Ż--C-
º
* } , \ 7 *
ſ OAZ









BX
7235
, Sis
MISC E L L A NIE S.
MISC E L L ANIES
7// 3 ºf
CONSISTING OF
I. LETTERS TO DR. CHANNING ON THE TRINITY.
II. Two SERMONS ON THE ATONEMENT.
III, SACRAMENTAL SERMON ON THE LAMB OF GOD.
IV. DEDICATION SERMON.—REAL CHRISTIANITY.
V. LETTER TO DR CHANNING ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
VI. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AND POSTSCRIPTS
OF NEW ADDITIONAL MATTER.
sº
&
BY M. STUART,
PROF. SAC. LIT, IN TELE THEOL, INSTITUTION AT ANDOWER.
A N ID O V E R .
ALLEN, MORRILL, AND WARD WIELL.
NEW-YORK: MARK H. NEWMAN.
184 6.
Intered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by
ALLEN, MORRILL, AND WARDWELL,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
P. R. E. F. A. C. E.
THE present volume of Miscellanies owes its publication to
the frequent calls made upon me to publish it. Those parts
of it, (all but one Sermon), which had before been printed,
were out of print, and were often called for at some of the book-
stores which have particular connection with works published
in this place. To print in an ephemeral pamphlet form, I
deemed unadvisable; as did also my friends; and hence the
collection in the present volume of several discourses and
letters, written at different times, and called forth originally by
Some special exigency. The sentiments expressed in these
various compositions I still retain, after a somewhat protract-
ed period of investigation, study, and experience. I wish to
bequeath them to all who interest themselves in anything
which I write, as my legacy. I cherish a desire to give my
latest testimony in respect to the views which I have con-
tinued to entertain, concerning the all-important topics of
which these compositions treat.
Unity is of course out of question, in a book of professed
MISCELLANIES. Yet there is, after all, one point of unity,
or one bond of connection, which links the whole together.
The topics are such as constitute the very essence of the
great questions, about which a struggle so long and arduous
has arisen and been going on, in this quarter of our
country. They are, moreover, vital themes of Christianity,
Vi IPREFACE.
which must have an interest at all times and in all places.
No other apology is needed, for entering into a discussion of
them, or for publishing the results of that discussion, in case
peculiar circumstances render it desirable.
I doubted, at first, whether I should divest the various
compositions, included in the present volume, of all their
local and temporary costume, and give them the dress of
simple and absolute discussion. My deliberations on this
subject ended in the conviction, that what is local and tempo-
rary will rather serve to give interest to the discussion. In
fact, it constitutes so small a part of the whole, that I did not
think the remodelling of the pieces in order to leave it out,
was either necessary or expedient.
Some parachronisms the observing reader may easily de-
tect ; e. g. I have in a few instances interwoven with what
was originally addressed to Dr. Channing, facts or events
which have happened since that period. It is an offence,
perhaps, against the rules of strict rhetorical propriety. But
it was easier, or at any rate more agreeable to my feelings,
to say what I wished to say, in this way, than to load the
text with cumbrous notes. The reader need not put it to
the account of oversight. Any formal vindication of doing
what I have done in this respect, would be a waste of time
and words to little or no purpose.
The Supplementary Note to iºur*. and all the Post-
scripts excepting that to Letter III., have been written for the
present edition ; and are additions to the former publications,
which have cost me more labour than the original composi-
tions. Of their value and importance, it belongs to read-
ers to judge.
In respect to the Several Sermons, and the Letter on Re-
ligious Liberty, it is not necessary to say more, in this place,
PREFA CE. vii
than that the particulars which I wish the reader to know,
are elsewhere given, being inserted at the head of each of
these compositions. I need not here repeat what is there
Said.
If my testimony and my arguments in regard to the topics
discussed, should be of any avail in calling the attention of
intelligent Christians and citizens of this Commonwealth, or
elsewhere, to the all-important subjects of which they treat,
this publication will not be useless. Should they be listened
to in this vicinity, or in a still wider extent, and Christians
be roused up to a due consideration of the matters in ques-
tion, or be satisfied with the defence I have made of the sen-
timents which I have avowed, it will be an ample and the
best reward of my humble labours.
M. STUART.
Theol. Seminary, Andover,
May, 1846.
C O N T E N T S .
I. LETTERs To DR. CHANNING on THE DocTRINE of THE
TRINITY.
LETTER I. Principles of Interpretation, page 3–13.
LETTER II. Unity of God, p. 13–20. Meaning of Person, 20–29,
Nicene Creed, 29–31. Imperfection of language, 31–34. Council
at Constantinople in A. D. 381, 34 seq. Definitions of Person in mo-
dern times, 36–40. Nature of divine Unity and objections to it, 40
—46. Twofold Nature of Christ, 47–53.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO LETTER II.
Nicene Creed, 54. Brief Sketch of opinions respecting the Person of
Christ, 54–59. Modern attempts to define Person, 59. Examination
of them, 60–71. Christology of recent philosophers in Germany, 71
–74. Sketch of what might be deemed a proper Creed, in relation to
the doctrine of the Trinity, 74 seq.
LETTER III. Mode of Interpretation, 76–79. Testimony of Scrip-
ture, 80–145.
IPOSTSCRIPT TO LETTER III.
Examination of Dr. Channing's Note, added to the second edition of his
Sermon, 145—150.
LETTER IV. Human Nature of Christ, 151–157. Examination of
texts relied on by Unitarians, 158–164. Mode of Controversy, 165
Seq.
LETTER V. Mode of Exegesis, 167–172. Exegesis of special pas-
Sages, 173–175. Modes of evading the results of Exegesis, 176—181.
X CONTENTS.
German and English Liberalists, 182—184. Use of German Books
184—187. Ultimatum of Unitarianism, 187—190. Are the Ortho-
dox fairly treated 190–192.
JPOSTSCRIPT TO LETTER. V.
Progress of the Liberals in Germany and in this Country, 192–196.
Brief Review of Mrs. Dama's Letters in defence of Unitarianism, 196
–207. Mysteries of Arianism, 207—210. Humanitarianism examin-
ed, 210 seq. Union of two natures in one person, 211 seq. Oneness
of God, 212—215.
II. SERMons on THE ATONEMENT.
Introductory Note, 219. DISC. I. Explanation of the text, Is. 53: 5, 6,
* p. 219–221. Explanations of the doctrine, 222–231. Proof of the
doctrine, 231 seq. Philosophy not a competent judge, 231—233. Sub-
stitution no absurdity, and no new thing, 233—236. Justice of God
not opposed to it, 237 seq. Improbability of it cannot be shown, 238
scq. DISC. II. Brief-recapitulation 240–241. Principles of Exege-
sis applicable to passages of Scripture, 241 scq. Scripture proof, 242
—245. Objections against Atonement, 245–251. This doctrine fun-
damental, 251 seq. It offers high moral excitement to holiness and
virtue, 253–257.
III. SERMON ON THE LAMB or GoD.
Introductory Note, 260. Inquiry by whom the text (John 1: 29) was
uttered, 261 seq. On what occasion ? 262. Meaning of John's decla-
ration, 262 seq. Credit due to John, 263. Idea conveyed by the word
Lamb, 264 seq. Lamb a propitiatory sacrifice, 266 seq. Lamb of God,
268 seq, Taking away the sins of the world, 269–271. Proper use
of these truths by Communicants, 271 scq.
IV. CHRISTIANITY A DISTINCT RELIGION.
Introductory Note, 276. Application of the text, Matt, 18; 20, to be re-
garded as general, 277 seq. What is it to convene in the name of
Christ 3 278–280. Christianity distinct from other religions, 280
seq. What are its peculiaritics # 284 seq. Believing and trusting
CONTENTS. xi
in Christ as the Son of God and only Saviour of sinners, 285–290.
Love to Christ 290–292. Religious homage, 292—296. Obedience
to Christ, 296 seq. What is it for Christ to be in the midst of his dis-
ciples 4 297 seq. Dedication of Hanover Street Church to God, 298
Seq.
V. LETTER. To DR. CHANNING on RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
Introduction, 301 seq. Passages from Dr. Channing's works, 303—308.
Against whom are they aimed 3 308–313. First principle of true
religious liberty, 313–316. Second principle, 316 seq. Summary of
complaints against the Orthodox, 331 seq. Cross of Christ compared
with a gallows, by Dr. Channing, 336. Denial of charges against the
Orthodox, 338. Challenge to Dr. Channing to support them, 341 seq.
How others have been influenced by such charges, 342 seq. Orthodox
Creed, 346 scq. State of feeling among the Orthodox, 349 seq.
POSTSCRIPT.
Present state of parties, 353 seq. Cambridge University, 355 seq.-
Bights of churches denied by our Courts, 362 seq. Pilgrim Fathers,
363 seq.
L E T T E R S
ON THE
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY,
ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED TO THE
R. E. W. W. M. E. C. H. A N N IN G.
L E T T E R. I.
REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,
I HAVE recently perused a Sermon, delivered by you at the
ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks, in Baltimore, with no small
degree of interest. The subjects of which it treats must be
regarded as highly important by every intelligent man, who
is a serious inquirer after revealed truth. And if the views
which you have disclosed will stand the test of examination,
and shall appear to be those which the word of God main-
tains, or which it will justify, it certainly will be the duty of
every friend to Christianity to embrace and promote them.
I have endeavoured to read your Sermon, and reflect upon
it, without prejudice or party views. Unless I am deceived
as to the state of my own feelings, I have endeavoured im-
partially to weigh the arguments and examine the reasonings
which it presents, with a wish to know and believe the truth.
I dare not ſlatter myself, indeed, that I have perfectly suc-
ceeded in doing this; for every man who is acquainted with
his own heart, will find reason to believe, that he often has
been, and may again be, deceived by it. Will you permit
me, without further introduction or apology, to lay before
you my thoughts in regard to three topics of your discourse,
that stand in close connection with each other, and are among
the principal points, in regard to which I feel myself com-
pelled to dissent from your opinions?
The points to which I refer are: The principles of inter-
preting Scripture; the unity of God; and the divinity and
humanity of the Saviour. I limit myself to these three, be-
cause it would require more time and labour than I can pos-
4 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. I.
sibly spare at present, and more health than I enjoy, to ex-
amine all the statements of doctrines which you have made.
I might adduce another reason for confining myself within
these limits. If the principles of reasoning which you adopt,
and the results which you deduce from them in regard to
some of the points on which I am about to remark, are un-
tenable, or incorrect, the consequences of this must extend
themselves essentially to most of the remaining topics, which
you have discussed in your Sermon.
The general principles of interpreting Scripture, you de-
scribe in the following manner.
“We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's succes-
sive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most
perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doc-
trines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures, we re-
ceive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach
equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our reli-
gion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dis-
pensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider
as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted to the childhood of the
human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly use-
ful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scrip-
tures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and what-
ever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his
inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess
to make the rule of our lives.
“This authority which we give to the Scriptures, is a reason,
we conceive, for studying them with peculiar care, and for in-
Quiring anxiously into the principles of interpretation, by which
their true meaning may be ascertained. The principles adopt-
ed by the class of Christians, in whose name I speak, need to
be explained, because they are often misunderstood. We are
particularly ačcused of making an unwarrantable use of reason
in the interpretation of Scripture. We are said to exalt reason
above revelation, to prefer our own wisdom to God’s. Loose
and undefined charges of this kind are circulated so freely, and
with such injurious intentions, that we think it due to ourselves,
and to the cause of truth, to express our views with some par-
ticularity.
“Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that
the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men,
LETT. I.] PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 5
and that its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that
of other books. We believe that God, when he condescends to
speak and write, submits, if we may so say, to the established
rules of speaking and writing. How else would the Scriptures
avail us more than if communicated in an unknown tongue 2
“Now all books, and all conversation, require in the reader
or hearer the constant exercise of reason ; for their true import
is only to be obtained by continual comparisou and inference.
Human language, you well know, admits various interpretations,
and every word and every sentence must be modified and ex-
plained according to the subject which is discussed, according
to the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principles of the
writer, and according to the genius and idioms of the language
which he uses.—These are acknowledged principles in the in-
terpretation of human writings; and a man whose words we
should explain without reference to these principles, would re-
proach us justly with a criminal want of candour, and an inten-
tion of obscuring or distorting his meaning. *:
“Were the Bible written in a language and style of its own,
did it consist of words, which admit but a single sense, and of
sentences wholly detached from each other, there would be no
place for the principles now laid down. We could not reason
about it, as about other writings. But such a book would be of
little worth; and perhaps, of all books, the Scriptures corres-
pond least to this description.
“The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand, which
we see in his works. It has infinite connections and dependen-
cies. Every proposition is linked with others, and is to be com-
pared with others, that its full and precise import may be un-
derstood. Nothing stands alone. The New Testament is built
on the Old. The Christian dispensation is a continuation of the
Jewish, the completion of a vast scheme of providence, requir-
ing great extent of view in the reader. Still more, the Bible
treats of subjects on which we receive ideas from other sources
besides itself; such subjects as the nature, passions, relations,
and duties of man; and it expects us to restrain and modify its
language by the known truths, which observation and experi-
ence furnish on these topics.
“We profess not to know a book, which demands a more
frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the
remarks now made on its infinite connections, we may observe,
that its style no where affects the precision of science, or the
accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold,
1%
6 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. I.
and figurative, demanding more frequent departures from the
literal sense, than that of our own age and country, and conse-
quently it demands more continual exercise of judgment. We
find too, that the different portions of this book, instead of being
confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the times when
they were written, to states of society, to modes of thinking, to
controversies in the church, to feelings and usages, which have
passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are con-
stantly in danger of extending to all times and places, what
was of temporary and local application. We find, too, that
some of these books are strongly marked by the genius and char-
acter of their respective writers, that the Holy Spirit did not so
guide the apostles as to suspend the peculiarities of their minds,
and that a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences
under which they were placed, is one of the preparations for
understanding their writings. With these views of the Bible,
we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it per-
petually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the
spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the
writer, his true meaning; and, in general, to make use of what
is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering
new truths.
“Need I descend to particulars to prove that the Scriptures
demand the exercise of reason 2 Take, for example, the style
in which they generally speak of God, and observe how habitu-
ally they apply to him human passions and organs. Recollect the
declarations of Christ, that he came not to send peace, but a
sword; that unless we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we
have no life in us; that we must hate father and mother; pluck
out the right eye; and a vast number of passages equally bold
and unlimited. Recollect the unqualified manner in which it is
said of Christians that they possess all things, know all things,
and can do all things. Recollect the verbal contradiction be-
tween Paul and James, and the āpparent clashing of some parts
of Paul's writings, with the general doctrines and end of Chris-
tianity. I might extend the enumeration indefinitely, and who
does not see, that we must limit all these passages by the known
attributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human nature, and by
the circumstances under which they were written, so as to give
the language a quite different import from what it would re-
quire, had it been applied to different beings, or used in differ-
ent connections.
“Enough has been said to show in what sense we make use
LETT. I.] , PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 7
of reason in interpreting Scripture. From a variety of possible
interpretations, we select that which accords with the nature of
the subject, and the state of the writer, with the connection of
the passage, with the general strain of Scripture, with the known
character and will of God, and with the obvious and acknowl-
edged laws of nature. In other words, we believe that God
never contradicts, in one part of Scripture, what he teaches in
another; and never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches
in his works and providence. And we, therefore, distrust every
interpretation, which, after deliberate attention, seems repugnant
to any established truth. We reason about the Bible precisely
as civilians do about the constitution under which we live; who,
you know, are accustomed to limit one provision of that vener-
able instrument by others, and to fix the precise import of its
parts by inquiring into its general spirit, into the intentions of
its authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and cir-
cumstances of the time when it was framed. Without these
principles of interpretation, we frankly acknowledge, that we
cannot defend the divine authority of the Scriptures. Deny us
this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its enemies.”
pp. 3–6.
To a great part of these principles, I give my cheerful and
most cordial assent. They are the principles which I apply
to the explanation of the Scriptures, from day to day, in my
private studies and in my public labours. They are the prin-
ciples, by which I am conducted to the opinions that I have
espoused ; and by which, so far as I am able, I expect to de-
fend these opinions, whenever called in duty to d6 it.
While I thus give my cordial approbation to most of the
above extract from your Sermon, will you indulge me in
expressing a wish, that the rank and value of the Old Testa-
ment, in the Christian’s library, had been described in some-
what different terms? I do most fully accord with the idea,
that the gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than
the Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament. On what other
ground can the assertions of Paul in 2 Cor. iii, in Heb. viii,
and in other places, be believed or justified? The gospel
gives a clearer view than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty
and of our destiny; of the objects of our hopes and fears; of
8. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. . [LETT. I.
the character of God and the way of salvation. I agree
fully, that whatever in the Old Testament respects the Jews
simply as Jews—e.g. their ritual, their food, their dress,
their civil polity, their government, and (in a word) what-
ever from its nature was national and local—is not binding
upon us under the Christian dispensation.
I am well satisfied, too, that the character of God and the
duty of men were, in many respects, less clearly revealed
under the ancient dispensation. “ The law was given by
Moses;” yet “no man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten, who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, he hath
nevealed him.” In other words, it was reserved for Christ to
make a full display of the divine character; no mere man
ever had such a knowledge of God as enabled him to do it.
I am aware that many Christians do not seem to understand
this passage; and, with well meaning but mistaken views,
deduce the character and designs of God as fully and as clear-
ly from the Old Testament as from the New.”
I must believe too, that the duties of Christians are, in
most things, more fully and definitely taught in the gospel
than in the Old Testament; and I cannot approve of that
method of reasoning, which deduces our duties principally
from texts in the Old Testament that sometimes are less
clear, when the New Testament presents the same subjects
in such characters of light that he who runneth may read.
But when you say: “Jesus Christ is the only master of
Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his person-
al ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine
authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives;” does
not this naturally imply, that we are absolved from obliga-
tion to receive the Old Testament, in any sense, as our
guide; and that what it teaches, we are not bound “to make
the rule of our lives?” I do not feel certain that it was your
* For more ample views of this interesting topic, I would refer the
reader to the little work which I have recently published, entitled Criti-
cal History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, p. 385 sq.
LETT. I.] PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. - 9
design to affirm this; but the words, in their connection,
seem naturally to bear this import. To such a view I should
oppose the consideration, that those parts of the Old Testa-
ment, which express the will of God in reference to the great
points of duty, that must from the nature of moral beings be
forever the same under every dispensation, may be, and
ought to be, regarded as unrepealed. There is a very sound
maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human laws,
which runs thus: Manente ratione, manet psa leac, i. e. a law
is unrepealed, while the reason of that law continues. Only
express repeal can exempt a law from the application of this
maxim. And when our Saviour says: “ Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
till all be fulfilled,” he seems to me to have plainly declared
the immutability of the ancient moral law, in the sense al-
ready explained. -
What shall we say, moreover, of the devotional parts of
the Old Testament, of the book of Psalms, for example 7
And what of those numerous prophetical parts, which are
Sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or predictions
of a future Messiah and of the nature and prosperity of his
church 2 Are these any more Jewish, (except as to the garb
in which they are clothed), than Christian P I admit that
they are all less perfect, than that which the New Testament
furnishes on the same topics, inasmuch as this is an account of
the fulfilment of ancient prophecies; but I believe both to
be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar
respect and deference.
In regard to what follows, in the passage above quoted, I
cannot hesitate to say, that nothing is clearer to my appre-
hension, than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in
language which is used by those whom he addresses. Of
course, the language of the Bible is to be interpreted by the
same laws, so far as philology is concerned, as that of any
other book. I ask, with you : How else is the Bible a revela-
tion ? How else can men ever come to agree in what man-
ner the Scripture should be interpreted, or feel any as-
10 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. I.
surance that they have attained to the meaning of its lan-
guage? -
I find little from which I should dissent, in the remainder .
of your observations upon the principles of interpretation. I
might, perhaps, make some objection to the manner, in which
the office of reason in the interpretation of Scripture is occa-
sionally described. But I am confident, that I admit as fully
as you do or can do, the proper office of reason, in the whole
matter of religion, both in regard to doctrine and practice.
