
trine is to restrain piety ; to obstruct its freedom
and its growth ; to prevent its fuU and symmetri
cal development. Hence, he has no expectation
that the church, in our own times, will become
more holy, and enter upon a new era of spiritual
hfe, until she consents to " let go the reign of
dogma," and becomes less attached to the doc
trines of the gospel.
Is it true, then, that Christian doctrine is a re-

76 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
straint upon piety, checking its growth, and ob
structing its progress and improvement ? This
certainly does not accord with the judgment of
some of the best and wisest men among us. How
often do we hear such men — venerable men — la
menting that the doctrines of rehgion are not now
preached as they were in former times, and at
tributing the comparative suspension of revivals,
and the present low standard of piety, to this very
cause. Now Dr. B. attributes these results to ex
actly the opposite cause. We are too doctrinal,
covered all over with " the incrustations of dog
ma," and these must be broken up and cast off, be
fore the church can " emerge into life."
As to which of these views of the subject is
correct, we think there can be no reasonable
doubt. Religion has always flourished most, and
been best exemplified, in connection, not indeed
with hair splitting and theological trifling, but
with a firm and consistent adherance to the doc
trines of the gospel. In proof of this there are
many examples. To say nothing now of the age
of the apostles, we may point to the era of the
reformation, which was eminently a theological, as
weU as spiritual period. We may point also to
the Puritans of both Old England and New.
We may point to the church of Scotland, in her
purest times ; also to the Revivalists of New
England, in 1740 ; and to the Revivalists of Con-

" GOD IN CHRIST." 77
necticut, near the commencement of the present
century. Dr. B. will not pretend that these men
did not live and walk in the spirit ; that they
were not, in the best sense of the phrase, " burn
ing and shining lights." And yet he knows how
much they were attached to doctrine, and how
ready they were, when summoned to it, " to con
tend for the faith once delivered to the saints."
And as it has been in past ages, so, obviously,
it will be, must be, in time to come. Dr. B. rep
resents the gospel as addressed chiefly to the
imaginations and feehngs of men, and seems reach
ing after an elevation of pious feeling which
shaU have no connection with the doctrines of
the Bible. But how is such feeling to be awak
ened ? And how nourished and sustamed ? Fed
for what ; and in view of what ? Unless the feeling
is perfectly irrational, it must be awakened by
moral considerations ; excited by some truth, pre
sent at the time before the mind. We see not
how it can be awakened, or how sustained, in any
other way.
We shall be told, perhaps, that pious feeling is
a fruit of the sanctifying Spirit. So indeed it is ;
but then how does the Spirit sanctify the soul ?
Not without the truth, but by the truth. " Sanc
tify them, through thy truth." " Now are ye clean,
through the word which I have spoken unto you."
" Christ loved the church, and gave himself for
7*

78 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water, by the word." Divine truth is
the appointed means, the prepared instrument of
sanctification. Christians are sanctified in thi3
way and in no other. Hence, take away the
truths, the doctrines of the gospel, and with them
the motives which these doctrines furnish, and the
gospel itself has gone. There remains to it no
longer a sanctifying power. To think of promot
ing piety, spiritually, " the life of God in the soul
of man," except in connection with the doctrines
of the gospel, is hke nourishing a flame without
fuel. Or it is like setting a fire to feed upon itself.
We have endeavored to show the extreme folly
and absurdity of setting dogma or doctrine in
contrast with spirit, and of depreciating the for
mer to exalt the latter. They are placed togeth
er in the Bible, and they must stand together in
the experience of every Christian, or his experi
ence is worthless.
And now, strange as it may seem, Dr. B., in
other parts of his discourse, takes much the same
view of the matter with ourselves. After having
ascribed the hfe and power of the apostolic
church, to its freedom from dogma, and the de
cline of rehgion in the following ages, together
with almost all the evils which have since afflicted
the church, to the influence of dogma ; and after
having represented the existing church of God

" GOD IN CHRIST." 79
as destined to dwell in darkness, " unless she can
let go the reign of dogma, and ascend into the
liberty of the Spirit, he proceeds to say, that it
is no part of his plan " to discard opinion, science,
systematic theology, or even dogma, in the best
sense of the term ;" and he goes on to " enumer
ate some of the uses that are served by Christian
theories, and the scientific forms of truth," pp.
309, 310.
In the first place, he says " they are of im
mense pedagogic value. They serve as school
masters, to bring us to Christ." Then, " a very
important influence is exerted by the catechetic
disciphne of chUdren, or their exercise in Chris
tian doctrine." Who would think that this was
the same Dr. B. who, only a few pages back,
was charging upon doctrine almost all the evils
and mischiefs of the world ? But farther ; " there
is a value in scientific theology, considered as a
speculative equipment, for meeting the assaults of
unbelief." " Were it not for this ; had Christi
anity nothing to speak of but experiences and
spiritualities, it would be disrespected by the un
initiated, as a scheme that begins and ends in
unintelligible vagaries." Again ; " Christianity
must be handled under forms of science and specu
lation, because in that manner only' can it form
a valid connection with truths of fact and philoso
phy." StiU again ; " Christian theology and

80 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
speculative activity are needed, as providing
checks and balances for the life, to save it from
visionary flights, erratic fancies, and wild hallu
cinations,"* pp. 310, 315. Finally, Dr. B. says,
and we are much obliged to him for the declara
tion, "I give ample room for a strong theological
activity, raising a demand for it even, by requir
ing that nothing shall be accepted as truth, which
is contrary to reason or true learning, as exer
cised on the Scriptures." " Do I then propose
to make nothing of opinions, to abohsh aU our
platforms and articles, and embrace every person
who pretends to be a disciple ? Far from this.
The recent experience of the Unitarians may yield
us a lesson of caution here," pp. 355, 341.
We shall not undertake to reconcile the views
here expressed with those which have been before
exhibited ; because we deem them wholly irrecon
cilable. The last, however, are much the more
scriptural ; though even these do not come up to
the full measure of Divine instruction on the sub
ject. Having now examined the positions of Dr. B.,
with regard to " dogma and spirit," and the re
lations in which they stand to each other, we
have, in fact, reviewed what may be regarded as
the substance of his third discourse. There are,
* A salutary " limitation of piety."