It is to our reason, that the arguments which prove the divine
origin of Christianity are addressed; and it is by reason that
we prove or admit this origin, on general historical grounds.
Reason prescribes, or at any rate developes and sanctions,
the laws of interpreting Scripture. The cases mentioned by
you, in which reason must be exercised, are, in general, strik-
ing exemplifications of this. But when reason is satisfied
that the Bible is the book of God, by proof which she cannot
reject, and yet preserve her character; and when she has
decided what laws of exegesis the nature of human language
requires; the office which remains for her, in regard to the
Scripture, is the application of those laws to the actual inter-
pretation of the Bible. When by their application she be-
comes satisfied in respect to what the sacred writers really
meant, in any case, she receives it without hesitation, whether
it relates to a doctrine, a fact, or a precept. It is the high-
est office of reason to believe doctrines and facts which God
has asserted to be true, and to obey his precepts; although
many things in regard to the manner in which those facts
and doctrines can be explained, or those precepts vindicated,
may be beyond her reach. In short, the Scriptures once
being admitted to be the word of God, or of divine authority,
the sole office of reason in respect to them is to act as the
&nterpreter of Revelation, and not in any case as a legislator.”
* It is evident from the later writings of Dr. Channing, that he ad-
mitted the divine authority of the Old Testament only in a very limited
and qualified sense. Of the New Testament he would doubtless have
said: ‘It contains the word of God;’ but not: ‘It is the word of God.”
LETT. I.] PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 1].
Reason can only judge of the appropriate laws of exegesis,
and direct the application of them in order to discover simply
what the sacred writers meant to assert. This being discov-
ered, it is either to be received simply as they have asserted
it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our obliga-
tion to believe all which they assert must be denied. There
is no other alternative. Philosophy has no right to interfere
here. If she ever interferes, it must be when the question is
pending, whether the Bible is divine. Nor has system, pre-
judice, sectarian feeling, orthodoxy or heterodoxy so called,
any right to interfere. The claims of the Bible to be author-
itative once being admitted, the simple question is: What
does it teach 2 Of any particular passage we have only to
ask: What idea did the original writer mean to convey 2
When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpre-
tation, it is authoritative. It is orthodoxy in the highest and
best sense of the word; and everything which differs from it,
which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is hetero-
dowy, is heresy; to whatever name or party it is attached.
I hope you will agree, without hesitation, to these remarks.
The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible is the only and
sufficient rule of faith and practice, implies most clearly the
very same principles which I have stated; and which every
man must admit, who acknowledges the paramount claims of
the Bible to be believed, and has any tolerable acquaintance
with the subject of its interpretation.
If there be anything in your statement, generally consid-
ered, of the laws of interpretation, to which I object, it belongs
mostly to the colouring which has been given to some of your
language. You commence with saying, that your party are
charged with “exalting reason above revelation;” with “pre-
ferring their own wisdom to God’s ;” and that “these charges
are circulated freely and with injurious intentions.” You
In the first case, only so much is admitted to be authoritative, as agrees
With our views of what is reasonable; in the second case, the Scripture
is acknowledged as the only rule of faith and practice.
*
12 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. I.
will readily acknowledge, as a general fact, that there is some
difficulty in giving an impartial statement of opinions, which
we very strongly feel to have been misrepresented. We
certainly are under temptation, in such cases, to set off our
own opinions to the best advantage, and to place those of our
opponents in the most repulsive attitude, And although
Trinitarians, in fact, differ less from you in respect to the
laws of interpretation, than you seem to have apprehended,
yet the belief, on your part, that a wide difference exists,
seems to have given a peculiar cast to some of your sen-
tences, which simple and unimpassioned discussion would
hardly admit. -
With the last two paragraphs of your Sermon, that are
quoted above, I wish not to be understood as signifying that I
entirely agree. It is, however, rather the application of some
exegetical principles which is made in them, than the princi-
ples themselves, from which I dissent. I shall have occasion
to remark hereafter on this subject. I have mentioned it
now, merely to prevent any mistake with regard to the
meaning of what I say here, respecting the laws of interpre-
tation as exhibited by you.
It would have given me pleasure, to find you unconditionally
admitting that the principles of interpretation which you de-
fend, are not original, nor peculiar to your party. But you
seem to qualify this by saying, that “all Christians OCCA-
SIONALLY adopt them.” If I understand you rightly, then,
you would admit, that only Unitarians receive the whole sys-
tem of exegesis which you have described, and practise upon it.
In this however, if this be your meaning, you are mistaken,
in case you speak only of leading principles; at least it ap-
pears plainly so to me, in respect to the great mass of New
England divines, who at the present time are called orthodoac.
I doubt whether any man can study the science of interpreta-
tion, for a considerable time together, without adopting those
principles for substance, which you seem to claim appropri-
ately (as a whole) for Unitarians. I speak not, of course, of
LETT. II.j UNITY OF GOD. 13
particular and occasional applications of these principles by
Unitarians; to which, in certain cases, the orthodox can by
no meanS aSSent. *.
How can it be explained, then, supposing that you and I
are both sincerely seeking after truth, and that both adopt for
substance the same maxims of interpretation, that we should
differ so widely in the results that flow from the application
40f these principles 2 Perhaps some light may be cast upon,
this question in the sequel of these letters.
L E T T E R II.
REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,
It would be very gratifying to find, in your Sermon, as
much respecting the doctrine of the Trinity with which I
might accord, as in your principles of interpretation. My
apprehensions respecting this doctrine, however, differ from
yours. It is not without some examination and reflection,
that I have embraced my present views of it; and the peru-
sal of your statement of the doctrine in question, and your
arguments against it, have not persuaded me that my views
3.1°C 61'I'OneOUIS.
You will not expect me, however, in these letters, which
are intended to be brief, to go into a discussion of this great
subject, which shall embrace all the important topics which it
presents. I intend to touch on those points only, on which
the hinge of the controversy seems to me to turn; and on
these, only in a manner as summary as the nature and diffi-
culty of the case will permit.
The statement which you make of your own faith in re-
gard to the unity of God, and your account of the doctrine
of the Trinity, are as follows:—
“First. We believe in the doctrine of GoD's UNITY, or that
2
14 TJNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II.
there is one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite
importance, and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any
man spoil us of it by vain philosophy. The proposition that
there is one God seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand
by it, that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelli-
gent agent, and one only, to whom underived and infinite per-
fection and dominion belong. We conceive, that these words
could have conveyed no other meaning to the simple and uncul-
tivated people who were set apart to be the depositaries of this
great truth, and who were utterly incapable of understanding'
those hair breadth distinctions between being and person, which
the sagacity of latter ages has discovered. We find no intima-
tion, that this language was to be taken in an unusual sense, or
that God’s unity was a quite different thing from the oneness of
other intelligent beings.
“We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the
unity of God. According to this doctrine there are three infinite
and equal persons, possessing Supreme divinity, called the Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described
by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and
perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other,
and delight in each other's society. They perform different parts
in man’s redemption, each having his appropriate office, and
neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator, and
not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself
sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here
them, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different con-
sciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, perform-
ing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these
things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we
are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to
be formed. It is difference of properties, and acts, and con-
sciousness, which leads us to the belief of different intelligent
beings, and if this mark fail us, our whole knowledge fails; we
have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the universe are
not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of
three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves
three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks
and peculiarities to those, which separate the persons of the
Trinity; and when common Christians hear these persons
spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and
performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as
different beings, different minds P-pp. 8, 9.
LETT. II.] UNITY OF GOD. 15
My object in this letter, is not so much to controvert your
creed, as to remark on your exposition of the doctrine of the
Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended, by those with
whom I am accustomed to think and act.
Admitting that you have given a fair account of our belief;
I cannot see, indeed, why we are not virtually guilty of Tri-
theism, or at least of something which approximates so near
to it, that I acknowledge myself unable to distinguish it from
Tritheism. But I cannot help feeling, that you have made
neither an impartial, nor a correct, statement of what we be-
lieve, and what we are accustomed to teach and defend.
It needs but a moderate acquaintance with the history of
the doctrine in question, to satisfy any one, that a great vari-
ety of explanations have been attempted by inquisitive, or by
adventurous minds. All acknowledge the difficulty of the
subject; I regret to say, that some have not refrained from
treating it, as though it were more within their comprehension
than it is.
But among all the different explanations, which I have
found, I have not met with any one which denied, or at least
was designed to deny, the UNITY OF GOD. All admit this to
be a fundamental principle. All acknowledge that it is de-
signated in characters of light, both in the Jewish and Chris-
tian revelations; and that to deny it would be the grossest
absurdity, as well as impiety.
It may indeed be questioned, whether the explanations
given of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some who have specu-
lated on this subject, are consistent with the divine unity,
when the language which they use is interpreted agreeably to
the common laws of exegesis. But that their representations
were not designed to call in question the divine unity, is what
I think every candid reader of their works will be, or at least
ought to be, disposed to admit.
Now when I consider this fact, so plain and so easily estab-
lished, and then look at the method in which you state the
doctrine of the Trinity, as exhibited above; I confess it gives
me pain, to think that you have not conceded, or even inti-
16 TJNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II.
mated, that Trinitarians do, or can, admit the unity of God.
You have a right to say, if you so think, that the doctrine of
the Trinity, as they explain and defend it, is at variance with
the divine unity; and moreover, if you so believe, that these
two things are inconsistent with each other. But to appro-
priate to those solely, who call themselves Unitarians, the
belief that there is but one God; or to construct an account
of the Trinitarian creed, (as it seems to me you have done, in
the paragraph on which I am remarking), so as not even to
intimate to your hearers or readers, that your opponents ad-
mit or advocate the divine unity; is doing that which you, as
I am apt to think, would censure in an antagonist, and which
cannot well serve the interests of truth.
But let us examine more particularly your statement of our
creed:
“We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the
unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infi-
nite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as de-
scribed by theologians, has his own particular consciousness,
will, and perceptions. They love each other, converse with
each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform
different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate
office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is me-
diator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is
not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking
flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, possessed of
different consciousnesses, different wills, and different percep-
tions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations;
and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or
beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or
beings are to be formed.”—p. 9.
Is not this account a very different one from that which
many of your brethren are accustomed to give of us? By
them it is said, that there is a great variety of discordant and
contradictory statements and explanations of the doctrine of
the Trinity, among those who embrace it. Do not you amal-
gamate us all together; make us harmonious Tritheists; and
LETT. II.] TJNITY OF GOD. 17
then give us over to the reproach of Tritheism, or at least of
glaring inconsistency P -
After all, the statement which you exhibit of our views, is
very far from that which we, (or at least all Trinitarians
with whom I am acquainted), make of our belief. I do not
deny, that some writers have given grounds for a statement
not very diverse from yours, as it regards the doctrine of the
Trinity. Even some great and good men, in their zeal to
defend this doctrine, have sought to reduce the whole subject
to human comprehension. How vain the attempt, experi-
ence has demonstrated. Efforts of this nature, however well
designed or ably conducted, never yet have led to anything
but greater darkness. “Who can by searching find out God?
Who can find out the Almighty to perfection ?”
But though I readily admit, that efforts to explain what in
the nature of the case is inexplicable, may have misled some
in their exertions to acquire religious knowledge, or given
occasion to others of stumbling; yet I am not prepared to ad-
mit, that the great body of Trinitarians have given just occa-
sion to charge them with a denial of the unity of God, or with
opinions subversive of this. You certainly ought not to deny
them the same liberty, in the use of terms, which all men
take on difficult subjects, for the accurate description of which,
language is not framed, perhaps is not in its nature adequate.
They must discuss subjects of such a nature by using figura-
tive language; by using terms, which, (if I may be indulged
the liberty of speaking thus), approacimate as nearly to the
expression of the ideas that they mean to convey, as any
which they can select. If there is any obscurity in these
general observations, I hope it will be cleared up in the re-
marks that are to follow.
Since I refuse assent to your statement of our belief, you
will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, that you may
compare this with the doctrine of divine unity, and judge for
yourself, whether it is subversive of it or not. I cannot re-
fuse my assent to a proposal so reasonable; nor do I feel any
inclination to shrink from the task of stating our belief, or to
2%
18 TNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II.
proffer the excuse for not explicitly stating it, that everything
respecting the subject is too mysterious and recondite to be
an object of distinct contemplation or statement. What we
do believe can be stated; what we do not profess to define
or explain can be stated, and also the reasons why we do not
attempt definition or explanation; and this is what I shall
now attempt.
I must not, however, be understood as pledging myself,
that all those with whom in general I am accustomed to think
and act, will adopt my statement, and maintain that it ex-
hibits the best method of explaining or defending the great
doctrine in question. Notwithstanding we are so often
charged with adherence to forms and modes of expression as
contained in creeds, we still employ as great a variety of lan-
guage in expressing our views of the doctrine of the Trinity,
as we do in respect to the other doctrines of religion. With
regard to the statement which I shall make, I can say only,
that it is not the result of concert, in any degree, with my
clerical brethren, for the purpose of making a statement to
which they will adhere. It is the result of investigation and
reflection on the subject, as it appears to be exhibited in the
Scriptures, and in the writings of the leading divines whom I
have been able to consult. -
I am now prepared to say, that I believe,
I. That God is ONE, numerically one, in essence and attri-
butes. In other words, the infinitely perfect Spirit, the Crea-
tor and Preserver of all things, the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, has numerically the same essence, and the same perfec-
tions, so far as they are known to us. To particularize; the
Son possesses not simply a similar or equal essence and per-
fections, but numerically the same as the Father, without
division, and without multiplication.
II. The Son (and also the Holy Spirit) does, in some re-
spect truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, dif-
fer from the Father.
I am aware, as I have hinted above, that you may find
writers upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have stated the
LETT. II.] TJNITY OF GOD. 19
subject of my first proposition in a manner somewhat differ-
ent. But after making due allowances for inattention to pre-
cision of language, the difficulty of the subject, and the vari-
ous expedients to which men naturally resort in order to il-
lustrate a difficult subject, I am not aware that many of them
would dissent, substantially, from the statement now made.
Certain it is, that the Lutheran Confession exhibits the same
view. The words are: “ The divine essence is ONE, which
is called, and is, GoD ; eternal, incorporeal, indivisible; of
infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Creator and Pre-
server of all things, visible and invisible.”
The Confession of Helvetia (written A. D. 1566) declares,
that “God is ONE in essence or nature, subsisting by him-
self, all sufficient in himself, invisible, without a body, infinite,
eternal, the Creator of all things visible and invisible, etc.”
It adds: “We detest the multitude of gods, because it is ex-
pressly written : The Lord, thy God, is one God, etc.”
The Confession of Basil (A. D. 1532) declares, that there
is “ONE eternal and almighty God, in essence and substance,
and not three gods.” - *
The Confession of the Waldenses states, that the Holy
Trinity, is in essence one only true, alone, eternal, almighty,
and incomprehensible God, of ONE equal and indivisible es-
sence.” -
The French Confession (A. D. 1566) says: “We believe
and acknowledge one only God, who is only one and simple
essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite, etc.”
The English Confession (A. D. 1562) states, that the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, “be of one power, of one
majesty, of one eternity, of one Godhead, and one substance.
And although these three persons be so divided, that neither
the Father is the Son, nor the Son is the Holy Ghost, nor
the Father; yet, nevertheless, we believe that there is but
ONE very God.”
* Una est essentia divina, quae appellatur, et est, DEUS; aeternus, in-
Corporeus, impartibilis; immensa potentia, sapientia, bomitate; Creator
et Conservator omnium rerum, visibilium et invisibilium. (ART. I.)
20 UNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II.
The Confession of Belgium (A. D. 1566) declares, that
“There is one only simple and spiritual essence, which we
call God, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable,
infinite, etc.” -
The Articles of the English episcopal church declare, that
“there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without
body, parts, or passions, etc.”
The Confession of the Reformed churches in the Nether-
lands, revised at the Synod of Dort (A. D. 1618–1619),
declares: “We believe that there is one only and simple,
spiritual Being, which we call God; and that he is eternal,
incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, etc.” (Wide
Harmony of Confessions.)
With these agrees the Westminter Confession, approved
by the general Assembly of Divines in A. D. 1647, adopted
by all the Presbyterian churches in Great Britain and Ameri-
ca, and assented to by a great part of the Congregational
churches in New England. Its words are: “There is but
one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and
perfection, a pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,
etc.” (West. Con. p. 32.)*
Now is this the denial of the divine unity, with which we
are implicitly charged ? Can Unitarians present a more
complete description of the divine unity, than is presented
by these Symbols of different denominations of Christians,
who admit the doctrine of the Trinity?
But, admitting our statement of the divine unity to be cor-
rect, you will probably aver, that my second proposition is
subversive of my first. Whether this be so, or not, is what
I now propose to investigate.
The common language of the Trinitarian Symbols is, that
“there are three PERSONs in the Godhead.” In your com-
ments upon this, you have all along explained the word per-
son, just as though it were an established point, that Trinita-
* So too the Westminster Catechism: “The same in Substance, equal
in power and glory.”
LETT. II.] MEANING OF PERSON. 21
rians use this word in such a connection, in its ordinary ac-
ceptation as applied to men. But can you satisfy yourself
that this is doing us justice P What fact is plainer from
church history, than that the word person was introduced
into the creeds of ancient times, merely as a term which
would somewhat strongly express the disagreement of Chris-
tians in general with the reputed errors of the Sabellians,
and others of similar sentiments, who denied the existence of
any real distinction in the Godhead, and asserted that the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were merely attributes of God,
or the names of different ways in which he revealed himself
to mankind, or of different relations which he bore to them,
and in which he acted? The Nicene fathers meant to deny
the correctness of such views, when they used the word per-
son. They designed to imply by it, that there was some
ºreal, not merely nominal, distinction in the Godhead; and
that something more than a mere diversity of relation or ac-
tion of the Godhead in respect to us, was intended. They
used the word person, because they supposed it approxima-
ted nearer to expressing the existence of a real distinction,
than any other which they could choose. Most certainly,
neither they, nor any intelligent Trinitarian, could use this
term in such a latitude as you represent us as employing it,
and as you attach to it. We profess to use it merely be-
cause of the poverty of language; merely to designate our
belief of a real distinction in the Godhead; but not to de-
Scribe independent, conscious beings, possessing separate and
equal essences and perfections. Why should we be obliged
so often to explain ourselves on this point 2 Is there any
more difficulty here, or anything more obnoxious, than when
you say: “God is angry with the wicked every day ?” You
defend yourself in the use of such an expression, by saying,
that it is only the language of rhetoric and figure; that it is
merely intended to describe that in the mind of the Deity, or
in his actions, which corresponds in some measure, or in some
respect, to anger and its consequences in men; not that God
is really affected with the passion of anger. Why will you
22 MEANING OF PERSON. [LETT. II.
not permit me then to say that we speak of persons in the
Godhead, in order to express that which in some respect or
other corresponds to persons as applied to men, i.e. some dis-
tinction ; not that we attach to it the meaning of three be-
ings, with a separate consciousness, will, omnipotence, om-
miscience, etc.? Where them, considering the poverty of lan-
guage in respect to expressing what belongs to the Deity, is
our inconsistency in this, or how is there any absurdity in
our language, providing there is a real foundation in the
Scriptures on which we may rest the fact of a distinction,
which we believe to exist?
I could wish indeed, on some accounts, that the word per-
son had never come into the symbols of the churches, be-
cause it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary dispute
and difficulty. But since it has been in common use so long,
it is difficult now, perhaps impossible, altogether to reject it.
If it must be retained, I readily concede that the use of it
ought to be so guarded, as not to lead Christians generally
into erroneous ideas of God. Nor can I suppose that the
great body of Christians have such ideas, or understand it to
mean that which you attribute to us as believing. Then
surely it is not the best mode of convincing your opponents,
to take the word in a sense so different from that in which
they understand it, and then charge them with the absurdi-
ties consequent upon the language of their creed. It has al-
ways been a conceded point, that in the statement of difficult
subjects, or the discussion of them, terms might be used aside
from their ordinary import. And what can teach us in a
plainer manner, that Trinitarians do use the word person in
this way, than that they do universally agree that God is one,
both in essence and in attributes?
It might have been justly expected, likewise, that before
they were charged with subverting the divine unity, the
meaning of the word person, in the ancient records which de-
scribe its first introduction into the symbols of the church,
should have been carefully investigated. One of your rules
of exegesis, to which I have with all my heart assented, de-
LETT. II.] MEANING OF PERSON. 23
mands that “every word . . . . should be modified and ex-
plained according to the subject which is discussed, accord-
ing to the PURPOSEs, feelings, circumstances, and principles
of the writer.” Do us the justice to apply this law of inter-
pretation to our language, and the dispute between us about
the meaning of person is forever at an end.
What then, you doubtless will ask, is the specific nature of
that distinction in the Godhead, which the word person is
meant to designate? I answer without hesitation, that I do
not know. The fact that a distinction exists, is what we
aver; the specific definition of that distinction is what I shall
by no means attempt to make out. By what shall I, or can
I, define it? What simile drawn from created objects, which
are necessarily derived and dependent, can illustrate the mode
of existence in that Being, who is underived, independent,
unchangeable, infinite, eternal? I confess myself unable to
advance a single step here, in explaining what the distinc-
tion is. I receive the FACT that it eacists, simply because I be-
lieve that the Scriptures reveal the FACT. And if the Scrip-
tures do reveal the fact, that there are three persons in the
Godhead, (in the sense explained); that there is a distinc-
tion, which affords grounds for the respective appellations of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which lays the foundation
for the application of the personal pronouns, I, Thou, He :
which renders it proper to speak of sending and being sent ;
to speak of Christ as being with God, being in his bosom, and
of other things of the like nature in the like way, and yet to
hold that the divine nature equally belongs to each; then it
is, like every other fact revealed, to be received simply on
the credit of divine revelation.
Is there any more difficulty in understanding the fact that
there is a distinction in the Godhead, than there is in under-
standing the fact that God possesses an underived existence?
With what shall we compare such existence 2 All other be-
ings are derived; and, of course, there is no object in the
universe with which it can be compared. To define it, then,
is beyond our reach. We approximate towards a conception
24 MEANING OF PERSON. [LETT. II.
of it, merely by negatives. We deny, for example, that the
divine existence has any author or cause ; and when we
have done this, we have not defined it, but simply said that a
certain thing does not belong to it. And here we must rest;
for archangels, it is probable, cannot proceed beyond this.
The distinction in the Godhead, I ought to say here, we
do not, and cannot, consider as a mere subject of speculation,
which has little or no concern with ardent piety, or the best
hopes of the Christian. We believe that some of the most
interesting and endearing exhibitions of the divine character
are founded upon it; and that corresponding duties are urged
upon us, and peculiar hopes excited, and peculiar consola-
tions administered, by it. -
In regard to this distinction, we say: It is not a mere dis-
tinction of attributes, of relation to us, of modes of action, or
of relation between attributes and substance or essence, so far
as they are known to us. We believe the Scriptures justify
us in these negations. But here we leave the subject. We
undertake, (at least the Trinitarians of our country with
whom I am acquainted undertake), not at all to describe af.
firmatively the distinction in the Godhead. When you will
give me an affirmative description of underived existence, I
may safely engage to furnish you with one of person in the
Trinity. You do not reject the belief of the divine self-ex-
istence, merely because you cannot affirmatively define it;
neither do we of a distinction in the Godhead, because we
cannot affirmatively define it.
I may ask moreover : What is the eternity of God? You
answer by telling me, that there never was a time when he
did not exist, and never can be one when he will not exist.
True; but then, what was time, before the planetary system
which measures it had an existence P And what will time
be, when these heavens and this earth shall be blotted out 2
Besides, passing over this difficulty about time, you have only
given a negative description of God's eternity; you deny cer-
tian things of him, and then aver that he is eternal. Yet be-
cause you cannot affirmatively describe eternity, you would
LETT. II.] MEANING OF PERSON. 25
not refuse to believe that God is eternal. Why then should
I reject the belief of a distinction in the Godhead, because I
cannot affirmatively define it?
I do not feel, therefore, that we are exposed justly to be
taxed with mysticism and absurdity, when we admit that
there is a distinction in the Godhead, which we feel utterly
unable to define. I am aware, indeed, that a writer some
time since published a piece, in a periodical work then edited
at Cambridge, in which he laboured, with no small degree of
acuteness, to show that no man can believe a proposition the
terms of which are unintelligible, or which he does not under-
stand: His object in doing this appears to have been, to fix
upon those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity the
charge of absurdity. But it seems to me, that the whole ar-
gument of that piece is founded on a confusion of two things
which are in themselves very diverse, viz., terms which are
wnintelligible, and things which are undefinable. You believe
in the fact that the divine existence is without cause; you
understand the fact that God exists uncaused, but you can-
not define underived existence. I believe on the authority
of the Scriptures, that there is a real distinction in the God-
head; but I cannot define the exact mature of it. Still, the
proposition that there is a real distinction, is just as intelligi-
ble, as the proposition that God is self-existent. There are,
indeed, multitudes of propositions respecting a variety of sub-
jects, which resemble these. We affirm, for example, that
gravitation brings a body, which is thrown into the air, down
to the earth. The fact is altogether intelligible. The terms
are perfectly understood, so far as they are employed to de-
scribe this fact. But then, what is gravitation ? An affirma-
tive definition cannot be given, which is not a mere exchange
of synonymes. Nor can any comparison define it; for to
what shall we liken it 2
The mind of every man, who is accustomed to think, will
supply him with a multitude of propositions of this nature;
in all of which the fact designed to be described is clear; the
terms so far as they describe this fact are clear; but the sub-
3
26 *. MEANING OF PERSON. [LETT. II.
ject of the proposition, that is the thing itself, or the agent,
concerning which the fact is asserted, is undefinable ; and,
excepting in regard to the fact in question, perhaps wholly
unknown to us. -
How easy now to perplex common minds, by calling a
proposition wrºntelligible, the subject of which is merely unde-
finable. In confounding things so very different, consists, as
I apprehend, the whole ingenuity of the piece in question ;
an ingenuity, which may excite the admiration of those who
love the subtilties of dispute, but cannot contribute much to
illuminate the path of theological science. -
I have been thus particular, in my statement of this very
difficult part of the subject, in order to prevent misapprehen-
sion. I certainly do not hold myself bound to vindicate any
of the attempted definitions of person or distinction in the
Godhead, at least any which I have yet seen, because I do not
and cannot adopt them. My reason for this is, that I do not
and cannot understand them ; and to a proffered definition I
cannot with propriety assent, still less undertake to defend it,
until I do understand what it signifies. It is truly matter
of regret to me, that some great and good men have carried
their speculations on this subject to such a length, that, as I
cannot help thinking, they have bewildered themselves and
their readers. I would always speak with respect and ten-
derness of such men. Still I have no hesitation in saying,
that my mind is absolutely unable to elicit distinct and cer-
tian ideas, from any of the proffered definitions in question
which I have ever examined. May I be indulged with the
liberty here of producing a few examples 2 In this way, I
shall be able more readily to illustrate and establish what I
have just said.
Let me begin with Tertullian, who flourished about A. D.
200. In his book against Praxeas (ch. 2) he says: “This
perversity [viz. of Praxeas] thinks itself to be in possession
of pure truth, while it supposes that we are to believe in one
God, not otherwise than if we make the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, the self same; as if all were not one, while all
LETT. II.] MEANING OF PERSON. 27
are of one, viz. by a unity of substance; and still, the myste-
rious economy which distributes unity into a Trinity is ob-
served, marking out [distinguishing] Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. There are three, not in condition but in rank; not
in essence but form; not in power but in kind; but they are
of one substance, condition, and power, for there is one God
from whom those ranks, and forms, and kinds, are reckoned
by the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
A little farther on he says: “Whatever, therefore, the
substance of the Word (Logos) is, I call him a PERSON, and
defend the application of this name to him; and while I
acknowledge the Son, I maintain that he is second from the
Father. ... The third is the Spirit from God and the Son,
as the fruit from the stalk is the third from the root; a sluice
from the river [the third] from the fountain; the point from
a ray of light [the third] from the sun. So the Trinity pro-
ceeds, by interlinked and connected grades, from the Father.”
In Cap. 9, he says: “They (the Trinity) are not separate.
from each other, although the Father may be said to be di-
verse from the Son and the Spirit.” .
And again: “We are baptized into the persons [of the
Trinity] severally, by the use of their several names.” .
* “Perversitas haec (sc. Praxeae) se existimat moram veritatem
possidere, dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ip-
sum eundemque et Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum dicat, quasi
non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex umo omnia, per substantiae Scili-
cet unitatem; et nihilominus custodiatur oikovouíag sacramentum, quae
unitatem in TRINITATEM disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem, Filium, et
Spiritum Sanctum. Tres autem mom statu sed gradu; mec substantia
sed forma; mec potestate sed specie: unius autem substantiae, et status,
et potestatis, quia umus Deus ex quo et gradus isti, et formae, et species
in nomine Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum deputantur.”
—“Quæcunque, ergo, substantia Sermonis (Toij Żóyov) sit, illum dico
PERSONAM et illi nomen vindico; et dum Filium agnosco, secundum a pa-
tre defendo. Tertius est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice
fructus ex frutice; a fonte rivus ex flumine; a sole apex ex radio. Ita
TRINITAS per consertos et connexos gradus a Patre decurrit.
—“Inseparati tamen ab alterutro, etsi dicatur alium esse Patrem,
alium Filium et Spiritum.
—“Ad singula Nomina, in personas singulas tingimur.”
28 MEANING OF PERSON. [LETT. II.
ſ
It is proper to observe here, how plainly and definitely the
words person and Trinity are applied by Tertullian to the
Godhead; which contradicts the very confident affirmations
of many writers, that these terms were merely an invention
of later ages and of scholastic divinity. I may add, that
the familiar and habitual use which Tertullian makes of them,
proves that they were commonly understood, or at least com-
monly used in the church, at a very early period, and in ref-
erence to the very distinction in the Godhead which is the
present subject of discussion. I believe the writings of this
father afford the earliest specimen, now extant, of the techni-
cal use (if I may so speak) of the word Trinity and Person.
His object cannot be mistaken. His antagonist, Praxeas,
denied that there existed any distinction in the Godhead, or
any except a mere verbal one. Tertullian means to assert
the existence of a threefold distinction; and to designate this
he uses the word Trinity. To signify that this distinction is
zeal, and not merely nominal, he uses the word person. The
Latin word persona, which he employs, means, when ap-
plied to men, that quality, state, or condition, whereby man
differs from a brute, or whereby one man differs from another.
Analogically with this meaning, Tertullian applies the word
to the Godhead, i. e. to the distinctions which he supposed to
exist in it, and which he regarded as real.
But to explain Tertullian's similitudes, so frequently copied
in after ages, is more than I shall undertake. Who does not
see, that all similitudes drawn from created, limited, depend-
ent beings or things, must be utterly inadequate to illustrate
the mode in which an uncreated, inſinite, and omnipresent
Being exists? What is even the attempt at explanation, but
“darkening counsel by words without knowledge tº I be-
lieve with Tertullian in a threefold distinction in the God-
head; but I believe simply the fact of a Trinity, and do not
venture to make any attempt at explanation, by comparison
with material objects.
In like manner, Origen, who began to flourish before
Tertullian's decease, reprehends those “who do not attribute
LETT. II.] MEANING OF PERSON. 29
person (jzógzczow) to the Word or Logos;” and shortly after
he adds: “Three persons (tgeis izoozºoets) we acknowledge,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;” (Comm. in
Johan. p. 24.) I adduce this passage, however, only to show
how early the use of the word person, as applied to the dis-
tinction in the Godhead, came to be employed by Christians,
and not to prove the strict orthodoxy of Origen.
Have the venerable Council of Nice, held A. D. 325, suc-
ceeded any better than Tertullian, in their attempts to define .
the specific relation of the Son to the Father ? Their words
are: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, the
maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord,
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Fa-
ther, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God,
light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of
the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were
made.”* - -
This Council believed, no doubt, in the eternal generation
of the Son; and meant to affirm, by the peculiar phraseology
which they have here exhibited, that one real and essential
distinction between the Father and the Son consists in the
fact of the eternal generation of the latter. Arius affirmed,
that the Son was begotten (by which he meant produced or
created) in time. The special object of the Nicene creed was,
to express dissent from, and opposition to, the opinions of Ari-
us and his partisans as to this particular. In order to do this,
the Nicene fathers maintained that the generation of the Son
was eternal.
For myself, I must confess that I am unable to attach any
definite meaning to the phrase eternal generation. Or, to
speak more explicitly, I cannot attach any definite meaning
* IIva Teijoplev eig &va 0.86v, Tatépa, Tavtokpátopa, Trávtov Ópatów Te
Kai &opátov Tovmtāv ſcal eig &va Küptov 'I'mooijv Xplotów, Töv Štów Toij
0éoù, Töv yévvmºévta čk Toi Tarpèg uovoyev), Tovt’ &otiv čk Tijg obotag
toū Tatpóg, &eov čk &eoiſ, póg Éic potóg, '9eów &Amötvöv Šk Čeoû &Anºt-
voi), yewv/8&vta oi Totnºśvta, Öplooijolov tº Tatp: Öt’ oi Tà Távta
£yéveto, K.T.W. — Symb. Nicaemum.
3#
30 NICENE CREED. [LETT. II.
which consists with a tolerable explanation of these words,
without virtually conceding that Christ is not God supreme.
After all that has been said, or can be said, about the myster-
ous manner of Christ's generation, and in fact conceding for
the moment that all which has been said in respect to it is
true, it still remains a thing so plain as to be incapable of
reasonable denial, that the generation of the Son in his divine
nature, however mysterious or incomprehensible, imports at
least a derivation in some sense or other. It is impossible to
deny this, unless all regard to the proper meaning of words is
laid aside. And if the Logos, i. e. Christ in his divine nature,
was derived, then he can be neither self-eatistent nor inde-
pendent. Indeed, the strenuous and consistent advocates of
the Nicene creed do not admit the self-existence and the inde-
pendence of the Son. Taking it for granted that sonship is
applicable to the divine nature, (and the Nicene creed is
plainly built on this), and that it must of necessity imply de-
zivation in some sense, or at least with respect to that nature,
they must of course, in order to be consistent, deny that Christ
is &üzó080g or self-existent; and consequently, if still con-
sistent, they must maintain that he is not independent.
With this view of the Nicene fathers I cannot here enter into
controversy; but it may justly be demanded of me, in present
circumstances, to be explicit as to my own views of this doc-
trine. Very briefly then would I say, that, instructed as I
have been in respect to the nature of true Godhead, it is im-
possible for me to predicate this quality, of any being who is
neither self-existent nor independent. These are the ulti-
mate, highest, plainest, and most certain of all the discretive
attributes of Godhead, i. e. attributes which separate the di-
wine Being from all other possible beings. If the Son pos-
sess not these attributes, then he can be only a 680s 88tºrs-
90g, i. e. a God of secondary rank; and so Origen and others
have actually named him. The ancient fathers, many of
them nurtured in the bosom of a heathen religion which ad-
mitted the endless generation and multiplicity of gods, felt
much less difficulty in believing in the generation of a nature
LETT. II.] NICENE CREED. 31
which was in their view truly divine, than we of the present
day must feel, after all the discussions which have taken
place about the true spiritual nature of the Godhead. Ap-
plying the sonship. of Christ to his divine nature, and over-
looking the declarations on this subject of a celestial interpre-
ter (Luke 1: 35), they felt themselves bound to maintain a
generation of the divine nature of the Son, while they still
most explicitly avowed their belief in his true divinity; for
{}eów &Amötvöy fix 0800 &Amºwow, i.e. very God of very God,
most surely implies this. I believe that what they substan-
tially aimed at, is a doctrine of Scripture. But I cannot sub-
scribe to their terminology, for the reasons stated above. If
their words are to be interpreted by any of the common laws
of exegesis, they must import a derivation and dependence of
the Son, in his divine nature. But how can a being be re-
garded as Supreme God, who is neither self-existent nor in-
dependent P Still, if the Nicene fathers failed as to proper
modes of expression, this should not be put to the account of
the Bible. John says not one word of the LOGOS, as such,
which would lead us, in the way of simple interpretation, to
conclude that in this nature he is either derived or dependent;
and John is the only New Testament writer who has ex-
pressly treated of the Logos, and disclosed to us his original
State. -
The Nicene creed then is not, I must confess, sufficiently
Orthodox for me. I believe that Christ is “God over all,
and blessed for ever;” that he is “ the true God and eternal
life;” that “he made all things;” and that “he who did
make all things is GOD.” A 080s Seijzegog—a God of sec-
ondary rank—seems to me altogether incompatible with the
true spiritual doctrine of scriptural Christianity. Yet I am
far from thinking that the Nicene fathers designed to assert
and maintain the actual inferiority of the Son; although
they do so strenuously maintain his generation or derivation.
We must not scan their metaphysical motions by the philoso-
phy of the present day. I agree with them in their most im-
portant position, (i. e. in what I deem to be their most impor-
32 IMPERFECTION OF LANGUAGE. [LETT. II.
tant one), viz. that the Son is juooiſotog zó recºrgi, and of
course øeós Grºwóg, i.e. of the same substance with the
Father, and therefore true God. You will not allege, that
their metaphysical views of the connection between Father
and Son, or their mode of stating them, are fairly to be put
to the account of the Bible, or of the orthodox Christianity of
the present day. They may have erred in respect to both
these, and still not be chargeable with any intention to deny
the proper divinity of Christ; much less with any intention
to mislead others, or even to substitute their own speculations
in the room of those views which the sacred writers maintain.
I have one thing more to say, in relation to this whole sub-
ject, which I may as well say here; for, if correct, it ought to
have an important bearing on modes of expression in relation
to the whole matter before us. It is this, viz. the imperfec-
tion of language is such, that words can scarcely be employed
with regard to some parts of the subject under discussion,
without liability to be misunderstood. Every word is a sym-
bol of some idea of our minds; and all our ideas are the re-
sult of sensation, consciousness, and reflection. Now the es-
sential nature and relations of the divine Being are not within
the circle of either of these sources of ideas and words. Of
course, no part of language was originally formed in reference
to expressing the internal constitution (so to speak) of the
Godhead. A secondary and tropical sense, therefore, in a
greater or less degree, must of necessity be attached to all the
words which we employ respecting the essence of the Godhead.
The sober inquirer, who is fully cognizant of this, will never
think of believing or denying what the mere literal sense of
words thus employed would convey. He must not believe in
Tritheism, because Trinity and three persons in the Godhead
are spoken of in his creed; nor should he insist that such
words necessarily infringe upon the unity of the Godhead:
for it is only by taking the words in a literal sense, that he
can make this out. It is here we may well say: “The letter
Rilleth, but the Spirit maketh alive.”
A familiar example may illustrate this. John says: “The
LETT. II.] IMPERFECTION OF LANGUAGE. 33
Word was with God.” From the time of Arius downwards,
it has been asked, and asked with an air bespeaking confi-
dence that no 'satisfactory answer could be given : “How
could the Word be with God, unless he was a being different
from him 2 A being who is with another, cannot be that
other being.' True altogether, I would reply, provided two
things are first made out, viz. first, that the two beings men-
tioned are shown to be separate or different beings, in the
usual sense of these words; and secondly, when it is made
certain, that the word with has the same sense here as it
would have in case a similar assertion were made of two be-
ings known to be distinct. But who can establish either of
these ? From the tenor of the context in John, it is plain
enough that the Logos is not an inferior being; for he is rep-
resented as God, and as the Creator of all things. If so, then
he has an underived existence himself; and therefore must be
spiritual in his nature. What then is it for such a Spirit to
be with God? This cannot be made out from any notion of
ours about mere physical proximities or nearness of material
objects. The nearest that we can come to the meaning of
the word with here, seems to be that which is expressed by
the phrase conjunctissimus cum Deo, i. e. most intimately con-
nected with God. But why should John say the thing in
question at all ? My own apprehension is, that the need of
saying it lay in some Gnostic errors of the day, which af.
firmed of the Aeon Logos, a state of existence entirely sepa-
rate from its original source. As John felt himself obliged
to employ the same name (2670s), he took care duly to dis-
tinguish his Logos from that of the Gnostics. Viewed in this
light, the word with designates that which is adverse to the
position of the errorists in question, rather than something
positive and affirmative in its nature. At all events, the
word with stands in such a connection, that mone of its ordi-
mary and local meanings can be attached to it, in consistency
with the true nature of the subject to which it has relation.