" GOD IN CHRIST." 81
however, some incidental points in it, and in other
parts of the volume, which, before dismissing it,
we feel bound to notice.

CHAPTER V.
Remarks on Miscellaneous Topics.
The first of these topics which we propose to
notice, is our author's manner of speaking of re
vivals of religion. If there is anything for which
the church of God in general, and our American
churches in particular, are bound to be grateful,
it is for revivals of religion. They commenced
in Jerusalem -at the Pentecost; they continued
through the apostolic age ; and they have been
enjoyed at intervals — sometimes, alas, at remote
intervals, — in all periods since. The revivals of
1740, notwithstanding their imperfections, were a
means of saving the churches of New England.
And for nearly everything desirable in the pre
sent spiritual aspect of our Zion ; for our large
and flourishing churches, consisting to a great ex
tent of young persons ; for our Sabbath Schools,
our missionary establishments, and our religious
charitable enterprises,* we are indebted, under
God, to revivals of religion. No wonder, then,
that the desires of Christians — of aged and ex-
* Dr. B. calls these enterprises which are blessing the
world, " legal, uninspired charities," p. 117.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 83
perienced Christians — are fixed upon revivals of
religion ; and that the burden of their prayers is,
that God would in mercy revive his work, that
they may see his power and his glory, as they
have seen him in the sanctuary.
But with such desires and prayers, Dr. B., it
seems, has very little sympathy. Revivals, he
thinks, " have spent their force." " Did we not
see them go down by gradations into lower
forms of exercise, and show, both in the means
devised to carry them on, and also in their fruit3,
what we could look upon only as signs of exhaus
tion ? Besides, they manifestly do not belong to
a really ripe and true state of Christian living, but
rather to a lower state, which we ought even to
hope may be at last discontinued. They are
throes, in one view, of disease ; just as God works
a .diseased body into health, "by intermittences of
pain and fever," p. 296. Again ; " a mere
reviving of revivals does not reach our case ; and
I do not expect that they will ever be revived,
unless it be with such modifications of manner and
spirit as to produce a different class of manifesta
tions, and fill a different place in the practical
dispensations of religion," p. 295. " What are
we declaring by our very sighs, unless it be the
fact that our revivals have brought us no such
fruits of character, stabUity, and spirituality, as
we may reasonably desire, and ought, for the

84 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
honor of the gospel, to exhibit? " p. 297. StiU
again ; " revivals, in the plural, such as our
friends and fathers stir us up to look for, carry
the implication, that we are to look for successions
here and there, in time as well as place ; and, of
course, that we set out with the expectation of
resting ourselves by another relapse into deadness
and sin, when it is convenient," p. 298.
We wiU quote no more, for the purpose of set
ting forth our author's opinions concerning revi
vals ; only adding that, on this subject, as on
many others, he has exhibited the rare faculty of
unsaying, in one place, what he had said in anoth
er. Near the close of the volume, we have this
remark : " As regards revivals of rehgion, it is
not any purpose of my discourse to object against
them* I only have a conviction that God is call
ing us to look farther, and comprehend more, To
do so is, in fact, the best method of preparing re
vivals, if that were our object ; the only method
in which it can be done effectually," p. 353.
In different parts of the volume'before us, more
especially in the third discourse, there are fre-
* Why then does he object against them? Why does
he say that they " have brought us no such fruits of char
acter, stability, and spirituality, as we may reasonably de
sire, and ought, for the honor of the gospel, to exhibit ? "
Why does he represent them as the "throes of disease,"
and as belonging to a low state of Christian living, " which
we ought even to hope may be at last discontinued ? "

" GOD IN CHRIST." 85
quent and earnest exhortations to Christians to
aim at a higher standard of piety, and come into
what is called the life of the spirit. These are all
very weU, and might be productive of good re
sults, were it not that their force is materially
abated by some connected considerations. One
is, that by depreciating the doctrines of religion,
and representing them as, in some way, hostile to
its spirit, the very nutriment of piety — " the
sword ofthe spirit," with which he operates in the
Whole process of sanctification — is taken away.
Holy feelings, holy desires, holy purposes, holy
endeavors, without any motive or object presented
in the truth of God, and sent home by his Spirit.
Is such a thing conceivable ? Is it possible ? But
we have before touched upon this topic, and need
not pursue it here.
-Another thing which detracts much from the
force of Dr. B.'s exhortations, is the misrepresen
tation, and even ridicule, which he puts upon the
views, the exercises, and even the prayers and
confessions of Christians. " In how many minds
is the Spirit viewed or received, through their
speculative theology, not as maintaining any so
cial, moral, endearing relations in us, but simply
as an abstract and dry agency — mere efficiency
running out from God's decrees, to execute them
in us by an ietic force ; or, at best, as an efflu
ence or influence streaming through us, which

86 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
does not shape itself, has no social consciousness,
but only works in the way of mere causation,
like a stimulant, or an opiate! " * p. 349. How
many Christians has Dr. B. ever seen, who would
not think themselves caricatured and insulted, by
having apphed to them a representation such as
this? In the following passage, our author sets forth
the views of (he says) " many" orthodox Chris
tians who hold the commonly received doctrine of
justification by faith. " They scarcely dare en
tertain the thought of a personal righteousness,
or to look upon any such hope as permissible. It
implies, they fear, some expectations of being sav
ed, not wholly by the merits of Christ. They
cannot even read or hear, without a little jealousy
or disturbance of mind, those texts of Scripture
that speak of assurance, liberty, a conscience
void of offence, victory over sin, a pure heart, a
blameless life, and a perfected love. They are so
jealous of merit, that they make a merit of not
having any. They are so resolved on magnify-
*The most offensive parts of Dr. B.'s book on Christian
Nurture, are those in which he ridicules the commonly
received doctrine of regeneration — instantaneous regenera
tion by the power of the Holy Ghost — calling it "the ictic
theory," and insisting that the children of pious parents
should be expected "to grow up Christians," knowing
nothing, experimentally, of their own regeneration, or
their need of it.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 87
ing the grace of God, as almost to think it a crime
to believe that the grace of God can make them
any better. They come before God in confessions
of sin, so extravagant, so wide of their own con
sciousness, that if a fellow man were to charge upon
them what they confess, they would be mortally
offended. And though there be no sincerity, no
real verity in such confessions, they think it alto
gether safe to include enough, because it strips
them of merit. Meantime, their standards are
let down to the lowest point of attainment ; for
if they deem it an essential part of their piety to
keep up their confessions, it wiU be somewhat nat
ural, at least, to hve in a manner to do them
some tolerable degree of justice," p. 345.
We will not stoop to point out so much as one
of the long tissue of misrepresentations — we
had almost said falsehoods — contamed in this
most offensive passage. Dr. B. may think it a
hght matter to accuse his fellow Christians of hy
pocrisy and mockery in their addresses to Al
mighty God, — of confessing more than they feel,
and then living in a way to justify their confes
sions. He may amuse himself and others, by de
faming and slandering his orthodox friends in a
jingle of words. But untU he can learn to treat
them better — to represent them more fairly and
truly — his moving exhortations and high rehgious

88 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
pretensions will be held cheap — very cheap.
They will awaken no feehng but disgust.
Nor are these the only instances in which evan
gelical Christians are grossly misrepresented in
the work before us. We give the foUowing in
stances, almost without note or comment. Speak
ing of the state of things among the reformers of
the sixteenth century, our author says : " All
judgments of men, as christian or unchristian,
continued, as before, to be determined by their
opinions, and not, in any degree, by their fruits
or their character," p. 290. Is this true ?
Again, he says of Christians, at this day : "As
we measure piety by formulas and opinions, and
put religion itself under their keeping, so we ex
pect, most of the time, to hve in the life of na
ture. We only expect to relapse, or fall back a
little into the dominion of the Spirit, on Sundays ;
and yet a httle further, when there is some special
movement, called a revival of religion," p. 292.
Is this a charitable or a just representation ?
Dr. B. has the foUowing remark in respect to
the discipline of our churches : " How often is it the
shame of religion, that a confessedly true disciple
is hunted out of the church, for some gentle
aberration of opinion, when many are endured in
it, who neglect every duty, and are known to hve
in a manner that disavows every spiritual relation,
whether to_ God or man, simply because there are so

" GOD IN CHRIST." 89
many persons assuming to be pillars in the churches,
who make a religion of orthodoxy, and find it so
much easier to be exceedingly mad for this, than
to be humble, gentle, and patient for Christ's
sake," p. 342. How often has Dr. B. witnessed
instances hke that" here described, — and occur
ring for the reason here imputed ? Has he ever
witnessed one ?
But we cannot pursue this topic further. We
pass to the consideration of others which require
attention. Dr. B. affirms that the bloody sacri
fices of the Old Testament were not of a typi-
cal character. They did not shadow forth the
atonement of Christ. The individual who offered
them even in faith saw nothing of Christ in them.
" He had no such conception," p. 223. " The
old theologians somewhat childishly conceived
that the types of the Old Testament ritual showed
the saints of that age the Christ to come," but it
was not so, p. 259. If we mistake not, these " old
childish theologians" were giants compared with
some who.make great pretensions in these days ;
giants in sacred learning, in their knowledge of
the Bible, in their " insight" (to use one of Dr.
B.'s favorite terms) into the very mind of the
Spirit. Why is Christ called our Passover, if
the passover in Israel was not a type of him ?
Why is he called the Lamb, and his death a sac
rifice, if the lamb of the sacrifice did not shadow
8*

90 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
him forth ? Why, in fact were bloody sacrifices
instituted at all, but to direct the faith of those
ancient worshippers to the coming sacrifice of the
cross ? Was there one way of salvation for them,
and another for us ? Were they not saved by
Christ, as truly as Christians now ? And how
could they be saved by Christ — by faith in him,
if they had not the means of knowing anything
about him? The apostle represents the holy
place in Israel, " in which were offered both gifts
and sacrifices," as a figure or type of the true.
But Christ, our great High Priest, being come, not
by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
blood, entered once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal redemption for us," Heb. 9 :
9-12. How any person can read the ninth and
tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
then honestly say that the bloody sacrifices in Is
rael were not types of the blood and death of
Christ, — appointed, designed to hold up before
the eyes of those ancient worshippers a suffering
Messiah, and lead them to put their trust in him,
we cannot conceive.
Dr. B. further asserts, that the death of Christ
exerts all its influences here on earth ; that it
was never designed to. instruct or benefit the
higher orders of intelligent creatures. As re
gards the effect of Christ's death, taken as a cen
tral spectacle in the universe, and designed to im-

" GOD IN CHRIST." 91
press the minds of God's other subjects, and for
tify his sway in other worlds, manifestly, we know
nothing of it ; and all that is advanced by our the
ologians in regard to it, is to be taken only as evi
dence that the traditional effects of the Ptolemaic
system continue for so long a time in theology, after
they have disappeared from the almanac," p.
217. Again, " we have immense masses of theo
logic rubbish on hand, which belong to the Ptole
maic system ; huge piles of assumption about
angels that have never sinned, and angels that
have ; about other worlds, and the reach of
Christ's atonement there, — which were raised up,
evidently, on the world when it was flat, and must
ultimately disappear as we come into a more true
sense of the astronomic universe," p. 314.
It will be seen from this passage, that Dr. B.
disbeheves the existence of both angels and dev
ils ; a doctrine as clearly taught in the Scriptures
as is the existence of God himself. But it is all
theologic rubbish " to him, based on the exploded
Ptolemaic system of astronomy, and destined to
disappear under the increasing light of astro
nomic science.
We see not what the doctrine of angels has to
do with any system of astronomy. Why is not
the ministry of angels as appropriate, -and as im
portant for a round world, as a flat one ; for an
earth which turns on its axis, and moves round