So is it with a multitude of objections raised against the
doctrine of the Trinity, from the mere forms of expression
34 IMPERFECTION OF LANGUAGE. [LETT. II.
employed in the New Testament. Their efficacy or validity,
as objections, depends entirely on interpreting language, as
applied to the Godhead, according to its ordinary meaning
when applied to other things. This cannot be any more cor-
rect, than it is to say, with the Swedenborgians, that God has
a visible material form, because man is said to be made in his
image, and because the ordinary parts and powers of a hu-
man body are ascribed to him. The nature of a being must .
always direct the sense of words which are employed to
describe him. We concede this, in the interpretation of all
other books; and why should we deny it, when the meaning
of scriptural language is the subject of examination?
But I must refrain from further remarks here, and remit
the reader to the Supplementary Wote, added to the present
edition, and inserted at the end of Letter II. In this, I have
attempted an outline of the grounds of dispute in regard to
the nature and person of Christ, in ancient times, and a sum-
mary account of attempts in modern times to define the word
person, as applied to the Godhead. I have added to these
Such reflections as the nature of the case seemed to require.
I would hope that what has cost me very serious labour, may
not be without some value to the reader.
One word more, at present, in respect to the Council of Nice.
The Nicené fathers seem to have intended to make out
something like an affirmative or positive definition of the dis-
tinction between the Father and the Son, by asserting his
eternal generation. That they have failed to do this in a
satisfactory manner, is sufficiently evident. But I cannot
think that they are fairly exposed to a charge of designed in-
trusion into the mysteries of the Godhead, or even of intend-
ing to introduce useless and unmeaning words into their
Symbol.
The Council of Constantinople, reckoned as the second
ecumenical Council (A. D. 881), in their synodic address to
the churches, say, that “it is the most ancient faith, and
agreeable to baptism, to believe in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost; and of course one godhead, power,
LETT. II.] COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 35
and substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is be-
lieved, and equal dignity and coeternal dominion in three
most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons; so that
neither the pest of Sabellius shall have place, which confounds
the persons, i. e. takes away their distinctive peculiarities;
nor the blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians, and opposers
of the Holy Spirit prevail, which destroys the substance, or
nature, or godhead, by adding to the uncreated, consubstan-
tial, and coeternal Trinity something of posterior origin, or of
a created and heterogeneous nature.”
This Council have left somewhat undefined the manner in
which they mean to use the words, “three most perfect hy-
postases, or three perfect persons;” excepting that they have
avowed their belief in one godhead, power, and substance.
A question might be raised, whether they really mean nu-
nerical unity of substance and power in the persons of the
Godhead, or only equality of rank and homogeneousness of
substance. The spirit of the times, and the state of philoso-
phy at that period, would favor the latter supposition;
although I do not think that it can be made out with certain-
ty. One thing however is clear; which is, that they aim at
vindicating the unity of the Godhead and the equality of the
hypostases or persons of the Trinity, without sacrificing the
distinctive attributes of these hypostases. My belief is, that
the main thing which they mean to assert is true; but they
have left a little too indefinite what they meant by the dis-
tinctions in the Godhead. There can be no doubt that they
* – Two Teóety eig Tô 6vopa Toi Tatpág, Toi, itoi, ka? Toi Tveipuatog
&ytov Öe%aô SeótmTóg Te Kal duvápaeog kai obataç Attac Toi Tatpóg,
toū ūuoi, Kai Toi Tveijuatog áytov Tuotevoplévm.g, Öptotiuov Te Tijg aftaç
ka? avvatićtov Tijg (3aat?etaç $v Tptai Tehelotátaug itóa Taotv, #yovy &
Tptal Teweſoug TpogóTouc Óg uáre thy Xaffe?Aftov vógov xàpav Waffeiv,
'ovyxeoplévov Tów intoatágeov, #yovy ióvothrow &vatpovgévov piñte tºw
Evvopuiāvov, 'Apetávov, Kai IIvevuatouážov Tij v 3%agºmutav loſtelu,
Tāg obotag, à Tâg pàoeog, à Tâg &eóTºtog Tsuvouávng, Kai Tà dictiotº, Kai
ôpoovoºp, Kai ovvatīdāq) Tptáðt pleTayeveatépaç Tlvög, à KTwo Tijg, à étépo-
ovoſov piloeoc &Tayovpuévnç.—Theod. Hist. Ecc. V. 9.
36 T) EFINITIONS OF PERSON. [LETT. II.
meant to assert, in the strongest terms, their antipathy to
Sabellianism and Arianism.
Let us now leave antiquity, and glance for a moment at
some of the similar attempts in modern times. The celebra-
ted Leibnitz, was requested by Loefler, who had undertaken
to refute the writings of a certain English Antitrinitarian, to
give him an affirmative definition of the persons in the God-
head. He sent for answer the following: “Several persons,
in an absolute substance numerically the same, signify sev-
eral, particular, intelligent substances essentially related.”
On further consideration he abandoned this, and sent a second
answer; which was, that “several persons, in an absolute
substance numerically the same, mean relative and incom-
municable modes of subsisting.”f
If Leibnitz actually and definitely understood this, I must
believe that he was a good master of metaphysics. Still if
he had added to the latter clause the word undefinable or in-
describable, his definition might be regarded as being as good
as the nature of the case admits. I should also prefer to leave
out the word incommunicable; inasmuch as we cannot be quite
certain of the fact which it asserts, (provided person implies
neither essential essence or attribute), and because many
Trinitarians have regarded and defined personality as = mo-
dus subsistendi, and as something which might be communi-
cated. In fact, Leibnitz himself appears not to have been
entirely satisfied with his own attempt at definition; for, not
long after, he wrote to a friend as follows: “We must say,
that there are relations in the divine substance, which dis-
tinguish the persons, since these persons cannot be absolute
substances. But we must aver, too, that these relations are
substantial. At least we must say, that the divine persons
are not the same concrete, under different denominations or
* Plures personae, in eaden numero substantia absoluta, significant
plures substantias singulares, intelligentes, essentialiter relativas.
f Plures personae, in eadem numero substantia absoluta, intelligun-
tur per modos Subsistendi relativos, incommunicabiles.
LETT. II.] DEFINITIONS OF PERSON. 37
relations; as a man may be, at the same time, both a poet
and an orator. We must say, moreover, that the three per-
sons are not as absolute substances as the whole.”
With as little success, did that somewhat original thinker
and reasoner, the celebrated Toellner of Frankfort, labour to
define the distinction in question. “It is certain,” says he,
“that we must conceive, as coexisting in God, three eternal
and really different actions, the action of operation, of idea,
and of the desire of all possible good within and without him.
“Three really different actions, coexisting from eternity,
necessarily presuppose three really different and operative
causes. It is thus, through the aid of reason quickened by
the Scriptures, we come to know, that the power, the under-
standing, and the will, in God are not merely three faculties,
but three distinct energies, i.e. three substances.”f
* Remarques sur le livre d' un Antitrinitaire Anglois, p. 26. I can-
not think, however, that he has added much explicitness to his former
statement. What are relations substantial 3 He must mean, as it seems
to me, relations that pertain to substance ; for the substantiality of a relation,
in any other sense than this, is not intelligible to me. The last clause,
“that the three persons are not as absolute substances as the whole,” has
added nothing to the perspicuity of the matter. The implication seems
to be, that the three persons are so many substances, but not absolute.
Now what is a substance in God, which is not absolute 3 And if numer-
cal unity of substance is predicable of the Godhead, how can diversity of
substances be attributed to him 3 Personality, which implies diversity,
cannot well be predicated of essential substance or of essential attributes;
for these are numerically one. His former definition, therefore, comes
nearer to the mark. See Supp. Note, at the end of this Letter.
f Es ist gewiss, dass wir uns in Gott drey evige wahrhaftig von
eimander unterschiedene Handlungen neben einander, gedenken müs-
sen; die Handlung des Wirkens, der Vorstellung, und des Begehrens
alles mäglichen Guten in und ausser inm.
Drey wahrhaftig verschiedene Handlungen, zugleich von Ewigkeit
her neben einander, Grfordern auch von Ewigkeit her drey von eimander
wahrhaftig verschiedene handelmde. Gründe. Und so verkennen wir
mit der durch die Schrift erweckten Vernunft, dass die Kraft, der Ver-
stand, und der Wille, in Gott nicht drey blosse Vermögen, sondern drey
von einander verschiedene Kräfte, das ist drey Substanzen sind. [Ver-
mischle Auſsilize. B. i. p. 81. edit. 1769.] -
38 DEFINITIONS OF PERSON. [LETT. II.
This does not, indeed, seem to be very intelligible. But
still, the basis of this attempt at definition has something in
it deserving of notice. It is simply this, viz. that three
modes of development in the Godhead, presuppose corres-
pondent diversities, in Some respect or other, in the substance
or attributes of the Divinity.
I will produce but one instance more; which is found in
the works of the celebrated Lessing, himself far enough
from being a theologian, but sometimes inclined to speculate
about subjects of difficulty. “Must not God,” says he,
“have the most perfect idea of himself? That is, an idea
which comprises everything that is comprised in himself.
Could this however be the case, if of his necessary reality, as
of his other attributes, there were merely an idea, merely a
possibility ? This possibility exhausts the being of his other
attributes; but can it exhaust his necessary reality ?” Con-
sequently, God can either have no perfect idea of himself; or
this perfect idea is even as necessarily actual as he himself
is.”f
If now Lessing himself understood his own problem, I
think that I hazard nothing in declaring my conviction, that
he was the only man who has been able to understand it.
I have not produced these instances, merely in order to
satisfy you, that all attempts of this nature are and must be
* I have rendcred the German literally here; but I am not certain
that I understand the meaning. I suppose exhaust means, is adequale to
comprise, extends to the whole of, represents the whole. Quicumque melius
intelligit, corriget. & -
- f Muss Gott nicht die Vollständigste Vorstellung von sich selbst ha-
ben 3 d. i. eine Vorstellung in der sich alles befindet was in ihm selbst
ist. Würde sich aber alles in ihr findem was in ihm selbstist, wenn auch
von seiner mothwendigen Würklichkeit, so wie von Seinen übrigen
Eigenschaften, sich blos, cine Vorstellung, sich blos cine Möglichkeit
fande 3 Diese Möglichkeit erschöpft das Wesen seiner Übrigen Figen-
schaften ; aber auch scimer nothwendigen Würklichkeit? Folglich, kann
entweder Gott gar keine vollständige Vorstellung von Sich Selbst haben;
odor diese Worstellung ist ebcn so nothwendig Würklich als cr selbst ist.
(Die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts. 1785, p. 68.)
LETT. II.] DEFINITIONS OF PERSON. 39
fruitless. You doubtless need no such proof. I have pro-
duced them for two reasons: the first, to justify myself, in
some good measure, for not attempting a definition in which
no one has yet succeeded; the second, to show, that notwith-
standing all the fruitless attempts at definition which have
been made, and notwithstanding the varieties of method in
which men have chosen to make these attempts, yet, for sub-
stance, there is a far greater unanimity of opinion among
Trinitarians, than you and your friends seem to be willing
to concede. That there is a great variety in the modes by
which an attempt at definition or illustration is made, is in-
deed clear enough. But this does not prove so much an ac-
tual variety of views, as it illustrates the difficult nature of
the undertaking. With my present feelings I am disposed
to look upon all attempts of this nature with regret. I expect
no light from them. But I am far from accusing such at-
tempts in general of any ill design; and surely I would not
treat them with contempt.*
Patient investigation and candour will lead one to believe,
as it seems to me, that the thing aimed at in the main was,
simply to assert the idea of a distinction in the Godhead. To
do this with the more success, as the writers hoped, some of
them endeavoured to describe affirmatively the nature of that
distinction. But here they have all failed. But how can
this prove, that there is actually a great variety of opinion
among Trinitarians, in regard to the substance of the thing
in question, merely because endeavours to define this thing
have been unsuccessful, and have produced a great variety
in the attempted methods of illustration ? I cannot help feel-
ing that this matter is sometimes misrepresented, and that
very generally it is imperfectly understood.
But quitting this topic, permit me now to ask, whether
you feel yourself able, by any argument a priori, to prove to
•me that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with itself,
* See the subject of dºſinitions as further illustrated, in the Supp. Note
at the end of the present Letter,
40 IDEFINITIONS OF PERSON. [LETT. II.
or (as you aver) “subversive of the doctrine of divine unity,”
and therefore untrue? We say that the divine essence and
attributes are numerically one, so far as they are known to
us; but that there are in the Godhead some real distinctions ;
for example, between the Father and the Son. (I omit the
consideration of the Holy Spirit here, because your Sermon
merely hints at this subject, and because all serious difficul-
ties in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, are essentially
connected with proving or disproving the divinity of Christ).
I abjure, for myself, all attempts to define those distinctions ;
I admit them simply as a FACT; and this, on the authority of
divine revelation. Now how can you prove, that a distinction
does not exist in the Godhead 2 I acknowledge that the
want of evidence in the Scriptures to establish the fact, would
be a sufficient reason for rejecting it. But we are thus far
making out a statement of the subject, and answering objec-
tions that are urged, in an a prior way, or independently of
the Scriptures. The proof which the New Testament ex-
hibits, we are hereafter to examine. How then, I repeat it,
are you to show that we believe in a self-contradiction, or in
an impossibility? If the distinction in question cannot be
proved, independently of the Scriptures, (and most readily I
acknowledge it cannot), it is equally certain that it cannot be
disproved in an a prior way. In order to prove that such a
distinction contradicts the divine unity, must you not be able,
first of all, to tell what that distinction is, and then what the
divine unity is 2 Can you do either ?
Will you allow me to dwell, for a moment, on this point of
wnity. It is clear, as I think, that the unity of God cannot
be satisfactorily proved without revelation. It may perhaps
be rendered probable. Then we must depend, as it would
seem, on scriptural proof for the thorough establishment of
this doctrine. But have the Scriptures anywhere told us
what the divine unity is 2 Will you produce the passage 2
The oneness of God they often assert. But this they assert,
always, in opposition to the idols of the heathem—to the poly-
theism of the Gentiles—to the gods superior and inferior
LETT. II.] TJNITY OF GOD. 41
which the heathen worshipped. In no other way have the
Scriptures defined the ONENESS of the Deity. What then is
oneness, in the uncreated, infinite, eternal Being? In created
and finite objects, we have a distinct perception of what we
mean by it; but can created objects be both just and adequate
representatives of the uncreated God? Familiar as the asser-
tion is, in your conversation and in your Sermons, that GOD
IS ONE, can you give me any other definition of this oneness,
except a negative one P You deny plurality of it; you say
God is but one, and not two, nor more. All this is mere
negation. In what, I ask, does the divine unity actually and
positively consist? God surely has different and various
faculties and powers. Is he not almighty, omniscient, omni-
present, holy, just, good? Does he not act differently, i. e.va-
riously, both in the natural and in the moral world 2 Unity,
therefore, is not an universal sameness of attribute or of ac-
tion. Does it consist, then, appropriately in his essence 3
But what is the essence of God P And how can you assert
that his unity consists appropriately and solely in this, unless
you know what his essence is, and so be able to judge,
whether oneness can be more certainly predicated of this than
of his attributes and actions?
Your answer to all this is: ‘The nature of God’s essence
is beyond my reach ; I cannot define it. I can approach to
a definition of the divine unity, only by negatives.” In other
words, you deny the numerical plurality of God; or you say,
that there are not two or more essences, omnisciences, om-
nipotences, etc. But here all investigation, at least all know-
ledge, is at an end. Is it possible to show what it is, which
constitutes the internal nature of the divine essence or attri-
butes ? To show how these are related to each other, or
what internal distinctions exist? Of all this revelation says
not one word; and certainly the book of nature gives no in-
struction concerning it. . The assertion then that God is one,
means, when fairly and intelligently understood, nothing
more positively than that he is ºwmerically one, i. e. it simply
denies polytheism. Beyond this it can never reach. The
4%
42 DNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II.
man who makes this assertion, does not pretend that he has
made an analysis of the divine substance or essence, and proved
in this way, (if I may so speak), a unity of constituent mate-
rial. That God is one, does not mean that there is but one
simple element in his nature, (for this we do not and cannot
know), but that there is in him only one intelligent agent.
But how does such a position prove, or how can it prove,
that there may not be, or that there are not, distinctions in
the Godhead, either in regard to attributes or in respect
to essence, the nature of which is unknown to us, and
the actual existence of which is proved by the authority of
the Scriptures only P. When Unitarians therefore inquire:
What is that distinction in the Godhead in which you believe 2
We answer, that we do not profess to understand what it is ;
we do not undertake to define it positively or affirmatively.
We can approximate toward a definition of it, only by nega-
tives. We deny that the Father is, in all respects, the same
as the Son; we deny that the Holy Spirit is, in all respects,
the same as either the Father or the Son. We rest the fact,
that a distinction actually exists, solely upon the basis of
revelation.
In respect to principle, then, what more difficulty lies in
the way of believing in a threefold distinction of the God-
head, than in believing in the divine unity ? &
I am certainly willing to allow, that the evidences of the
divine unity in the New Testament are sufficient. But I
may be permitted to suggest, here, that in my view, the pas-
sages asserting it are considerably fewer in number, than the
passages which assert or imply that Christ is truly divine. I
cannot but think that the frequent assertions of your Sermon,
and of Unitarians in general, with regard to this subject, are
very erroneous; that they are made at hazard, and without
a diligent and faithful comparison of the number of texts in
the New Testament which respect the divine unity, and the
number of those which concern the divinity of the Saviour.
After all, to what purpose is it, that so great a multitude of
texts should be required in order to prove the divinity of
LETT. II.] UNITY OF GOD. 43
Christ, by those who believe, as you profess to do, that the
decisions of the Scriptures are of divine authority ? The
decision of one text, fairly made out by the laws of exegesis,
is as authoritative as that of a thousand. Would a law a
thousand times repeated, have any more authority attached
to it in consequence of the repetition ? It might be better
explained, by the repetition in different connections; but its
authority would be uniformly the same.
But to return from this digression ; suppose I should affirm
that two subjects A and B are numerically identical in re-
gard to what may be called X, but diverse, or distinct, in re-
gård to something else called Y; is there any absurdity or
contradiction in this affirmation ? I hope I shall not; by
making this supposition, be subjected to the imputation of
endeavouring to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by the
Science of algebra; for my only object in proposing this
statement is, to illustrate the answer that we may make to a
very common question, which Unitarians put us: “How can
three be one, and one three ?” In no way, I readily answer,
provided the one and the three both relate to the same speci-
fic thing, and in the same respect. “How then is the doc-
trine of the Trinity in Unity to be vindicated * In a way
I would reply, which is not at all embarrassed by these, or
by any of the like, questions. We do not maintain that the
Godhead is THREE in the same respects that it is ONE, but the
reverse. In regard to X, (if I may resort once more to this
mode of illustration), we maintain a numerical unity; in re-
gard to Y, we maintain a threefold distinction. I repeat it:
We maintain simply the fact that there is such a distinction ;
and we do this, only on scriptural authority. We do not pro-
fess to understand specifically in what the distinction consists,
nor that we are able to define it. -
Will you not concede, now, that there is some reason for
complaint on our part, that, from the time in which Tertul-
lian maintained the doctrine of the Trinity against Praxeas
down to the present hour, the views and statements of Trini-
44 UNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II.
tarians, in regard to this subject, should have been so fre-
quently misunderstood or misrepresented P
. I have dwelt sufficiently on my statement of the doctrine
of the Trinity, and on the difficulties that lie in the way of
proving this statement to be erroneous or contradictory.