92 REVIEW „0F DR. BUSHNELL'S
the sun, as for one around which the sun is sup
posed to wheel its diurnal course ? At any rate,
the Scriptures teach the existence of angels, and
that the holy angels are deeply interested, and
greatly instructed, by the stupendous work of
man's redemption. Why should they not be in
terested in it ? When they see the eternal Son
of God laying aside, for a time, his heavenly glory,
coming down to our earth, clothing himself with
our flesh, and suffering, bleeding, dying in our
stead, how can it be that such a work should not
greatly interest the angelic world, and give them
new and transporting conceptions of the goodness,
the grace, the tender compassion, the long-suffer
ing mercy of their God ?
The deep interest of angels in the work of our
redemption was symbolically taught in the ritual
of the Old Testament, so that the pious in Israel,
who Dr. B. thinks were so profoundly ignorant,
had the means of knowing it. Else, why were
cherubim stationed on either end of the mercy
seat, extending their wings over it, and turning
their faces inward upon it, in a posture of the
most profound attention ? And why were the
walls of the most holy place covered all over with
carved figures of mighty cherubim ? The Apostle
Peter, speaking of " the sufferings of Christ, and
of the glory that should foUow," adds, " into which
things the angels desire to look" 1. Pet. 1. 12.

" GOD IN CHRIST." 93
The Apostle Paul, too, represents "the " principali
ties and powers" of heaven as gathering round
the redeemed church, that they may learn, by
means of it, " the manifold wisdom of God,"
Eph. 3. 10. And when we look up, with the
beloved disciple, into the opened heavens, we see
the whole angehc world — " ten thousand times
ten thousand, and thousands of thousands " —
bending with redeemed saints before the throne,
and singing anthems of praise to the Father and
the Lamb. There is, indeed, a song in heaven
which angels cannot sing ; but there are others
which they can sing. They can sing, they do
sing, and that, too, " with a loud voice," " Worthy
is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and
riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and
glory, and blessing. Blessing, and honor, and
glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever,"
Rev. 5 : 12, 13. In view of a representation such
as this, who shall" say that the blessed angels are
not affected, interested, instructed, impressed, by
the humiliation, the sufferings, and consequent
glories of the Lamb ?
As if to disarm criticism, Dr. B. forewarns his
readers that they " can run him into just what
absurdity they please. Nothing is more easy,"
p. 106. Nevertheless, he is kind enough to as
sure us, in another place, that " we are never to

94 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
beheve, never can beheve, anything that is really
absurd or contradictory," p. 160. Hence, if
there are any real absurdities, inconsistencies, or
self-contradictions in the book before us, it wUl
follow that no man can believe it aU.
If we mistake not, several instances of this
kind have been pointed out already. For ex
ample, Dr. B. in one place represents the sub
jective view of Christ's mission as aU-powerful to
move and subdue the heart. His perfect life is,
of itself, " sufficient to change the destinies of the
race." Such a character " must, of necessity^
organize a kingdom of hfe; and reign," p. 206.
But when our author comes to treat of what he
calls the objective view of Christ's mission, and to
set forth its importance, he says : " Christianity,
set forth as a mere subjective, philosophic doc
trine, would fail -just where all philosophies have
failed." The salvation of the sinner can never
be effected, while " trying, by subjective applica
tions, made to himself, to foment new and better
qualities in his heart," pp. 262, 263.
So when our author had set forth, at length,
the bad influence of dogma, or theology, ascribing
to it no small part of the evils which have afflicted
the church, he goes on to say that it is no part
of his plan " wholly to discard opinion, science,
systematic theology, or even dogma." These
things "have an immense pedagogic value."

" GOD IN CHRIST." 95
They exert a " very important influence," in
" the catechetic discipline of chUdren," &c, pp.
309-311. Also, when he had urged repeated objections
against revivals of religion, representing them as
the " throes of disease," as belonging to a low
state of Christian living, and bringing forth " no
such fruits of character as we might reasonably
desire," he concludes by saying : " As regards
revivals of religion, it is not any purpose of my
discourse to object against them."
But these points have been discussed already,
and we need not enlarge. There are other in
stances of self-con tra'dic tion in the book, if possible
still more glaring and incontrovertible. In some
places, Dr. B. represents that the Trinity, " Fath
er, Son, and Holy Ghost, being incidental to the
revelation of God, may be, and probably are,
from eternity, and to eternity," p. 113. Again;
" if God has been eternally revealed, or revealing
himself, to created minds,* it is hkely always to
have been, and always to be, as the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost," p. 177. But in passages more
numerous, our author represents the Trinity as
commencing with the incarnation of Christ : " Prior
to this moment " (the birth of Christ) " there has
* Eternally created minds ! A contradiction in the very
terms ! That which is created must have had a beginning,
and consequently cannot be etemal.

96 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
been no appearance of Trinity in the revelations
God has made of his being ; but just here, a three
fold personality or impersonation of God begins to
offer itself to view," p. 147. " There is no real
and proper development of the Father which is
older than Christianity ; and here the designation
is developed, in connection with the Son and Holy
Spirit, as a threefold denomination of God. And
this threefold denomination is itself incidental to,
and produced by, the central fact or mystery of
the incarnation." Consequently, it could not
have been before the incarnation, p. 167. How
is Dr. B. to reconcile these palpably discordant
representations of the Trinity? And what are
his readers to think or believe on the subject ?
On one page, Dr. B. speaks thus of the per
son of the Saviour : " The Divine is so far upper
most in him, as to suspend the proper manhood of
his person. He does not any longer act the man ;
particularly speaking, the man sleeps in him. It
is as if the man were not there." But on the very
next page, we have what seems to us a palpable
contradiction. " As to the unreal, super-human
human, that is, the human acted wholly by the
Divine," so as to have no action of its own, save
in pretence, — what is it to us, but a mockery ?
What can we learn from it ? pp. 126, 127.
But the most palpable of the inconsistencies in
the work before us, relates to the author's agree-