Before I proceed to the next topic, I will merely mention, in
a brief way, two of the most formidable objections to our
views which I have seen, and which were adduced by two
men, who must be reckoned among the most intelligent that
have embraced the cause of Unitarianism. The first is from
Faustus Socinus, and runs thus:
“No one is so stupid, as not to see that these things are
contradictory, that our God, the creator of heaven and earth,
should be one only in number, and yet be three, each of which
is our God. For as to what they affirm, that our God is one
in number, in respect to his essence, but threefold in regard
to persons; here again they affirm things which are self-con-
tradictory, since two or three persons cannot exist, where
there is numerically only one individual essence, and to con-
stitute more than one person, more than one individual es-
sence is required. For what is person, but a certain individ-
ual, intelligent essence P Or in what way, I pray, does one
person differ from another, unless by the diversity of his indi-
vidual or numerical essence P. . . . This implies, that the di-
vine essence is numerically one only, yet there is more than
one person; although the divine essence which is numerically
one, and the divine person, are altogether identical.” (Opp.
tom. i. p. 697.) -
* Nemo est tam stolidus, quinon videat, pugnare hasc inter se, illum
Deum mostrum coeli terracque creatorem esse umum tantum in numero,
et tamen tres esse, quorum unusquisque sit ille Deus noster. Nam quod
aiunt timum quidem esse numero Deum, Sed ratione essentiae, trinum
vero ratione personarum; rursus hic sibiinvicem repugnantia loquuntur,
cum tres vel etiam duae personae eSSC mequeant, ubi est uma tantum nu-
mero sive individua essentia, et ad pluresuma persona constituendas plu-
res etiam una individual essentiae requirantur. Nam quid aliud persona.
est, quam quasdam individua intelligens essentia, 3 Aut qua potissimum
ratione diversa est persona alia ab alia, nisi diversitate individua sive
LETT. II.] UNITY OF GOD. - 45
Here, however, it is obvious that the whole weight of the
objection, lies in an assumed, and (I may add) erroneous, use
of the words person and essence. Socinus attaches to them a
material and human sense, one which enlightened Trinitari-
ans do not admit. How then can Trinitarians be charged
with inconsistencies, in propositions which they do not make,
or which at least they do not design to make 2
Of the same tenor with the objection of Socinus, is the ob-
jection mentioned by the famous Töllner, (theol. Untersu-
chungen, B. I. p. 29), which, to save room, I shall merely
translate, without subjoining the original. “The most con-
siderable objection,” says he, [against the doctrine of the
Trinity] “is this, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are
each a particular substance endowed with understanding; and
at the same time, neither of them is said to have his separate
being, his separate understanding, his separate will, his sepa-
rate power of action; but all three together have only one
being, one understanding, one will, one power of action. As
it appears then, it is affirmed that there are three real beings,
truly separate; each, consequently, having his own individ-
ual power of action, and yet not having it; three separate
persons, and three persons not separate.”
All the difficulty, which this acute writer in his usual way
has so strikingly portrayed, lies merely in the representations
of those Trinitarians, who have expressed themselves on this
subject so incautiously, as to be understood to affirm, that
there are three separate beings, (persons in the common sense
of the word), in the Godhead, with distinct powers, volitions,
etc. If there be any now, who defend such a statement of
this subject, I must leave them to compose the difficulty with
Töllner, as they can. The view of the doctrine of the Trinity
given by Töllner, is not that which I have presented, or
which I should ever undertake to defend. Of course it can-
unius numero essentia?? . . . . Implicat divinam essentiam unam tantum
numero esse, non tamen unam tantum esse divinam personam, sed plu-
res, cum divina essentia numero una, et divina persona, idem omnino re-
apse sint,
46 DNITY OF GOD. [LETT. II.
not be fairly adduced as an objection, against the statement
which I have given and undertaken to defend.
The second objection, to which I referred above, appears
at first sight more formidable and perplexing. It comes from
Taylor, and was inserted in the English Theological Maga-
zine; (Vol. I. No. 4. p. 111. 1770). I have not opportunity
of access to the original, and take the ideas from a Latin
translation of the piece, which was published in Germany.
“There can,” says Taylor, “be no real distinction be-
tween the Father and the Son, unless they so differ from
each other, that what is peculiar to the Father, is wanting in
the Son; and what is peculiar to the Son, is wanting in the
Father. Now that property which belongs exclusively to
the Father, or the Son, must be numbered among the per-
fections of God; for in the divine nature no imperfections
can exist. It follows then, that some perfection is lacking,
both in the Father and in the Son, so that neither is endowed
with infinite perfection, which is essential to the divine na-
ture. It must be conceded then, that the essence of the Fa-
ther and the Son is not one and the same.”
Ingenious and specious at first view, I would readily con-
cede this to be ; but still I am unable to see that it settles the
point in debate. The essence and attributes of God, so far
as they are known to us, are numerically one, as we have
already admitted. If Taylor means to extend the idea of
perfection to all which belongs to the Godhead, then I would
answer him merely by saying: ‘It is essential to the perfec-
tion of the Godhead, that the distinction of Father and Son
should exist; for otherwise there would be imperfection.’
My right to make such an assertion, is just the same as his
to make the assertion, that the distinction between Father and
Son involved an imperfection in each. The very fact of pa-
termity and sonship, (not literal), make up the perfection of
the Father as Father, and of the Son as Son ; and did not
these exist, something would be wanting to complete the per-
fection of the Godhead. I acknowledge that this is assump-
tion ; but so is Taylor's statement; and an argument which
LETT. II.j TWOFOLD NATURE OF CEIRIST. 47
is built on an assumption, may surely be opposed by another
which has the same basis.
My object in the present letter has been, thus far, to com-
pare our views of the Trinity with those which you have
ascribed to us; to show that we are not exposed to be justly
charged with gross and palpable absurdity, or with “subvert-
ing the unity of the Godhead;’ and to prove that the ques-
tion, after all, whether there is in fact some distinction in the
Godhead, must be referred solely to the decision of the Scrip-
tures. *
To them I shall appeal, as soon as I have made a few re-
marks on the twofold nature, which we ascribe to Christ.
You say (p. 11),
“We (Unitarians) believe in the unity of Jesus Christ. We be-
lieve that Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one-as
we are, and equally distinct from the one God. We complain of
the doctrine of the Trinity, that not satisfied with making God
three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus intro-
duces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his claracter.
This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense
and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of
the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth
of Jesus.”
You will admit that this is expressed in terms of strong
confidence, and with no small degree of severity. Whether
you have so clear a right to the former, and whether we
are really deserving of the latter, every lover of truth will per-
mit to be brought to the test of fair examination.
I am not certain that I have rightly apprehended your
meaning, when you say that the twofold nature of Christ is
“repugnant to common sense.” Do you mean, that com-
mon sense may determine first, independently of revelation,
that the doctrine cannot be true ; and then maintain the im-
possibility that revelation should exhibit it? If so, then we
are able to decide a prior, and of ourselves what can be re-
vealed, and what cannot ; consequently what we may be-
lieve, and what we must disbelieve. It follows, then, that a
48 TwoFoll, NATURE OF CHRIST. [LETT. II.
revelation is unnecessary, or rather that it is impossible, at
least such an one as shall be obligatory upon our belief; for
we have only to say, that our common sense decides against
the propriety or the possibility of the things said to be re-
vealed, and then we are at liberty to reject them.
But is this the proper spherein which “common sense” should
act 2 Is it not true, that common sense is limited to judging
of the evidences that the Bible is of divine origin and author-
ity; to establishing the rules of exegesis common and appli-
cable to all languages and books; and finally, to directing a
fair and impartial application of those rules, in order to de-
termine what the original writer of any portion of the Scrip-
tures designed to inculcate 2 Having once admitted, as you
have, the divine authority of the Scripture in deciding all
questions; and your obligation to submit to its decision, when
you can understand the meaning of it by using the common
rules of interpretation; how is it to be determined by com-
mon sense, whether Christ has two natures or one P Com-
mon sense may investigate the language of the inspired wri-
ters, and inquire what they have said; and if, by the sound
rules of interpretation, it should appear that they have as-
cribed two natures to Christ, or have asserted that which un-
avoidably leads to the conclusion that he has two natures,
then, it is either to be believed, or the authority of the writers
is to be cast off. In rejecting any doctrine which the lan-
guage of Scripture plainly teaches, common sense must cast
off the divine authority of the Bible. To receive the Bible
as a revelation from God, and yet to decide a prior what the
Scriptures can and what they cannot contain, and then to
make their language bend until it conform with our decision,
cannot surely be a proper part to be acted by any sincere
lover of truth and sober investigation. *
When I say this, I must not be understood to mean, that
our reason cannot exercise, in some cases, what I would call
a negative power or right in regard to revelation. What our
reason spontaneously and with absolute certainty decides to be
a contradiction or an absurdity, (e.g. that a thing can be and
LETT. II.] TWOFOLD NATURE OF CHRIST. 49
not be, at the same time and place and in the same respect, or
that two and two make five, or that God is purely spiritual
and yet at the same time material, and the like), cannot be a
revelation from the Author of truth. It lies not within our
will or power to command, or even force, assent to such propo-
sitions; and the evidence that they are not true is, by the
very constitution of our minds, of much greater force and au- -
thority to us, than any evidence can possibly be, that there is
a real revelation from God which contains such things. Cases
of such a nature, I except of course from the tenor of my re-
marks in the preceding paragraph.
When you say, that the doctrine which teaches that Christ
has two natures, is “repugnant to common sense,” I must
presume that you, who profess to admit the divine authority
of the Scriptures, wish to be understood as meaning, that the
rules of exegesis, applied by common sense, lead unavoidably
to the conclusion that Christ has but one nature. If this be
your meaning, what I have to say in reply, will be contained
in my next letter.
In regard to the impossibility that Christ should possess
two natures, and the absurdity of such a supposition, I have
not much to say. If the Scriptures are the word of God,
and do contain the doctrine in question, it is neither impos-
sible nor absurd. Most certainly, if it be a fact that Christ
possesses, two natures, it is a fact with which natural religion
has no concern; at least, of which it has no satisfactory
knowledge. It can therefore decide neither for nor against
it. It is purely a doctrine of revelation; and to Scripture
only can we look for evidences of it. If the doctrine be
palpably absurd and contradictory to reason, and yet is found
in the Bible, then we must reject the claims of the Bible to
inspiration and truth. But if the laws of interpretation do
not permit us to avoid the conclusion that it is found there,
we cannot, with any consistency, admit that the Scriptures
are of divine authority, and yet reject the doctrine.
How shall any man decide, a priori, that the doctrine can-
not be true? Can we limit the omniscient and omnipotent
5
50 TWOFOLD NATURE OF CHRIST. [LETT. II.
God, by saying that the Son cannot be so united with hu-
man nature, so “become flesh and dwell among us,” that we
may recognize and distinguish, in this complex being, but
one person, and therefore speak of but one If you ask me
how such a union can be effected, between natures so infi-
nitely diverse as the divine and human, I answer, (as in the
case above respecting the distinction in the Godhead), that I
do not know how this is done; I do not undertake to define
wherein that union consists, nor how it is accomplished.
God cannot divest himself of his essential perfections, i.e. he
is immutably perfect; nor could the human nature of Christ
have continued to be a real human nature, if it had ceased to
be subject to the infirmities, and sorrows, and (in a word) all
the affections of such a nature, while he dwelt among men.
In whatever way, then, the union of the two natures was ef-
fected, it was so brought about that it neither destroyed, nor
essentially changed, either the divine or human nature.
Hence, at one time, Christ is represented as the Creator of
the universe; and at another, as a man of sorrows, and of
imperfect knowledge. (John 1: 1–18. Heb. 1:10–12. Luke
22:44, 2:52.) If both of these accounts are true, he must,
as it seems to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent ; and
still a man of imperfect and gradually increasing knowledge.
If the latter were not true, then does it follow that his nature
was not really and truly human. It is indeed impossible to
reconcile these two apparently contradictory predicates, with-
out the supposition of two natures. The simple question
then is: Can they be joined or united, so that in speaking of
them, we may say of the pérson who possesses them, that he
is God or man, or that we may call him by one single name,
and by this designate that he is of either or both of these na-
tures? On this subject, the religion of nature says nothing.
Reason, therefore, has nothing to say, which is decisive ; for
surely the reason of no finite being is competent to decide,
that the junction of two natures in one person is either im-
possible or absurd.
One person, in the sense in which each of us is one, Christ
LETT. II.] TWOFOLD NATURE OF CHRIST. 51
could not be. If we, with some of the fathers, make God the
soul and Jesus of Nazareth the body of Christ, then we take
away his human nature, and deny the imperfection of his
knowledge. But may not God have been, in a manner al-
together peculiar and mysterious, united to Jesus, without
displaying at once his whole power in him, or necessarily
rendering him, as a man, supremely perfect? In the act of
creation, God does not put forth all his power; nor in the
preservation of greated things; nor in Sanctification ; nor
does he bring all his knowledge into action, when he inspires
prophets and apostles. Was it necessary that he should exert
all his attributes to the full, when he was in conjunction with
the human nature of Christ? In governing the world, from
day to day, God does not surely exhaust his omnipotence, or
his wisdom. He employs only so much as is necessary to ac-
complish the design, which he has in view. In his union
with Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Logos could not, of course,
be necessitated at once to put forth all his energy, or exhibit
all his knowledge and wisdom. Just so much of it, and no
more, was manifested, as was requisite to constitute the char-
acter of an all-sufficient and incarnate Mediator and Re-
deemer. When necessary, power and authority infinitely
above human were displayed; when otherwise, the human
nature sympathized and suffered like that of other men.
Is this impossible for God? Is there anything in such a
doctrine, which, if found in the Bible, would afford an ade-
Quate reason for rejecting its claims to inspiration ? For my
own part, I cannot see either the impossibility or the absurdi-
ty of such a thing, How shall we limit the Deity, as to the
ways in which he is to reveal himself to his creatures?
Why can we not find mystery within ourselves, which is
as inexplicable as anything in the doctrine before us? We
do not appropriate the affections of our minds, to our bodies;
nor those of our bodies, to our minds. Each class of affec-
tions is separate and distinct. Yet we refer either to the
whole man. Abraham was mortal; Abraham was immortal;
these propositions are both equally true. He had a mortal
52 TWOFOLD NATURE OF CHRIST. '[LETT. II.
and an immortal part; yet both made but one person. How
is it a greater mystery, if I say: Christ was God, and Christ
was man He had a nature human and divine. One per-
son indeed, in the sense in which Abraham was, he is not.
Nor is there any created object, to which the union of God-
head with humanity can be compared. But shall we deny
the possibility of it, on this account P Or shall we tax with
absurdity, that which it is utterly beyond our reach to scan P
I shrink from such an undertaking, and place myself in the
attitude of listening to what the voice of revelation may dic-
tate in regard to this. It becomes us to do so, in a case like
the present; it is meet to prostrate ourselves before the
Father of lights, and say: ‘Speak, Lord, for thy servants
hear. Lord, what wilt thou have us to believe?”
You may indeed find fault with us, that we speak of three
persons in the Godhead, where there is but one nature ; and
yet of but one person in Christ, where there are two natures.
I admit that it is an apparent inconsistency in the use of
language; and cannot but wish, on the whole, that it had not
been adopted. Still, so great are the imperfections of lan-
guage in relation to such a subject, that I cannot feel disposed
to find much fault with it. What other word in our language
would designate an intelligent agent, who possesses powers of
distinct development? And does not the Bible, in applying
J, thou, he, to the distinctions in the Godhead, afford some
warrant for such a usage? But, leaving this and returning
to the one person of Christ, I would say that it designates
Christ as he appears to us in the New Testament, clothed
with a human body, and yet acting (as we suppose) not only
as being possessed of the attributes of a man, but also as pos-
sessing divine power. We see the attributes of human na-
ture in such intimate conjunction with those of the divine,
that we cannot separate the agents; at least, we know not
where to draw the line of separation, because we do not know
the manner in which the union is effected or continued. We
speak therefore of one person, i.e. one agent. And when
we say that the two natures of Christ are united in one per-
LETT. II.] TWOFOLD NATURE OF CEIRIST. 53
son, we mean to say that divinity and humanity are brought
into such a connection in this case, that we cannot separate
them, so as to make two entirely distinct and separate
agents. * .
I may, on the whole, be permitted to say that the present
generation of Trinitarians do not feel responsible for the in-
troduction of such technical terms, in senses so diverse from
the common ideas attached to them. They merely take
them as they find them. For my own part, I have shown
sufficiently that I have no attachment to them ; I think them,
on the whole, not to be very happily and warily chosen, and
could rather wish they were dropped by general consent.
But it is perhaps too late to expect this. Still I am persuad-
ed, that, in most cases, such language rather serves to keep
up the form of words without definite ideas; and I fear, that
it has been the occasion of many useless disputes in the
church. The things which are aimed at by using these terms,
I would strenuously retain and defend; because I believe in
the divine origin and authority of the Bible, and that its lan-
guage, when fairly interpreted, does inculcate these things.
Candour on your part, now, will certainly admit, that things
only are worth any dispute. To be anxious for, and contend
about, a mere matter of logomachy, is too trifling for a lover
of truth. * -
5%
54 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
Supplementary Wote to p. 29.
To do anything like ample justice to the subject of the JWi-
cene Creed, would require a little volume, instead of a brief note.
A few leading hints may serve, in some measure, to explain the
circumstances and the object of the Council of Nice. We can-
not well understand the latter without some good knowledge of
the former. The New Testament presents, according to its
seemingly obvious import, the person of the Redeemer as both
divine and human. “He was in the beginning with God and
was God; he made all things; he upholds all things by the word
of his power; he is God over all and blessed forever ; he is
God manifest in the flesh ; he is the true God and eternal life.”
But he is also man ; “there is one mediator between God and
man, the man Christ Jesus; he took part in flesh and blood; he
took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham ; he was in all
things made like to his brethren ; he was tempted in all points
as we are, and so can truly sympathize with us; he was made
perfect through sufferings; he learned obedience by the things
which he suffered ; the exact day and hour of the destruction
of Jerusalem, he could say that he knew not; he ate, drank,
slept, laboured, journeyed, suffered from enemies and from ex-
posure to wants and inconveniences; he prayed, wept, and ago-
nized in the garden of Gethsemane ; he was crucified, died, and
was buried; he rose from the dead with a transformed and glo-
rious body; he was the Son of man, descended from David in
respect to the flesh; and in every point of view, (to sum up all
in one word), he was a complete and perfect specimen of hu-
manity.
One must take into view these plain things which seem to lie
upon the very face of the New Testament, before he can get
any proper clue to the history of the development of ecclesias-
tical doctrine respecting the person of Christ, either in ancient
or in later times. Among the ancient fathers of the church, all
the efforts to develop the mystery before us, may be classified
by a distribution under three different heads. First, those who
admitted a real human nature, but explained away the divine.
Secondly, those who admitted a divine, at least a superior, na-
ture, but explained away the human. Thirdly, those who sought
to unite both. The conceptions and explanations, however, of
LETT. II.] SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. * 55
the latter, are very various; and many of them will not abide
the test of a strict impartial scrutiny.
In respect to the two first classes, it is easy to see the influ-
ence which the Dualistic and Gnostic philosophy had upon
them at an early period, which led them to regard matter and
spirit as directly opposed to each other, and incapable of any
real union in a being purely holy, such as Jesus was. Of course,
those who were heartily convinced of this, denied the possibil-
ity of a real union of the divine and human, in the person of
Jesus. To this class belonged, with different shades of opin-
ion, such men as Basilides, Marcion, and Valentinian. The
Spirit of God, or the Aeon Christ, merely waved or hovered
over the person of Jesus; or the body of Jesus was only the
phantasrn of a body. Hence Docetism. The next step was ea-
sy, viz. that of Ebionitism ; which denied that Christ had any
thing more than a nature merely human. This was the oppo-
site of Docetism in some respects, and yet both sprung from
the same source, viz., from the belief that a nature both divine
and human could not possibly be united in the same person.
The one made a phantasm of the human nature, in order to
avoid this union; the other excluded the divine.
Subsequently to these early heretical views, arose a scheme
of modification, if I may so name it, by which the entire incom-
patibility of matter and spirit, or of divinity and humanity, was
not maintained; but still, the divine in Jesus was explained as
being only an influence of the Holy Spirit, or his energy exerted
in a manner like that which was developed in the prophets of
old, but more enlarged as to measure. To this rubric belong
the views expressed in the Recognitions of Clement, by Paul of
Samosata, (who called the influence of the Holy Spirit upon Je-
sus, Šutyevous, i. e. inspiration), while he looked on that influ-
ence as differing merely in degree, not in kind, from that which
rested on other holy men; and finally by Sabellius, who main-
tained that the emanation of the Godhead, which dwelt in
Christ, was temporary. He sometimes named this emanation an
&voſtkoguóg &vvitógtotos, i. e. an unsubstantial or impersonal
new-modeling ; or a triotvvuguóg, i. e. extension or widening; in-
tending by this to designate his views of what was effected by
the Spirit in respect to Jesus, and of the manner in which he
Supposed the Spirit to act. But the union of the divine and hu-
man in one person, although maintained by him, was yet, in his
opinion, only temporary. His views, therefore, could not answer
the seeming demands of the New Testament; and consequent-
56 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
ly they did not satisfy the churches in general. Sabellius dif-
fered widely from Paul of Samosata, his contemporary, in one
respect; and in this he approached much nearer to what is cal-
led the orthodox view of the Trinity than the same Paul. The
latter allowed of only a temporary and partial influence of the
Spirit upon Jesus; the former maintained that the fulness of the
Godhead dwelt in him, for the time being ; but not that this
constituted a union which was personal and perpetual.
It is easy to see from the history of the past, that, in this state
of things, the churches in general were dissatisfied with the de-
rogatory or degrading views that had been advanced, by various
renowned men whom they had come to look upon as heretical,
respecting the person of Christ. Some remedy was needed for
this tendency of things in the churches. The leading fathers
even of the third century sought, and as they believed found,
one in quite a different hypothesis, viz. that of subordination.
As the soul is emphatically the man, and as Christ possessed
a nature above the human, so in order to hold fast to his supe-
rior nature, they assigned to him a soul of divine origin. One
Christ in two persons they could not admit. The proper hu-
man soul, therefore, must give place to the voig or Aéyog (the
Word). On the other hand, the sole supremacy of the Father
(uovo.gzig) must not be given up, which had so long and so Zeal-
ously been contended for. The result was, to assign to the Son
a hypostatic or personal existence, higher than that of all other
created beings—a hypostasis different from that of the Father,
and also subordinate to him. To make out the grand point of
the personality of the Logos, was the principal aim at that peri-
od, even among some of the fathers who are not regarded as he-
retical; because this was effectually to oppose the degrading opin-
ion, that there rested upón Jesus merely a divine influence ; an
opinion like to that of Paul of Samosata, and of Sabellius. But
in doing this, they were also to beware against dashing upon
the rocks with such as denied the divine Unity, and made in ef-
fect three Gods. To avoid these rocks, they first asserted the
personality of the Logos, and then subordinated him to the Fa-
ther, as being derived from him and dependent on him.
With some shades of difference in minor things, and some
diversities of representation, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Dionysius of Alexandria, adopted and maintained
such views of the person of Christ. It was Origen who first
fully and earnestly broached and taught the doctrine of eternal gen-
eration. With him, however, it had no very prominent meaning,
LETT. II.] SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 57
inasmuch as he maintained the eternal existence of the world, and
of all human souls. The eternal existence of the latter, did not,
in his view, prevent their being dependent on God. So the Logos,
although eternal, might be subordinale. But the churches in gem-
eral, while they held fast to the eternal generation of the Son,
refused to admit the other kindred and similar views of Origen.
Even the eternal generation of the Son they elevated to a high-
er significancy than Origen gave to it. According to him, the
Son was only juovoúgvog, i.e. of the like nature with the Father;
but the churches came gradually to the view, that the Son was
ôuoobotog, i.e. of the same nature with the Father. This was
plainly suggested by Dionysius of Rome, in his dispute with
Dionysius of Alexandria, who had, in order to maintain in full
the subordination-theory, gone so far as to call the Son a Tolmud,
or ztioſuo, i. e. Something made or created.
In those times of subordinarian views came forward Arius,
with his dogmas. He not only went full length with the Subor-
dinarians, as to the inferiority of the Son, but onward far be-
yond most of them ; for he maintained that the Son was a be-
ing created in time, while they asserted that he was begotten from
etermity. His famous my Tróts àts oix fiv, i. e. there was a time
when the Son was not, of course was an essential denial of his
Godhead. Names of honour he gave to the Son in great abun-
dance; he even called him Osóg, God; but after all a 085g $st-
tagog, i. e. a secondary God was meant, (which was all that he
allowed), and this is neither more nor less than a mere creature.
The ferment occasioned by these views of Arius, when they
were once spread abroad, became very great. The Nicene
Council (A. D. 325) was the consequence. Here 318 bishops
were present; and among these the then young and talented
Athanasius stood highly prominent. In fact, that Council was
swayed and guided by his eloquence and his logic.
It is evident enough from several expressions in the Nicene
Creed (see p. 29 above), that the fathers of that Council meant
to assert and maintain the true and real Godhead of Christ.
“Begotten of the substance of the Father . . . very God of very
God . . . of the same substance (öwooijotog) with the Father.”
designate, if any latiguage can designate, their decided views of
the truly divine nature of the Son. And these views, after much
and protracted opposition from the Arian party, at last so com-
pletely triumphed, that this party became in a manner extinct;
at least, after a time, only solitary individuals, or a small party,
opposed the declarations of the Nicene creed.
58 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
One point seemed then to be gained in the struggle. The
higher nature of the Son was, as the Nicene fathers and their
followers believed, fully asserted. How fared it, in the mean
time, with the doctrine of his real and complete humanity? From
Irenaeus downwards there had, for the most part, been more or
less of the claro-obscure in relation to this. The Docetae, and all
who in any way sympathized with them, employed expressions
in relation to the subject before us, which indicated a distrust in
the reality of Jesus' physical body, or else a belief that his soul
was only an emanation from the Logos, or only the indwelling
of the Logos himself, or of his Spirit. Some maintained, in-
deed, that all human souls were merely emanations from the
Logos; and so, that Christ was like to the rest of men, except
that he possessed a higher measure of emanated influence or
substance. The Subordinarians generally asserted the real hu-
manity of Christ; but with diversities of opinions about the man-
ner in which the Logos stood related to the souls of men, arid
to the soul of Jesus in particular. In different individuals, the
expression of opinions in relation to this subject, sometimes ap-
proached the emanation theory, sometimes the pantheistic, and
sometimes they appear to savour even of Docetism. In gener-
al, minute explanation relative to the human soul of Jesus was
rather carefully avoided, and many writers of name contented
themselves with mere general assertions, or with rather unmean-
ing and inappropriate comparison drawn from material objects.
In order to put an end to this state of things, the emperor Theo-
dosius (in A. D. 381), a zealous advocate of the Nicene creed,
called an ecumenical Council at Constantinople, who adopted
again, the Nicene creed, but with a variety of explanations and
enlargements. They say, among other things, that “Jesus be-
came incarnate through the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary
. . . that he was crucified for us . . . that he was crucified, was
buried, and rose from the dead . . . and is now seated at the
right hand of the Father.” (Symb. Nic. Constant., in Giesel.
Chh. Hist. § 81, n. 23.) -
Difficulties on the subject of Christ's humanity being still
abroad among some of the churches, in A. D. 451 a new Coun-
cil was summoned at Chalcedon, who seem to have gone as far
as language could go, in asserting the fulness and perfection of
both the divine and human natures in the person of Christ.
“We teach,” say they, “and order all to confess, that there is
one and the same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ; that he is per-
fect in Godhead, and perfect in humanity; that he is truly God,
LETT. II.] SUPIPLEMENTARY NOTE. 59
and truly man with a rational soul and body; that he is of the
same substance with the Father in respect to his Godbead, and
of the same substance with us in respect to his humanity, be-
ing in all things like to us, although without sin.” They then go
on to assert his generation by the Father before the world was,
and his incarnation in later time; and then they add, that “the
Son is Lord, only begotten, of two natures (pigsøy) without mix-
ture . . . indivisible . . . by no means deprived of the difference
of his natures by unity; but rather preserving the peculiarity of
each nature, and combining them into one person and one hy-
postasis; not divided or distinguished into two persons, but re-
maining one and the same only begotten God the Logos, and
Lord Jesus Christ.” (Cited in Giesel. Chh. Hist. I. p. 240.)
The fact of two natures, complete and real, cannot well be
expressed in language stronger or more definite than this. But
the fact did not satisfy all minds. Many were prone to specu-
late. Hence the long and tedious controversies, that followed,
with the Monophysite party, i. e. those who maintained that
Christ had but one nature, as well as one person. But at length
the position of the Council of Chalcedon, as well as of Nice and
Constantinople, obtained an almost universal predominance.
It is no part of my design to bring down these outlines to a
later period. It is easy to see, that the full assertions inade by
the counsel of Chalcedon, in regard to matters of fact, without
any attempt at explanation (except what is implied in the phrase
elernal generation), would excite speculative and inquiring minds
to ask: How can two natures be united in one person 2 Some,
almost of course, would doubt the fact; others would insist on
an explanation of the modus in quo ; and others would en-
deavour, by a variety of definitions and argumentations, to win-
dicate the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon.
Without any special reference to this Counciſ, the state of
things in regard to the questions which its Confession naturally
elicited, has been, and still is, even at the present hour, much
like what it was in times soon following the period of the Coun-
cil. Neither a positive definition of person, nor an explanation
of the modus in quo of the union of two natures, has ever been
So made as to command general assent.
I shall pass by the efforts which mere philosophy has made
to untie the modus, and present the reader here with a number
of attempts to define personality, as applied to the divine nature,
made, in days that are past, by leading theologians on the conti-
ment of Europe.
60 SUPPLIEMENTARY NOTE. |LETT. II.
Melancthon : Persona est substantia individua, intelligens, in-
communicabilis, mon sustenta in alia natura.
Buddaeus: Personae voce suppositum intelligens denotatur.
Per suppositum, autem, substantia singularis completa, incom-
municabilis, mom aliunde sustentata, intelligitur. . . Tres personae
in essentia divina . . . tres subsistentiae incommunicabiles, indi-
viduae naturae, hac ipsa manente indivisibili, indigitantur.
Baumgarten: Person means a suppositum which is the ground
of certain actions peculiar to itself. *
Morus: Persona significat ens per se, quod intelligit, et cum
intellectu agit. -
Reinhard : Persona est individuum subsistentiae incompletae,
per se libere agens, et divinarum perfectionum particeps.
Gerhard : Persona est substantia individua, intelligens, in-
communicabilis, quae non sustentatur in alio, vel ab alio. . . Non
est modus subsistendi, sed est substantia certo charactere sive
subsistendi modo insignita.
Sohnius and Keckermann: Hypostasis est toàn oc intº 9580g.
Zanchius: Persona est insa essentia divina, proprio subsisten-
di modo distincta.
Turretin: Vox personae proprie concreta est non abstracta;
quae, praeter formam quae est personalitas, subjecturm etiam
notat cum forma a qua denominatur. -
Calvin : Subsistentia in essentia Dei, qua ad alios relata, pro-
prietate incommunicabili distinguitur, [following Justin and Da-
mascenus of ancient times.]
I do not translate these definitions, because I suppose those
who will interest themselves in this inquiry, to be able to read
the Latin, and thus to judge for themselves. I have a further
reason. To translate, implies an understanding of what one
professes to represent in another language. I certainly cannot
say, that I feel able clearly to comprehend most of these defini-
tions. Some of the leading ones represent person as the mode of
subsistence in the Godhead; some join substance itself also with
the mode. -
The majority of those who undertake to define personality,
represent person as a being or subsistence who is not sustained
by another, or does not subsist in or by another. Now if the Father,
as most of these theologians hold, does after all communicate
personality to the Son and Spirit, how can the Son and Spirit
be persons that do not subsist in or by another ? If the Father
is the fons or principium, the Timym or wittc., of the personality of
the Son and Spirit, (as he is so often called by the fathers), then
LETT. II.] STUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 61
how is it that the persons of the Son and Spirit do not subsist
by him? And if they depend on him for personality, (which is
virtually maintained by the patristic, and expressly by the
modern, theory of the Trinity), then how can their personality
be conceived of as not existing in and by him P. To avoid this
difficulty we must say, that personality being once communica-
ted to the Son and Spirit, it then becomes an independent at-
tribute. But in this way the difficulty cannot be removed ; for,
first, the same writers do most of them declare, that personality
is incommunicable ; and secondly, it is not within the power of
of the human mind even to conceive of a being that is indepen-
dent as to any attribute, so long as that attribute has been be-
stowed by another, and is not self-existent.
Thus we see the difficulties which attend the school-logic
system of definition and explanation, in respect to such a mat-
ter. And as for those who undertake to make out personality
in the common way of separate consciousness, will, affections,
etc., i. e. in the way in which we apply the word to men, I must
believe that their views, considered in their logical conse-
quences, necessarily lead on to Tritheism. For what shall we
say of the idea of three separate consciousnesses, wills, affec-
tions, etc. P. Can a spiritual being, i.e. can the Movºg, be even
supposed to exist without a consciousness, will, affections, etc.?
Does not his moral character, do not his moral attributes, consist
essentially in these ? And if these are not, as theologians aver,
in reality to be distinguished from the substance or essence of the
Godhead; and if this substance (as all agree) is numerically one ;
then how are we to make out three separate wills, affections,
etc.? Or is it that the Movgg is God, without any will or affec-
tions P Or if they belong to him, then does the Father as one
person have a separate will, and the Son and Spirit as second
and third persons have each a separate will 2 And are we, in
this way of reasoning, to make out four separate consciousnesses,
affections, etc., in the Godhead 2 What is all this in reality, but
going back to an absolute pluralily in the Godhead, and main-
taining nothing in effect but mere specific unity ?
To say that declarations like those in John and Paul, viz. that
the Logos created all things, and that God made the world by his
Son, must prove a distinct will of Son and Father, amounts to
the same thing as to say, that they must prove the existence of
distinct essential attributes. In the like way the Arians say,
that the declaration of John, “and the Logos was witH God,”
proves that he could not be the same as God, but must be a dis-
6
62 SUPIPLEMENTARY NOTE. |LETT. II.
tinct and different being; else how could he be with him P But
here one is tempted to exclaim: When shall we come fully to
learn, that in speaking of the Godhead as it is in itself, human
language (as now formed, and indeed in any way in which it
could be formed), must be altogether inadequate to a full and
exact description ? When distinctions in the Godhead itself are
once admitted, and distinctions that pertain to an intelligent ra-
tional nature, in what other way can we speak and write ré-
specting them, than the biblical writers have done 2 I know of
none. The imperfection of human language forbids it. And it
would seem to be quite as rational and scriptural to maintain
that God is limited in his presence and is local, because the Scrip-
ture represents him as ascending and descending, as it would to
maintain three separate wills, affections, etc., of the Trinity, be-
cause God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is a reason
or ground in his very being, for his developments as Trinity;
else they would not be made. These developments necessarily
pre-suppose some distinctions belonging to his nature; but that
these amount to separate consciousnesses, wills, affections, etc.,
would be a perilous position to assume. Perilous; because
when once assumed, theoretical tritheism at least becomes logi-
cally inevitable. A man may contradict and disclaim this, I well
know, in words; and he may sincerely and truly reject it in in-
tention ; but the inevitable logical result of his position must be
theoretical Tritheism. What more distinctive mark is there of
three different persons among men, and in a human sense, than
that they have separate consciousnesses, wills, and affections 2
Perilous, I say again, because it assumes the position, that we
know enough concerning the nature of the distinctions in the
Godhead, thus to predict of it what amounts to an essential part
of distinctive individuality annong men. Can we deliberately
take, and endeavour to maintain, such a position as this 2
What God has done in developing himself we know from
Scripture. That a distinction is necessarily implied by these
developments, from the very structure of our minds we cannot
avoid admitting. But to extend this in such a way as to make
out a metaphysical definition of persons in the Godhead, (which
of course must imply a definite knowledge of the particular and
distinctive nature of person in it), seems to me to be treading on
forbidden ground. Is it not advancing beyond the boundaries
of human knowledge 2
I can see no contradiction, no absurdity, notbing even incon-
gruous, in the supposition, that the divine nature has manifested
LETT. II.] STUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 63
itself as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while its essence and es-
sential attributes are and have always been numerically one and
the same ; for that they are and have been so, all the leading
Trinitarians agree. Nor is it within the compass of any effort
that my mind can make, to conceive how numerical sameness of
substance and attribute, is compatible with distinct conscious-
nesses, wills, and affections P What are these last but essential
attributes of the Movºg himself? And if so, how can these very
same attributes be numerically three ? If the Bible asserts this,
then I will yield at once ; because I shall then take it for grant-
ed, that my darkened and feeble understanding is the source of
my difficulty. But if the Bible (as I verily believe) does neither
assert nor imply it; then it must be shown to be possible and
consistent, before it can be entitled to our faith.
It would seem, that after all which has been done to show
the high and spiritual and incomprehensible nature of the divine
Being, and the inadequacy of human language fully to describe
him as he is, we are yet called to argue, in order to satisfy the
minds of some, that such expressions as the Logos being wirh
God, and God’s creating the worlds by his Son, are not to be taken
and reasoned from, just as if they had been employed in respect
to known individual and entirely separate beings. If God com-
municates his whole substance to the Son, as the Nicenians, and
most of the Trinitarians in modern times (who treat of and be-
'lieve in eternal generation) actually maintain, how then can
there be separate consciousnesses, wills, and affections? Or are
we to suppose these to exist independently of the substance or
essence of the Godhead P &
In a word, it is only when we come adequately to learn the
imperfection of human language, and the difficulties which at-
tend communications by it respecting distinctions in the God-
head, that we shall be satisfied how inconclusive all reasoning
must be, which is founded on deductions drawn from the lan-
guage of Scripture, when we interpret that language just as if
it had relation to firlite intelligences who are altogether distinct
and separate beings. What cannot be proved, if we are to take
such liberties as these ? Surely the Anthropomorphites are not
to be confuted, when such a position is taken. It seems to be
quite as cogent an argumerit to say, that when hands, eyes, feet,
heart, etc., are ascribed to the Godhead by the sacred writers,
they can mean mothing, unless we give to their language a liter-
al, or at least a quasi-literal, meaning, as it is to say that the
being with God, and God's creating the worlds by his Son can
64 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
mean nothing, unless it have a literal, or quasi-literal, meaning.
In the first case, we reject the exegesis of the Anthropomor-
phites, because we consider it absolutely certain that God is a
simple spiritual being. In the second, then, the admitted mu-
merical unity and Sameness of substance and essential attributes in
the Godhead, would seem to stand arrayed, with equal strength,
against a supposition which would make three numerically dis-
tinct essential attributes; for such must be three distinct and
separate consciousnesses, wills, and affections. At least, it is
not in the power of my mind to conceive that these two things,
when put together, do not prove an absolute contradiction.
Some of my readers may perhaps be now inclined to urge me
to give my own views of personality. I have already declined
an attempt at formal definitions, averring my belief to be, that
person indicates some distinction in the Godhead, the positive
nature of which we do not understand, and therefore cannot
define. I have no objection, however, to saying what I think
it is not, i. e. to giving in some respects a negative definition.