" GOD IN CHRIST." 97
ment with his orthodox brethren. He begins by
saying : "I seem to myself to assert nothing
which is not substantial orthodoxy ; — that which
contains the real moment of all our orthodox for
mulas unabridged. Indeed, I cannot see that
there is really more of diversity between the views
here advanced and those commonly accepted, than
there is really between Paul and John, or Paul and
James," p. 11. How is it possible for the author
to reconcUe this statement with his open dissent
from the commonly received doctrines of the
Trinity, the atonement, and justification by the
blood of Christ, and his labored attempts to refute
these great doctrines and make them appear ab
surd ?* Indeed, he admits often, in terms, that he
does differ from the accepted doctrines of the or
thodox. " This view of Christ and the Trinity
differs, I am aware, in some respects, from that
which is commonly held ; but I hope the difference
will not disturb you," p. 180.
But we cannot proceed farther in detecting
contradictions. Dr. B. represents this as an easy
matter (p. 89,) ; and certainly it is not difficult,
in passing over a work like this.
Dr. B. has much to say of the insufficiency of
" the natural understanding " to form a judgment
of spiritual things, and of the need in which it
* See pp. 130-136 ; also pp. 194-202 et alibi.

98 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
stands of Divine quickening and Ulumination.
He wishes to [see restored in our churches and
seminaries the theology of the second chapter of
the first Epistle to the Corinthians. He affirms,
in fact, the necessity of a Divine inspiration, in
order that we may understand the inspirations of
God. His remarks have impressed on us, that
this whole subject needs to be reexamined ; and
before closing, we must devote a few pages to the
consideration of it.
The views of our author wiU be learned, in
part, from the following extracts. " No man re
ally knows Christ, or can learn or be taught the
Christian truth, who is not in the spirit of Christ.
Words cannot bring it into the heart ; dogma can
not give it, in the dry light of reason. The mere
natural understanding, fruitful as it may be in
formulas about God, can as little see him, as a
telescope can overtake him in the sky, or a mi
croscope detect his retreating with the mites of
the world." " Spiritual things must be spiritually
discerned. We can know the things that are
freely given to us of God, only as Paul knew
them — by the Spirit that is of God. Therefore,
it is not in lectures or in books, not in exegetic
or dogmatic discipline, not in any and all other
methods, so truly as in the elevations of prayer
and the inbreathings or inspirations of God, that
a human soul may be truly initiated into the life

" GOD IN CHRIST." 99
and the doctrine of Christ. Theology, so caUed,
can really import into the soul none of the things
of Christ, or anything more than simply the shad
ows and images of them. Instead, therefore, of
spending the time, or so great a part of it, in col
lecting knowledges, trying opinions, and storing
the mind with cognitions and judgments, it would
often be far better to occupy many hours in con
testing with the sins that make a Savior neces
sary, and in those sublime realizations of his power
which reveal him as the inner light and peace of
the soul. Nay, it were better, if necessary, to
forego aU instruction, shut up the libraries, give
the weeks to prayer, shave the crown, put on hair
girdles, ordain a year of silence, — better, I would
say, to practise any severity, rather than to at
tempt the knowledge of God by the mere natural
understanding," pp. 331, 332.
By natural understanding, as we have once be
fore remarked, Dr. B. does not mean the under
standing only of the natural man, but the human
understanding in general — the faculty of intellect
— that which belongs to us all as " intelligent be
ings." And although no Christian will deny that
this has been darkened and weakened by reason
of sin, and needs to be enlightened, sustained, and
strengthened by an influence from above, still, it
is perfectly evident that the inspired writers re
gard it, and speak of it, in a very different light

100 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
from that of Dr. B. They represent the reason
of man as still a noble faculty, the possession of
which confers a high and solemn responsibUity.
It is capable, to a certain extent, of coming to a
knowledge of God and his truth, and of our own
duties and obligations, and is that to which most
of the instructions and appeals of the Divine word
are addressed: " 0 ye simple, understand wisdom,
and ye fools, be of an understanding heart."
" Why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is
right ?" " Are not my ways equal ? are not your
ways unequal ?" " Judge, I pray you, betwixt me
and my vineyard." To what, but the human un
derstanding and conscience, did Paul make his ap
peal, when he reasoned so eloquently before Fe
lix, when he disputed so long in the school of one
Tyrannus, and when he essayed so earnestly to in
struct the Athenians in the knowledge ofthe true
God ? To what but these have ministers of the
gospel appealed, in most of their instructions, from
those times to the present ?
If the human understanding is incapable of
perceiving Divine truth, why bring such truth
before it at all ? If it can form no correct ideas
of God, why give it any instruction about God ?
Why not desist, at once, from talking and preach
ing, and all further attempts at religious instruc
tions ; " shut up the libraries, shave the crown,
put on hair girdles," and devote all that remains

" GOD IN CHRIST." 101
of life to mystic musings, and monkish contem
plations and devotions ?
But we have said that the human understanding,
darkened as it is by reason of sin, does need Divine
teaching, illumination, and impression. And what
do we intend by this ? Not that man needs new
senses, or new revelations, or the gift of inspira
tion, or anything of the hke nature. We rather
need to have God's truth, already revealed, open
ed to us, placed more clearly and vividly before us,
and set home upon us by the Holy Ghost, that we
may see it, feel it, be impressed under its influ
ence, and yield ourselves up to its saving power.
This is the kind of teaching and influence which
_we need ; and all this is to be accomphshed in us,
not as a supernatural influx or inspiration, but in
perfect consistency with the estabhshed laws and
agencies of the human mind.
We shall be referred, in this connection, to the
second chapter of Paul's first Epistle to the Corin
thians, where the apostle says, " The natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,
for they are foohshness unto him ; neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discern
ed." These declarations of Paul we believe as
fully as Dr. B. can. We hold them to be strictly
true. But why cannot the natural man under
stand the things of the Spirit of God ? Why can
he not know them ? Because he is without
9*

102 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
faculties ? or because he has not, like the apos
tles, the gift of inspiration ? - Neither the one nor
the other. The principal reason, we think, why
the natural man cannot understand the things of
the Spirit of God is, that he has had no experience
of them. He has never felt them in his own
heart, and, consequently, he is without that spir
itual discernment of which the apostle speaks.
Why has the man without eyes no idea of colors;
and the deaf-mute no idea of the melody and
harmony of sounds ? Because the former has
never seen colors, or seen anything ; and the
latter has never heard a sound. Neither of them
has had any experience in such matters, and how
should they know ? How can they know ? And
just so of the natural, unrenewed man. He has
had no experience of " the things- of the Spirit of
God." He has never felt them in his heart, con
sequently he knows little or nothing about them.
" But he that is spiritual" — he who has had ex
perience, and has it now, — he is able to judge of
all matters of this nature.
" The secret of the Lord," says the Psalmist,
" is with them that fear him." The children of
God — those who truly fear him, — are in posses
sion of an important secret. It is one which
they cannot communicate, if they would, and of
which others can come in possession only by ex
perience. They' must themselves become the

" GOD IN CHRIST." 103
children of God, and then they will know. They
must " taste and see that the Lord is good."
In the previous verses of the chapter before
us, the apostle had been asserting his own plen
ary inspiration, which Dr. B. strangely represents
as necessary to Christians at the present day.
" Now we have received, not the spirit of the
world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we
might know the things which are freely given to
us of God ; which things also we speak, not in
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which
the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual
things with spiritual," 1 Cor: 2 : 12, 13.
There are two ways in which the opposers of
Divine inspiration are exerting themselves to get
rid of it, at the present day. The one is, by
discarding it altogether ; the other is, by making
it a universal Christian attainment, or rather one
which should be, may be, universally attained.
Dr. B., like most other transcendentahsts, is of
the latter class. " It is the total aim of Chris
tianity," he says, " to take us away from our
separate contrivings and wUlings, and the life of
prudence, and elevate us into a hfe of perpetual
inspiration, whose impulse and perfection are the
the pure inbreathing of God," p. 244. Inspira
tions are wanted, to prepare the Christian preach
er, as truly as the gymnastics of study. And is
there nothing here to be learned from the schools

104 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
of the prophets ? In these, we see the youthful
candidates for prophecy led into retirement ;
practised there in songs, processions, and impas
sioned acts of devotion ; exercised in symbols, and
the senses of mystic forms ; kindled by the lofty
improvisings of the seers and prophet fathers ; —
all that they, too, may be brought into the free
intuition of God, and become seers themselves." *
" True, the Christian minister has books to inter
pret, secondary knowledge to study and digest ;
but he can never take the senses of these holy
documents, tiU the inner light of the seer is kin
dled in him," p. 333. The import of -this pas
sage cannot be mistaken. The ^minister of Christ
should be a seer, a prophet, like one of the old
inspired prophets in Israel. " We have raised a
* It is well known that Dr. B. is a prominent candidate
for the Hollis Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge
College. From the above remarks, addressed to a company
of Divinity students, it may be gathered how he will pro
ceed with Ms students, should he be so fortunate as to get
the appointment. Of course, he will not teach them " that
dead body of abstractions, or logical propositions, called
theology" but will exercise them after the manner of the
old schools of the prophets. He will " shut up the li
braries;" " shave their crowns ; " " put on hair girdles ; "
lead them " into retirement ; " "practise them in songs,
processions, and impassioned acts of devotion ; " " exer
cise them in symbols, and the senses of mystic forms ; "
and, standing' up before them a " prophet father," wjll
kindle them by his own " lofty improvisings,''

" GOD IN CHRIST." 105
distinction," our author says, " under the word
inspiration, which is operating a sad depression
in our modern piety. We have taken this word,
practically in such a sense as cuts us off from
the holy men of Scripture times, and works a feel.
ing in us that God is now more remote, and that
it is no longer permissible to realize the same
graces, and expect the same intense union of the
hfe with God. Thus, from our pulpits we de
clare that there is no inspiration in these latter
times. It was confined, we say, to the times pre
vious to the canon of Scripture. At that time it
was discontinued." Such an opinion, Dr. B. re
gards as false, and of injurious influence. " The
true idea of Christianity, as a ministration of the
Spirit, is, that the disciple shaU be led out of one
moment into the next, through all his hfe, by a
present union to God, and a constant guidance.
Thus, whether he be a cultivator of the soil, an
artisan, a teacher, a magistrate, or a minister of
God's truth, he shall have just that-kind and de
gree of inspiration or guidance, which his calling
demands," pp. 350, 351.
We might quote many other passages from the
work before us, of the same general import with
these. But it is not necessary. Dr. B. discards
the distinction between inspiration and sanctifica
tion, and holds that every truly spiritual person,
whether in public or private hfe, is inspired, in

106 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL' S
much the same sense as were the ancient prophets,
and apostles, and writers of the Scriptures. The
same language which they employed to set forth
their plenary and infallible inspiration, he uses in
reference to all who are truly spiritual (as all
should be) at the present day.
Now it is not enough to say of such representa
tions (come from what quarter they may) that
they are unscriptural and untrue ; they are of the '
most dangerous tendency. They are so in several
ways. Suppose we were to admit that George
Fox, and Jacob Boehm, and Madame Guyon, and
Dr. Bushnell were as really inspired (though
possibly not in so a high a degree), as the prophet
Isaiah, or the apostle Paul. What would be the
effect of such an admission on the authority of
Scripture ? The Bible as much from God, and
of as much authority, as the vagaries of Boehm,
and of Fox ! How long would the Bible be re
spected and appealed to, as the only rule of faith
and life, if placed on a level such as this ?
But there is another view in which we are to
regard these modern pretensions to Divine inspi
ration. They constitute the very nit and root of
aU fanaticism ; and "there is nothing so senseless,
so base, so gross, er so cruel, into which deluded
souls may not be led by such an influence. Here
are individuals who regard themselves as under
a supernatural divine influence and guidance.