If it be asked, then : Is personality essence or attribute 2 Not the
first, one might answer; for essence in the Godhead is numer-
ically one and the same. Not the second in an essential and
fundamental sense; because, as we have seen, all the attributes
that are of this description, belong to the one substance or es-
sence of the Godhead. “But if personality be neither substance
nor attribute, some one may exclaim, ‘then can it be anything,
or have any existence at all 2’
My answer is, that this last question is founded on some mis-
conception, or at least imperfect conception, of the positions
just laid down. God may have properties or attributes, which
we do not consider as exclusively peculiar to Deity, and which
do not of themselvés distinguish him from created beings. Thus
we may say, his nature is spiritual ; and so is that of angels,
and of that part of man which is made in his image. Such at-
tributes, from their very nature, do hardly admit of gradation in
the common sense. Other attributes he has, some of which are
distinctive or peculiar to him principally in respect to degree ;
such as wisdom, justice, goodness, etc. Others he has, which
are entirely and altogether peculiar and appropriate ; such as
self-existence, eternity absolute, immutability, etc. Now per-
sonality cannot be put among these two latter classes of attri-
butes; because they belong, as nearly all agree, to the Movgg
or essential substance of the Godhead. If then personality be-
long to the Godhead, it must belong to it, as it would seem, not
LETT. II.] SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 65
as essential to divinity, but as in some respect or other modal,
or at least as an attribute which holds (in a logical arrangement)
a secondary and not a primary place.
So Turretin himself concedes: Persona differre dicetur ab
essentia, non realiter, id est essentialiter, ut res et res, sed moda-
liter, ut modus a re; Quaest. 27. § 3. That is, person may be
said to differ from essence, not really, i. e. essentially, as thing
and thing, but modally, as mode from thing.
It is possible then, that there may be in the Godhead some
distinctions which do not consist in a difference of substance;
and which moreover do not consist in the high and peculiar and
exclusive attributes of that substance which constitute Godhead,
but which are, as Turretin avers, modal; or they may be of
such a nature that we have no language to describe them, and
no present ability even to comprehend them if they could be
described. Can it be strange that the uncreated and self-exis-
tent Godhead should have some such properties as these ? The
impossibility or even the improbability of this, no man is able to
prove. r
There may then be distinctions in the Godhead, that lie be-
yond all our present logical and metaphysical conception or
power of definition; distinctions which are co-eternal with the
Godhead itself; and which, though neither essence or essential
attribute in the highest sense, may still have an existence that
is real and true.
Any theory which derives the essence of Godhead in the Son
and Spirit from the first person, seems to strike at the root of
equal power and glory among the three persons of the Godhead,
and moreover virtually to deny the self-existence and independence
of the second and third persons. Any theory which makes the
modus exislendi, i. e. the subsistence or personality, of the Son
and Spirit to depend on the first person and to be bestowed by
him, in like manner virtually denies the self-existence and inde-
pendence of the second and third persons; for how can they
be of that self-existent substance which is numerically one and
the same with that of the Father, and yet this substance have
no modus subsistend of its own 2 How can substance exist
without a mode of existing 2 Or if you say, that “there are dif.
ferent and many modes of subsisting belonging to the same
essence, and that personality is only one of them ; or that other
modes of existence may be necessarily attached to the divine
substance which is one, but that this may be something which
is bestowed on the second and third persons, or imparted to them;’
6%
66 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
then I have several difficulties to suggest which seem to lie in
the way of such a supposition. (1) If the Father, Son, and
Spirit, are in all respects equal in power and glory, how can the
Father have a power to bestow personality on the Son and
Spirit, when they have no such power in reference to him P
(2) If the Father has a personality bestowed by none, this must
be the result of the substance which he possesses, and a modi-
fication of it which is inseparably connected with its very ma-
ture ; but inasmuch as the Son and Spirit possess numerically
the same substance, how is it that this same modification of per-
sonality, does not attach also to the divine substance which is
in them P
Person, moreover, cannot be such a division in the Godhead,
as makes separate and merely co-ordinate consciousnesses, wills,
affections, etc.; for this brings us to admit a principle that
would consist with all the polytheism which we can imagine to
exist, or to be possible, among divine natures; or else it reduces
us to make the impossible supposition, that one and the same
identical spiritual substance has three distinct sets of attributes,
which in all respects are again one and the same with each
other, or at least exactly alike. -
In fact, any definition of personality in the Godhead which
represents person to be ens per se or substantia individua non
sustentata in alia natura, as most of the definitions above given
do either assert or imply, seems plainly and substantially to in-
fringe on the idea that there is but one and numerically the
same substance in the Godhead. I am not able to see why it
does not clearly involve a logical contradiction.
One and all of these modes of Trinitarianism then, it would
seem, must be abandoned by the considerate believer of the
present day. Protestants have always professed themselves at
liberty to pass in review Creeds and Confessions and Systems,
venerable for antiquity, and long defended by eloquence and
learning and even force. But let them not abuse this sacred
privilege. Let their not reject anything merely because it is
old, or because it has been defended by arguments that will not
abide the day of scrutiny; nor receive anything merely because
it is new and striking, and looks -fair, and promises to relieve
some of the difficulties that accompanied the older doctrine.
Will it be said now by those who are opposed to the doctrine
of the Trinity, that nothing certain can be made out in respect
to it, either from the ancient Christian fathers, or the modern
schools of theology; and that, from my own showing, it appears
LETT. II.]. SUPPLIEMENTARY NOTE. 67
to have been an ever varying and obscure and indefinable doc-
trine, and therefore cannot be important to the Christian, much
less essential to his salvation ? The answer to this suggestion
is not difficult. I ask, first, is it not true, that the great body
of the Christian churches, in every age, have regarded Christ as
truly divine, and considered him as the proper object of worship,
and the Being to whom their prayers might be properly direct-
ed P I admit, for I have already shown, that the metaphysical
speculations of every age have been more or less varying, and
Sometimes in certain repects even opposite—speculations re-
specting the modus of the connection between Father, Son, and
Spirit, the personality of each, the relation of the higher and
lower natures in the person of Christ, and in regard to some
other things of the like kind. But may not men make endless
mistakes, and exhibit a countless variety of opinions, when they
undertake to specificate and define that which in its very nature
is beyond the reach of definition ? And may not the mistakes
or errors which they commit, pertain altogether more to philo-
Sophical views about the modus of things, than to their essence or
reality? How easy it would be to show the like state of things
in regard to most of the objects of intellectual or natural philos-
ophy It is sufficient to mention two simple things, in the ex-
istence and leading properties of which every rational being
now alive on earth believes, who is in possession of common
sense and has the use of his faculties—I mean light and heat.
But is there any end of the disputes about these ? Or is there
like to be an end ? . It is not even yet decided, whether these
are material substances or not, nor in what way the sensation of
light in us is produced. It is not decided whether the sun ra-
diates both, in such a manner as must attach itself to subtile
and attenuated fluid substances, or whether his presence in the
sky only occasions an action in the atmosphere, or in the empy-
real fluid, which terminates in affecting our senses with the
perception of light and heat. But is any man deterred by the
endless disputes in relation to these subjects, from believing in
the reality of light and heat? So far as I know, there is not,
and never has been, even one.
Why now should the ever varying efforts of men to define
the personality of the Godhead, and to define the manner in
which the person of Christ is constituted, prevent our believing
in what the Scriptures have asserted to be a matter of fact, viz.,
that Christ is both God and man 2 To show a priori that such
a fact involves an impossibility or an absurdity, is out of question.
68 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
If we adhere to the authority of revelation, then we must simply
inquire : What does revelation say ? We need not—should not
—go to the ever varying phases of the doctrine of the Trinity,
as taught by the Fathers and by the Schools, in hope of learn-
ing what cannot be taught by men, because it is beyond their
reach. And if nearly, or (to a certain extent) quite, all the di-
versities of opinion that exist, have respect to things which are
beyond the boundaries of human knowledge, why should this
be made a ground for rejecting the substance of that in which
the churches have been and are agreed 2 That substance, as it
appears to me after not a little investigation of the history of the
doctrine in question, seems to be, that Christ possesses a truly
divine mature, which makes him a proper object of worship, of
homage, and of prayer. It lies on the face of past history, that
the Christian church was never, for any considerable length of
time, satisfied with anything which they regarded as amounting
to less than this. The New Testament always stood in the
way of theories below this, and brought the church out, sooner
or later, against them.
There cannot be any reasonable doubt, in respect to the unaf.
fected reverence and homage paid to Christ by such men as
Origen and Eusebius of Cesarea. Yet they held the doctrine of
eternal generation in the homoiousian form, i. e. they held only
that the Son was like to the Father. For us, this sentiment
would throw an insuperable obstacle in the way of homage and
worship to him, as a Being who is truly divine. But not so to
them. Their philosophy forbade not the idea of emanation from
God, and the emanation of a being like to him, but of course de-
pendent on him. Yet here an escape from maintaining the de-
cided inferiority of the Son, was designedly provided for, by
holding that the generation or emanation of the Son was €ternal,
and therefore he must be divine. With their philosophy we can-
not possibly agree; but their real theology is less discrepant from
ours, than we may be inclined to imagine. º
It is plain enough, that, when the churches had become.
alarmed with the tendency of Origen's speculations, and espe-
cially when this alarm had become almost a consternation, at the
period in which Arius broached his famous problem: There was
a time when the Son was not ; and also asserted that he was merely
created before the world began, (a view much below that of Ori-
gen); it is plain, I say, that the church spoke out its convictions
at Nice, so as to contradict both Origen and Arius, although
Arius was the person mainly and immediately aimed at in their
LETT. II.] SUPFLEMENTARY NOTE. 69
Creed. The Homoiousy of Origen and Arius is exchanged for
Homoousy, i.e. like substance with the Father is exchanged for
same substance ; the created or made of Arius is exchanged for
elernally begotten. This puts aside at once both Origenism and
Arianism, and makes in fact a very important advance towards
the scripture doctrine of the Trinity—as great an one as could
with any good reason be expected, at the commencement of the
fourth century. *
But still, with all the veneration which I feel for the Christian
fathers, and all which in addition to this is naturally attached
to a Creed so long and so widely diffused and honoured, I must
confess myself to be entirely at a loss, how an intelligent Trinita-
rian, of the present time, can consent to admit this Creed as the
leading Symbol of a Christian confession of faith. First, as a sum-
mary of Christian doctrine it is essentially defective; for it con-
tains little else but a contradiction of the peculiarities of Arius.
All the leading and fundamental doctrines of grace are omitted.
Secondly, it asserts a doctrine, viz. that of eternal generation,
which we of the present day, taught as we have been in respect
to the essential attributes of Godhead, cannot possibly admit,
without at the same time admitting, that the Son is neither self-
existent nor independent. But a being destitute of these two at-
tributes we cannot regard as “God over all and blessed forever.”
I have no apprehension that the Nicene fathers meant to assert
or concede the inferiority of the Son, or to imply a doubt of his
true divinity. But, as I have already said, their metaphysics
(such as they were) permitted them to believe in derived Godhead,
and yet to make it homoousian with its source | But in this cal-
culation the attributes of self-existence and independence were
overlooked. A being derived, begotten, emanated, or created,
cannot, even in imagination, be supposed to be self-existent or
independent. All that is said of mysteriousness, and of the in-
conceivably super-natural, in respect to the mode of generation,
does not touch the point in question. The favourite simile of
Tertullian, and after him of all the orthodox fathers and even of
the writers of modern times, is that of radiance proceeding from
the sun. “It is,’ say they, “coeval with the sun, and existed the
first moment that the Sun had an existence ; and moreover, it is
part of the sun, or of the same nature with him, and yet the
emission of it does not diminish or alter the sun.” But on closer
examination, we find that this comparison will not abide the test;
not even as to time. It comes near to illustrating the etermity
of the Son's generation, but does not reach the mark. If the
70 suPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
sun is the cause of radiance, then did the cause precede the effect.
As to the rest; does not radiance depend upon the sun, which is
its proper cause P. And is the Logos caused and dependent, and
yet God supreme P And when it is said that radiance is homo-
ousian with the sun itself; how can it be true, that the cause of
radiance and radiance itself are the same 2 Moreover, if radiance
is material, then does the sun suffer a change by emitting it.
If it is not material, then it depends on successive influences of
the sun. Of course, there is no one point of the comparison
which will abide the test. It must be true, that the necessary
concomitant of generation, emanation, or creation, is dependence
on the being which begets, or emanates, or creates. Dependence,
however, and self-existence are direct opposites. -
These considerations seem so plain and obvious, that I must
confess it to be a matter of surprise to me, that any Trinitarians
of the present day should adopt and defend the Nicene Creed,
as part of their profession of faith. -
I say nothing here of the so called Athanasian Creed ; because
it is generally admitted, as I suppose, that there is no satisfac-
tory proof that Athanasius was the author of it. Dr. Waterland
ascribes it to Hilary, bishop of Arles. It was first received in
France, about A. D. 850; in Spain and Germany, about 1030.
In some parts of Italy it was current about 960; at Rome, it
was admitted in 1014. Many churches, viz. the Lutheran, the
Episcopal (of Europe), and others, receive and retain it. It is
more minute and circumstantial than the Nicene; but it leaves
the main difficulty, viz. derivation and dependence, unremoved.
Any Creed, which predicates these of the Logos or divine na-
ture of Christ, cannot be mine. It is far below what I call
orthodoxy, at the present time. We cannot take such a position,
while enlightened views of the true nature of Godhead are
widely diffused, without incurring the certain risk of teaching
what is indeed somewhat in advance of Arianism, but still, as to
the two most distinctive attributes of the Godhead, viz. self-existence
and independence, it occupies common ground with the same
heresy. For surely it differs from it, in respect to the matter
now before us, only in the terminology which it employs.
I must now beg leave further to remark, that I know of no one
topic in theology, which has been more abused, whether in the
way of reasoning, or of appealing to the ancient fathers, than
that of the Trinity. Some reason from all declarations respect-
ing this doctrine, just as if language concerning it were em-
ployed in its ordinary sense as applied to finite and created be-
LETT. II.] SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 71
ings. This has been usual among Antitrinitarians, in all ages.
The appeals to the ancient Christian fathers, have been endless;
and unfortunately, all parties can find something in them, which
they may manage to convert to their own use. Strictness of de-
finition in regard to such a subject, among writers so little
guided by the logic of Aristotle, or any other logic, as the fathers
were, is out of all reasonable question. There is not one of them,
in which we cannot find at least seeming discrepancies and con-
tradictions. This lays them open to abuse and perversion. Then
oftentimes their notions of the Godhead seem to be so discrepant
from ours, particularly in regard to the pure spirituality of his
nature, that what they sometimes say is capable of a meaning
apparently very strange, and at variance with the general tenor
of their language. -
These are sources enough for originating mistakes, and to
render the ground of the fathers rather a hazardous one to be
trodden by a partisan or sectarian. Dr. Priestley has shown, on
one side, and Waterland, as I think, on the other, not only what
opposite conclusions may be drawn from the same general
Sources, but how almost anything and everything can be made
out of hasty or not well digested expressions, when one sets out
to carry a point at all adventures, and moreover does not enter,
with any good degree of success, into the spirit of the age when
the works of the fathers were written. A more incondite and
unfair book than Priestley’s History of Early Opinions, is rarely
to be met with. Dr. Priestley was much more appropriately
employed in the chemical than in the patristical laboratory.
Among the many hundreds of books, which have professed to
give the views of the Christian fathers respecting the doctrine
of the Trinity and the dignity and person of the Son of God, I
know of but one, which is not a mere compilation of fragments
and insulated and scattered parts. The idea of a regular order
in the topics, and the unfolding of a principle, which may be
called the trunk from which limbs have been continually shoot-
ing off; the conception of a general unity, with demarcations of
specific variety ; seem to have entered thoroughly into the
mind of no writer, previous to the recent admirable Essay of
Prof. J. A. Dorner, of the university of Tübingen, in his History
of the Unfolding of the Doctrine respecting the Person of Christ.
To him I am much indebted for some of the views correspon-
dent with such a plan, in the present Note.*
* I take great pleasure in adding, that it appears by the catalogue of
books in Germany, that he is enlarging, filling out, and completing the
72 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II.
One thing I cannot forbear noting in respect to the work of
Dorner. This is, that a large portion of his book is occupied
with a Critique on all the various schemes of philosophy in Ger-
many, which have attracted, any special notice, so far as they are
concerned with the subject of Christology. Being an adept in
this branch of science, and one of the very highest order, it is no
wonder that his book, containing such a masterly Critique as it
does, has attracted the notice and commanded the applause of
all. The justice of his criticisms is felt; for otherwise they could
not command such general homage. He who wishes to learn how
philosophy, for the last half century, has modified Christology,
may gratify his curiosity by reading his book. The various sys-
tems of Wolfius, Kant, Jacobi, Fichte, Schelling, Schleiermacher,
Marheineke, Rosenkrantz, Göschel, Conradi, and Hegel, specially
of the latter, pass in review, and the ruling principles of each
are exhibited and criticised. Will not the reader, who is unac-
quainted with these, be somewhat surprised to learn, that, from
Schelling downward, all assume the doctrine of a Trinity as true,
and as the basis of their system P Specially does the union of the
Divine and HUMAN constitute a leading element in the Hegelian
philosophy. Indeed its advocates, such as are religiously inclined,
boast of its having brought about a complete union between the
Scriptures and reason, in respect to this leading point of Christ-
ology. Accordingly we find Dr. Nitzsch of Bonn and Weisse of
Leipsic (a leading Hegelian there), in the same No. of the Quar-
terly Studien und Kritiken, both defending the doctrine of the
Trinity, against the semi-Arian views of F. Lücke ; the first, in
the Old School and even Thomas Aquinas style ; the second,
after the manner of the new philosophy. What a change |
How does time trample upon violent party effusions, and refuse
to listen to the voice of ridicule and contempt! The Rational-
ists routed and dispersed by the Hegelians !
It would be aside from my present purpose, to aim at making
an exposé of the Hegelian Christology. Dorner is the only Ger-
man whom I have been able to follow and understand, in his
view of this matter. His thoughts are so straightforward and
logical and discriminating, without being overloaded with tech-
nical phraseology, that a patient reader, somewhat versed in
such matters, may comprehend and follow him.
admirable plan which he sketched in the first edition of his work (one
small 8vo. vol.); inasmuch as a first volume has already been published,
which, as it indicates a second, promises of course a great enlargement
of the original work.
LETT. II.] SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 73.
But after all, what a Trinity does Hegelism make It finds
no difficulty, indeed, in bringing together God and man, the di-
vine nature and the human, because, as it assumes, God is de-
veloped as a conscious being, i. e. as having personality, only in
a human nature. He could not be God in full without us, any
more than we can be perfect men without him. It would seem
according to this philosophy, therefore, to be proper to say, that
the divine nature is human, and the human nature is divine;
we are God, and God is we. Indeed the Hegelians make this
fundamental in their system. But why the only perfect man was
Jesus Christ, and why other men are not perfect since God de-
velopes himself in them, is what the philosophy in question does
not satisfactorily solve. Other great defaults in the Hegelian doc-
trines are pointed out by Dorner; and in such a way as to show,
that these doctrines fall immeasurably below the standard of the
Scriptures, in respect to the God-Man who is the Redeemer of
our fallen race. In effect the sinner is taught, (if indeed as a
sinner he is taught at all), that God has as much need of him as
he of God. In what way a broken and contrité spirit is to be pro-
duced, by means such as these, remains practically and theo-
retically a problem, which it would be difficult to solve.
I am not among the number of those who suppose that He-
gel's direct design was to overthrow Revelation and Christianity.
But I am, at the same time, most fully satisfied, that he regarded
Revelation with so little respect, with reference to any principles
of philosophy, that he would never have modified a single thought
or expression out of deference to it. His Pantheism makes it
easy to believe in a sort of incarnation. His God, so far as he
concedes that there is any, is an impersonal being, except as he
is dependent on us for temporary personal development. And
again, when he has fully united with us, we lose our personality
as human beings, as a matter of course. There is no doubt of
the great talent—of the highly discriminating powers of Hegel,
or of his extensive learning in the department of philosophy.
But to make such abstractions a part of the religion of the great
mass of men—it would be more difficult than it would to con-
vert them into Newtons and Laplaces.