"GOD IN CHRIST." 107
They receive their suggestions directly from
heaven, and are bound to follow them. And now
what is there, which such persons may not be, I
do not say left, but led to do — to do vonscien-
tiously — to do, vainly thinking that they are
doing God service ? In obedience to such im
pulses, one man shuts himself up in a cave ; anoth
er mounts a pillar, another throws away his gar-
¦ ments, caUing himself the naked truth ; another
raises an army to fight the Lord's battles ; anoth
er destroys his family ; and still another destroys
himself. I repeat ; there is nothing which per
sons may not be led to do — there is almost noth
ing execrable which they have not done, under
the influence of a fancied inspiration, such as Dr.
B. thinks the high privUege of ah the children of
God. But this brings us to the consideration of anoth
er topic, (and it is the last we shall notice,) Dr.
B.'s predilection for the .mystics and quietists :
" I make no disavowal of the fact, that there is a
mystic element, as there should be, in what I
have " said. " Man is designed, in his very na
ture, to be a partially mystic being ; the world to
be looked upon as a mystic world. Christ him
self revealed a decidedly mystic element in his
teachings. ' There is something of a mystic quali
ty in almost every writing ofthe New Testament,"
p. 95. " I would recommend to Christian minis-

108 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
ters and students of theology in New England,
that they make a study, to some extent, of the
mystic and quietistic writers," p. 347.
Who, flien, it may be asked, are the mystics and
quietists ? The mystics made their appearance in
the church, as early as the second or third cen
tury, and they have continued in it, under one
form or another, ever since. Their fundamental
principle has been the supposed possession of
something Divine in the soul — called at different
times by different names, as a portion of the Di
vine nature, an inward light, the indwelling Spirit,
&c, which something, being awakened to activity,
is to be our teacher, prompter, and guide. They
have held, too, that the Divine within us could be
awakened, not by discussion and argument, by
labor and study, but by silence, tranquillity, re
pose, solitude, and by such austerities as were best
calculated to attenuate and exhaust the body.
For they reasoned in this way : " Those who be
hold with a noble contempt all human affairs,
who turn away their eyes from terrestrial vanities,
and shut all the avenues of the senses against the
contagious influence of an outward world, must
necessarUy return to God ; the spirit being thus
disengaged from the impediments which prevent
this blessed union. And in this happy frame,
they not only enjoy inexpressible raptures, but
have the privilege of contemplating truth undis..

" GOD IN CHRIST." 109
guised, opened to them, let in upon them, in. its
native purity ; while others behold it in a vitiated
and delusive form." It would be endless to men
tion all the teachers of this sort, who appear in
the church's history, from the pseudo-Dionysius
of the fourth century, to Madames Guyon and
Bourignon of the seventeenth. They have gen
erally been perfectionists, have despised external
ordinances, and have always been under the guid
ance of impulses, impressions, dreams, and in
ternal revelations, of one kind or another. And
these revelations have led them — as they always
do those who trust in them and submit to their
guidance — they have led them int© all sorts of
extravagances, both of opinion and practice ; so
that if one were to compile a history of rehgious
vagaries and monstrosities, no small part of it
must be gathered from the records of the mystics.
That there have been pious people among the
mystics, and that in some ages of abounding dark
ness and superstition, they have embodied most of
the piety of the church, we do not doubt. But
that they are always iU-instructed, erratic, fanati
cal, and altogether unsafe guides on the subject of
religion, we have as little doubt ; and why Dr. B.
should take it upon him to recommend their writ
ings, and by the influence of his name and pen to
diffuse their principles among the churches of
New England, we do not see.
10

110 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
He has no fear, he says, of " wildness and con
fusion from the entrance of the mystic element
among us." And why has he not? Are we
not human beings ? Have we not the same fan
cies, and passions, and excitable nervous sensibU
ities with others who have been led astray ? 0
yes ; but " I give ample room for a strong theo
logical activity, raising a demand for it even, by
requiring that nothing shall be accepted as truth,
which is contrary to reason, or true learning as
exercised on the Scriptures," p. 355. Thus, af
ter all he has said to the reproach of theology,
and to run it down, our author trusts to it to
make men cautious, and to operate as a check
upon mystic extravagances. He should remem
ber, however, that in such a connection it is a
vain trust; and for this plain reason: Sound
theology and mysticism can never stand together.
They are wholly incompatible. Theology is based
upon the Bible, strictly, soberly, faithfully inter
preted. It accepts this, and this only, as a stand
ard of faith, and a rule of life. But the mystic
has got the inward light, the impression, the in
spiration, which is sometimes professedly, and
always really, above the Bible. Of how much
force is a passage of Scripture in the way of a
man who is himself infallibly directed ? If he is
not inspired to throw it aside, he undoubtedly will

" GOD IN CHRIST." Ill
be to misinterpret it, and this will answer his pur
pose as weU. He is a seer himself, and his in.
ward light must be obeyed, whatever the old seer
or apostle may say to the contrary.

CONCLUSION.
The ground over which we have passed, in con
nection with Dr. B., has impressed upon us sev
eral important lessons, on which it would be easy
to enlarge ; but we must bring this labor to a
close. We cannot forbear touching, however, on
two or three points. One is, the danger of pur
suing, adopting, drinking in, the German trans
cendental phUosophy. How famUiar Dr. B. has
made himself with this philosophy, we pretend not
to say. That he has looked into it, is taken with
it, and has become to a eertain extent a receiver
of its dogmas, almost every page of his book de
clares. It has affected his style, rendering it
turpid, mystical, obscure. It has affected his
thoughts, his opinions, and may have led to most
of 'those errors in doctrine on which we have felt
constrained to remark. Nor is his a peculiar
case. It is but one among many. We have had
occasion to observe the influence of this phUoso
phy, more especially upon a certain class of young
men, ever since its introduction into this country.
Many who were for a time enamoured of it,
and infected by it, have since recovered, and

" GOD IN CHRIST." 113
now look back upon the dangers they have escap
ed, with mingled gratitude and wonder ; others
have been swept, it may be feared, finally away.
The first influence of the system (if system it
be) is usually to blind, and then to bloat. It is
a kind of knowledge which " puffeth up." Per
sons find themselves in a fog, where every thing
looks large ; and they fancy their ideas prodig
iously expanded, and themselves grown wondrous
wise. They begin to use " great swelling words,"
to talk obscurely, and to look out upon clear sky
and the simple reality of things, as unendurably
diminutive and insipid. MeanwhUe their coun
trymen find it difficult to understand them ; and
while some admire what they cannot comprehend,
others have the sagacity to look through the cheat,
— to see and dispise it aU.
We are wUling to learn of the Germans what
ever they are able to teach us ; and that they are
able to teach us some things — many things, — no
one of competent information wUl doubt. But
their speculative phUosophy, and their pantheis
tic theology, are exotics on these shores ; and long
may they be so. That the clear, practical Anglo-
Saxon mind should be obfuscated, befogged,
bloated, and half spoiled under such an influence,
is both a sin and a shame.
We remark, once more, on the foUy of attempt-
10*

114 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
ing, at this day, any new theories with regard to
the person and work of Christ. The Bible) which
is our only source of information on these sub*
jects) has been thoroughly canvassed ; its mean
ing has been sought out ; and we doubt whether
anything essentially new is ever to come up.
Dr. B. may have had the impression that he had
got something new, and of great importance ; that
he had erected a platform, on which Trinitarians
and Unitarians, Scholastics and Mystics might
stand together, compose their differences, and
start afresh in the Christian life. But it turns
out, on examination, that his theory of the Trinity
is but the ghost of an old heresy which hved and
died some fifteen hundred years ago, and has
scarcely had a reviving since. It is SabeUian-
ism, slightly modified, done over, clad in a pretty
new dress, and held up for the acceptance of the
church and world. On the connected doctrines,
the views presented are substantially Unitarian.
So far as there is any perceptible departure from
the current statements of Unitarians, the modifi
cation is chiefly one of phraseology ; or it comes
from the infusion of a mystic element, and not
from any remaining predilections for orthodoxy.
As to the influence of these discourses, we do
not expect any very marked results, one way or
the other. They wUl live and excite interest a
little while, and then pass away and be forgotten.
Unitarians of different classes will chuckle

" GOD IN CHRIST." 115
over them. Were it not for appearances, they
might shout a triumph. The author assures us,
that he is " in no mood of surrender" to Unitarians.
They will think, probably, that he has very little
to surrender ; and that with respect to this little,
it is quite a matter of indifference whether he
surrenders it or not. He will be able to do as
much for them, perhaps more, without the formal
ity of a surrender, as with it. In one view, the
discourses will be of real service to the Unitarians.
They will learn from them, better than they knew
before, how to use orthodox words and phrases to
cover up a Unitarian doctrine, and thus make it
pass current with the uninitiated and unsuspect
ing. Dr. B's objective view of the work of Christ
— his artistic representations — his machinery of
the grand poem of salvation, — wiU operate admi
rably for this purpose.
With the orthodox community, in general, those
discourses, of course, will find no favor. A few
ardent, romantic, transcendental young men, —
and perhaps more young women — may be inclined
to enlist under the author's banner, * and may,
* Dr. B. says, " it is no longer possible for any man to
think it a matter of ambition, to become the founder of a
sect," p. 340. We charge no such ambition upon him.
But already we begin to hear of " BushneUites, and Anti-
Bushnellites ;" and it would not be strange if such un
seemly designations continued in circulation for a time.

116 REVIEW OF DR. BUSHNELL'S
for the time, be led astray ; but with the great
body of the orthodox community, the discourses
wiU excite no feelings but those of grief and ab
horrence ; — grief that a gifted mind and brilliant
powers should be so sadly misled and prostituted,
and abhorrence of the delusions thus thrown upon
the world.
With regard to the author, we must say in con
cluding, as we did in commencing, — we know him
only from his works, and have no prejudices to
gratify, one way or the other. We question not
his sincerity, or the purity of his motives, in what
he has written ; we have to do only with the senti
ments advanced. These relate, certainly, to the
fwndamental doctrines of our religion ; to some
of the greatest and most important subjects which
ever occupied the mind of man. It cannot be a
matter of indifference what opinions are entertain
ed and put forth in relation to subjects such as
these. If Dr. B. is sincere in holding and cher
ishing the views he has advocated, we are as sin
cere in rejecting them. If he thinks them of great
importance, we as honestly think them of dangerous
tendency, of injurious influence. Hence we have
spoken plainly, though we hope not severely or
unkindly. If there are any appearances of per-
But they cannot extend far, or last long. They will soon
be swallowed up in the more general divisions of Evange
lical and TJnevangelical, of Orthodox and Unitarian.

;' GOD IN CHRIST." 117
sonal unkindness, they certainly misrepresent our
feelings, and are to be ascribed to (it may be) a
too earnest zeal for the truth ; certainly not to
any conscious bitterness of spirit.
In setting forth the views of Dr. B., we have
preferred that he should, so far as possible, speak
for himself. Hence, our quotations have been
numerous, and some of them long. For the sake
of brevity, we have, in a few instances, abridged
these extracts, but never so as to change their in
tended meaning. If it shall appear that we have
in any case misrepresented our author, we shall
regret the circumstance more than he can, and
wiU take the earliest opportunity to make repara
tion. It is painful to see professed Christians and
ministers of the gospel departing from the truth,
and laboring to revive exploded errors ; but then
this is no new thing, nor (in a world of trial like our
own) should it be accounted a strange thing. We
read of some in the apostolic age, who " made
shipwreck of the faith ;" and similar catastrophes
have been occurring on the great ocean of life
ever since. And shall it be thought strange that
they occur at intervals now ? " There must be
heresies among you, that thqjy which are approved
may be made manifest," 1 Cor. 11, 19. " Let
him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he
fall," 1 Cor. 10, 12.

118 REVIEW, ETC.
But amid aU changes, we have this consolation :
" The Lord knoweth them that are his." We
have this, also, that Christ is now on his mediatorial
throne, Head over all things to the church ; and
he will suffer no change to pass over it, and no
ill to befal it, which shall not be turned, ultimate
ly, to the furtherance ofthe gospel.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08540 0050