Dorner himself, who cherishes the highest admiration for the
talents of Hegel, confesses, or rather shows, that ‘the God-JMan.
of his system is essentially different from that of the Gospel;
that the reconciliation (or atonement) is a bare mediation of God
with himself, in order that he may become conscious of himself
in another mode of existence, i.e. in the world, (so that in effect
7
74 suPPLEMENTARY NOTE. [LETT. II:
a duality is virtually assumed in God); that the forgiveness of sin
is only a religious mode of expression intended to designate the
moral freedom of man ; that men have a continued power of
redeeming themselves without the mediation of Christ; that all
men are essentially of the same nature and rank as Christ; that
men are only temporary phenomena, into which the divine en-
ergy enters, and through which it penetrates, in order that it
may attain to a consciousness of itself; and finally, that the per-
feet unity of the divine and human, in Christ, in a peculiar man-
ner, is neither supposed nor supposable, nor can his develop-
ment be regarded as sinless.’ In a word, the incarnation
amounts only to a satisfactory proof, that the union of God and
man is possible, which man in his natural state is inclined to
disbelieve.
Such are some of the results of Hegelian Christology. Truly
“the world by wisdom know not God.” And I may add, from
the deepest convictions of my soul, that “the foolishiness of God
is wiser, than men.” In the spirit and with the language of a
penitent of ancient days, who hastened to the sepulchre of Je-
sus, where she feared that all her hopes had been buried, I
would approach this charnel-house of vital Christianity and ex-
claim: “They have taken away my Lord, ... and I know, not
where they have laid him " So far as this philosophy is con-
cerned, that is all I could have to say. But no grave can hold
the mighty Conqueror of death. He is not there, he has risen;
he has ascended on high, led captivity captive, is distributing
gifts to men, and is and will be sowned and adored as Lord
of all, by those “who have been redeemed to God by his blood,
out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”
It is time to close this protracted Note. I cannot do this, how-
ever, without adding a word on the position which, as it seems
to me, all evangelical churches ought to take, in reference to
the doctrine of the Trinity. (1) They should insist on it, that,
according to the Scriptures, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one
God, and but one, the same in substance, equal in power and
glory. (2) They should maintain, that in the Lord Jesus Christ,
the divine and human, in the perfection and fulness of both, are
united. (3) They ought not to exact from any one, professing the
Christian faith, that he should adopt any definition or description
of the word person, as applied to the Godhead or to the Lord Jesús
Christ, which mere philosophy or theology has made out, but
which is not taught in the Scriptures. (4) If I might be permit-
ted freely to speak my own opinion, I would further say, that I
LETT. II.j SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. 75
should regard the omission of the word person in all church-creeds
as quite desirable, in order to avoid fruitless and endless contro-
versy and misunderstanding. If any one is startled at this, I
take shelter under a name, which, although once cast out, and
abhorred by many, and often covered with reproach, now com-
mands, among nearly all parties of the intelligent, unaffected reve-
rence and admiration; I mean the name of CALVIN. In his In-
stitutes, I. 13. 5, he says: “Utinam sepulta essent JVomina, con-
staret modo haec inter omnes fides: Patrem et Filium et Spiritum
Sanctum esse wrvum Dew.m. ; i. e. My wish is, that all names might
be buried, provided this article of faith might be agreed upon by
all: THE FATHER AND SoN AND Holy SPIRIT ARE one God.”
I need not say how many anxious minds would be calmed by
the adoption of such a noble and scriptural sentiment, and by
agreeing upon it as one of the conditions of Christian confidence
and communion. Nor need I say, how much unskilful handling
of this great and difficult topic would be.prevented, nor how
large a proportion of objections against Trinitarianism would be
removed. All this lies upon the face of the matter. How was
it with the churches, before the Council of Nice P They had no
Creed drawn up in any formal manner. And nearly all of the
martyr-spirit, most of the enlarged success in converting heathen,
and high attainments in the spirit of brotherly concord, as well
as all the conspicuous Christian graces, belong to the earliest
period of the church. Have we nothing to learn from facts like
these 2 My belief is, that the churches must go back, and make
more of the BIBLE, and less of Creeds, in order to revive the
spirit of the primitive ages of Christianity. When they shall be
as anxious to promote brotherly harmony, and kindness, and true
liberality, as they have for a long time been to inflame secta-
rian zeal, and increase the causes of dissension by sectarian
creeds, and to treat with severity and contempt or reproach those
who differ from them in matters unessential, then will the world
once more be constrained to say: See how these Christians love
one another 1 Then, to use the last words of the adorable Saviour,
“will they all be one;” and then, (but not till then), “will the
world believe that Christ is sent by the Father.”
76 MODE OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. III.
L E T T E R III.
REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,
My great object, hitherto, has been to show, that the real
question at issue between us, in regard to a distinction in the
Godhead and the divinity of the Saviour, cannot be decided
independently of the Scriptures. There is no such absurdity
or inconsistency in either of these doctrines, as will justify us
in rejecting them without investigation. The question
whether they are true or not, belongs entirely and purely to
Revelation. If you admit this, then the simple question be-
tween us is: What does Revelation teach We are agreed
that the Bible is the word of God; that whatever “Christ
taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired
apostles, is of divine authority.” We are agreed as to prin-
ciples of interpretation, in most things that are of any impor-
tance. We both concede, that the principles by which all
books are to be interpreted, are those which apply to the in-
terpretation of the Bible; for the very plain reason which
you have given, that when God condescends to speak and
write for men, it is according to the established rules of hu-
man language. What better than an enigma would the
Scriptures be, if such were not the fact P An inspired ºn-
terpreter would be as necessary to explain, as an inspired
prophet or apostle was to compose, the books of Scripture.
From this great and fundamental principle of all interpre-
tation, it results that the grammatical analysis of the words
of any passage, i. e. an investigation of their meaning in gen-
eral, of their syntactical connection, of their idiom, of their
relation to the context, and of course of their local meaning;
must be the essential process, in determining the sense of any
text or part of Scripture. On this fundamental process de-
pends the interpretation of all the classics, and of all other
books; from this result laws which are uniform, and which
cannot be violated, without at once plunging into the dark
‘LETT. III.] MODE OF INTERPRETATION. 77
and boundless field of conjectural exegesis. Whatever aid I
may get from other sources to throw light upon my text, I
cannot dispense with the aid which these rules will afford.
These rules are founded in the simple fact, that every writer
wishes and expects to be understood by his contemporaries,
and therefore uses language as they do. We presume this
of the sacred writers; and apply to them, as to the classics,
(excepting that we allow for the Hebrew-Greek idioms in
the New Testament), the common and universal rules of
grammatical interpretation.
Admitting then the fundamental principles of grammatical
interpretation to be the best and surest guide to the sense of
any writer, I must never supersede these, by supposing or
conjecturing that some peculiar principles or motives influ-
enced that writer. If it can be proved that he was under the
influence of these ; or if this can be even. rendered probable ;
of course such a fact must have its proper influence upon
the interpretation of him. But until this can be shown, the
general laws of grammatical interpretation are our only guide.
Nor can we violate the obvious principles of grammatical in-
terpretation, for the sake of vindicating from inconsistency,
absurdity, or contradiction, any author, even a scriptural one.
I must here explain myself, however, in order to prevent
mistake in regard to my meaning. The Scriptures certainly
stand on different ground, from that on which any other book
rests, on account of their claim to be received as a Revelation
from God. What other book can plead well authenticated
miracles, for its support ; or can produce declarations of a
prophetic nature that have been fulfilled; or can glory in
such an exhibition of the principles of piety and virtue—of
love to God, and of beneyolence and beneficence to men?
Just in proportion, then, as these evidences influence my
mind to believe that the Bible is of divine origin, in the same
proportion it becomes improbable to me that this Bible con-
tains absurdities, errors, or contradictions. When any ap-
parent error or contradiction attracts my attention, I hesitate
to pronounce it such as it appears to be. My reason for so
7%
T8 MODE OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. III.
doing is, the strength of the evidence in favour of its divine
origin; which is such that I must do violence to my convic-
tions, if I admit that the book contains either what is erro-
neous or contradictory. I am then slow to attribute, in any
case, such a sense to words in the Scriptures, as would make
a passage speak either absurdity or contradiction. But if,
after all the light which I could gain, it should appear still to
be a plain case, that there is either absurdity or contradiction
in the sacred text; then I must find a different reading; or
give up the passage; or renounce the whole book. I may,
moreover, merely suspend an opinion, as to doubtful cases.
My convictions respecting the nature and design of the holy
Scriptures; the imperfection of my knowledge; diffidence in
Imyself—all demand that I should act in this manner. But
in any clear case; where the meaning of a sacred writer, or
what he originally designed to say, can be definitely ascer-
tained by the common laws of interpretation, and it appears
that this meaning is erroneous, or contradicts some other pas-
Sage; I have no right to put a constructive sense upon the
words, and do violence to the passage, in order to avoid any
consequences that may follow. I cannot honestly do it.
The same common sense and reason, which prescribe the
laws of exegesis, decide that the meaning of a writer must
be that which those laws determine it to be. Of course, if I
put a gloss upon any passage, which represents it as convey-
ing a meaning different from that which the laws of interpre-
tation would assign to it, I may deceive others, or I may
serve the interests of party, but I violate the reason which
God has given me by such conduct, and act a part dishonest,
and unworthy of an inquirer after truth.
If the fundamental maxims of exegesis lead to the belief,
that a writer of the New Testament has contradicted himself,
or another sacred writer; then I must revert at once to the
question : Is the book divine 2 Can it be so, if there is con-
tradiction ? This question I may settle, (on my responsibili-
ty to God), as I please. But I have no right to violate the
fundamental rules of language, by forcing a meaning upon
t"
LETT. III.] MODE OF INTERPRETATION. 79
the writer to make him consistent, which, as is obvious on
the universal principles of explaining language, he never de-
signed to convey. In determining the question : Whether
the writers of the New Testament were inspired? I must al-
ways, in attending to the internal evidence of the books, con-
sider whether they have contradicted each other. To enable
myself to determine this question, the simple rules of gram-
matical exegesis can never be violated. I must read this
book, as I do all other books. Then, if there evidently be
gontradiction, I must reject its claims; if there be not, and I
think the evidence is sufficient that they are well founded, I
must admit them. But at any period subsequent to this,
when I have admitted the book to be inspired, I am not at
liberty to aver, that the writers could never have taught
Some particular principle which I dislike; and therefore do
violence to the grammatical interpretation, in order to ex- .
plain away any principle of this nature which they seem to
inculcate. My simple inquiry must be, what sentiment does
the language of this or that passage convey, without violence
or perversion of rule 2 When this question is settled, phº-
‘lologically (not philosophically), then I either believe what
is taught, or else reject the claim of divine authority.
What can my own theories and reasonings about the absurdi-
ty or reasonableness of any particular doctrine, avail in de-
termining whether a writer of the New Testament has taught
this doctrine or not? My investigation must be conducted
independently of my philosophy, by my philology. And
when I have obtained his meaning, by the simple and univer-
sal rules of expounding language, I must choose the course I
will take; I must either believe his assertion, or reject his
authority.
If these be not sound and universal maxims of interpreta-
tion, I confess myself a stranger to the whole subject; nor
can I help thinking that you will accord with me, at once, in
the views just expressed. ---
Guided then by these principles, let us now come to the
|
80 •TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
investigation of a few passages in the New Testament, which
concern the divine nature of Christ. I take this point, be-
cause you have dwelt most upon it; and because, very ob-
viously, when this is admitted or rejected, no possible objec-
tion can be felt to admitting or rejecting the doctrine of the
Trinity.
You will not require of me, however, to examine at length
every text of the New Testament, which I may suppose to
have any connection with the subject in question. I must be
permitted, in order. to save time and patience, to select only
those texts, the language of which appears to be genuine, and
above the condemnation of teactual or diplomatic criticism;
and only such as appear to contain the best and most decisive
proof of the point to be discussed. Believing the New Tes-
tament to be of divine origin and authority, you will permit
me to add, that I cannot think the decision of this or any
other question, depends on the number of times in which the
terms of any decision are repeated. The simple question is:
Is such a doctrine really taught? -
I observe then, -
I. The New Testament gives to Christ the appellation of
GOD ; and in such a manner that, according to the fair rules
of interpretation, only the SUPREME GOD can be meant.
A conspicuous passage in proof of this, I should find in
John 1: 1–3, 'Ew &gxi in 6 Aóyog, zoº 6 Möyog #y agög zów
08ów, zed 080s v 6.4670s. Oizog #y fiv dozingos ców 08ów.
IT&vzo. 6 ºzoiſ àyévèzo x&i yogic &üzoö ãyéveto odóš Šv, 6
yśyovey. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the be-
ginning with God. All things were made by him ; and with-
out him was not anything made that was made.” Verse 10,
. . . . x&i 6 ×óguog 6 givoj čyévézo, “and the world was made
by him.”
All known manuscripts agree in the text here. Griesbach
has indeed recorded, that for Ó 08óg there is a conjectural
reading, 0800; and that for x&i 080g v 6 Aóyog, there is a
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 81
conjectural reading of 080g v x&i Ó Máyog. The first of these
conjectures was made by Crellius.* The reason of making
such a conjecture, Crellius has given. “The greater Christ is,”
says he, “compared with other gods, (the Father excepted),
the less can he be expressly called God, lest he should be taken
for the supreme God the Father.” And again: “If he [Christ]
had been expressly called God by the sacred writers, and had
not always been distinguished from God, the sacred writers
would have given an occasion to unskilful men, to regard him
as the supreme God.” (Init. Evang. Johan. p. 295.) To libe-
rate John from being taxed with this imprudence, Crellius
proposed to substitute 6800 for 08óg, in John 1: 1. ; so as to
say, the Logos was OF God, instead of Saying, as John has
done, that He was God.
The second conjectural reading is supported by no better
authority. Bahrdt, (in Neusten Offenbarungen), proposed it
as a happy expedient to relieve the text from the difficulty
and embarrassment, under which he thought it to labour. For
instead of saying: “The Word was with God, and the Word
was God;” he might then translate it thus: “The Word was
with God. God was, and this Word was in the beginning
with God,” etc. w -
I have a great regard for the labours and learning of Gries-
bach; but I am constrained to ask here, why should he have
condescended to notice conjectures so gratuitous and utterly
unfounded and uncritical as these. -
I proceed to the explanation of the text. Ev &oxii corre-
sponds exactly with the Hebrew nºsha, Gen. 1: 1. I can-
not embrace the opinion of those critics, who think that the
phrase év ćgxi, of itself simply, signifies from eternity. Al-
though I believe that the Logos did exist from eternity, I do
not think it is proved directly by this expression. (Compare,
however, Gen. 1: 1.) That existence from eternity is neces-
sarily implied, may no doubt be properly admitted. 'Ev &gxi,
is equivalent to Šv ćgxī zóguov, in the beginning of the world,
* Initium Evang, Johan, restauratum per L. M. Artemonium, P. i. c. 1,
82 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
i.e. before the world was made; and so agreeing in this par-
ticular with the phrase, John 17:5, “the glory that I had
with thee before the world was;” and Eph. 1:4, “before the
foundation of the world.” To say with Crellius, that by áv
&gxi is meant the commencement of preaching the gospel, or
the beginning of Christian instruction, would be making John
gravely tell us, that before the Logos preached the gospel, he
had an existence. This may do for Crellius, but not, as I
think, for John. *
Before the world was created then, the Logos existed.
Who or what was this Logos? A person, or an attribute, of
God? A real agent, or only the personified wisdom, or rea-
son, or power of God?
It is of no importance in settling this question, that we
should know with certainty, whence John derived the appella-
tion Logos. . In my own mind, after all the attention to this
subject that I have been able to pay, the most probable reason
of the appellation is, that it is bestowed.on Christ in reference
to his becoming the instructer or teacher of mankind, the me-
dium of communication between God and them. I cannot
for a moment accede to the opinion that John derived it from
Plato, or from the Gnostics. With Plato's works it is not
probable that he busied himself. For the Gnostics, he surely
had but little respect. Be this however as it may ; the Logos
appears to be a person, i.e. an agent, and not merely an attri-
bute. For first, the attributes of God are nowhere else per-
sonified by the New Testament writers, i. e. the usage of the
New Testament, authors is against this mode of writing.
Secondly, Logos, if considered as an abstract term, or as
merely designating an attribute, can here mean only wisdom
or word; and in what intelligible sense can the wisdom or
the word of God, in the abstract sense, be said to have “be-
come flesh and dwelt among ws,” v. 14? Or why should John
select either the wisdom or word of God, as any more con-
cerned with the incarnation, than the benevolence of God, or
the mercy of God, which one might suppose would be the at-
tributes more especially displayed in such an occurrence.
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 83.
*
Thirdly, if Logos mean here the power of God, as many as-
sert, the exposition is attended with the same difficulties.
Fourthly, if it mean, as others aver, the power of God putting
*tself forth, i. e. in creation, it is liable to the same objections.
In short, make it any attribute you please of God, and then
suppose it to be thus personified, and you introduce a mode of
writing that the New Testament nowhere else displays; and
which even the Old Testament exhibits but once (Prov. viii.),
in a poetic composition of the most animated and exalted
Inature. - g
Yet this is not the chief difficulty. To what class of men
could John address the asseveration, that the Logos (wisdom,
word, or power of God) was “with God?” Where did these
singular heretics suppose the power of God was, except it was
with him 2 or where his wisdom, or his word 3 A peculiar
pertinacity too in their strange opinion they must have had,
to induce the apostle to repeat with emphasis, in the second
verse, that this Logos was with God. What would be said of
a man, who should gravely assert that the power of Peter is
with Peter; or that his wisdom or his word is so? And sup-
pose he should add: The power or wisdom of Peter is Peter—
with what class of mystics should we rank him? Yet John
adds: The Logos was God. Until some heretics of the apos-
tolic age can be discovered, who maintained that the attributes
of God were not with him, I cannot explain why the apostle
should assert twice, successively and emphatically, that his
attributes were with him, in case his meaning was such as is
here supposed.
Equally difficult is it for me to divine, how he could say
that any attribute (either power or wisdom) was God; un-
derstanding the word God in any sense you please. If it
mean supreme God, then it reduces itself to this, either that
one attribute is the Supreme God, or that there are as many
Gods as attributes. If it mean an inferior God, then the
wisdom of God being an inferior God, would seem to imply
that his other attributes are superior Gods; or else that his
wisdom holds the place of quasi-god, while his other attri-
84 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. Itſ.
butes occupy a lower place. Suppose then it should be said,
that Logos or wisdom denotes the essence of God; yet as
such it could not be called 0869, which always implies an
agent or person, i. e. it means, as logicians say, a concrete
and not an abstract. The divine nature or essence is called
08tózng, or zö 08tov, not 6 0869. What could be meant,
moreover, by the essence of God becoming incarnate P
If however it should be said, that the existence of a sect of
heretics, who held that the attributes of God were not with
him, was unnecessary to justify the apostle for having written
the first verse of his gospel, and that we may regard this
verse as written simply for general instruction; then I would
ask, whether a revelation from heaven is necessary to in-
struct us, that the attributes of a being are with that being 2
And what shall we think, moreover, of the assertion, that the
wisdom or power of God is God himself?
We proceed to the second clause: Kai 67.670s ºn ſtgög toy
08ów, and the Logos was with God; i. e. as all agree, with
God the Father. Compare vs. 14, 18, also chap. 17: 5,
and 1 John 1: 1, 2; which make the point clear. Is this ex-
pression capable of any tolerable interpretation, without sup-
posing that the Logos, who was with God, was in some re-
spect or other different or diverse from that God with whom
he was 2 This Logos was the same that became incarnate,
v. 14; that made the most perfect revelation of the will and
character of God to men, v. 18; and was called Christ. He
was therefore, in some respect, diverse from the Father, and
by no means to be confounded with him. Yet we must not
carry this so far as to make him a being separate and inferior
to such a degree as to be in all respects another and an infe-
rior being; for this would contradict the remaining part of
the verse. See above, pp. 33 seq., 61 seq.
Kal Osóg #y 67.6/0s, and the Logos was God. It has been
proposed, (in the so-called Impr. Vers, of the N. Test.), to
render the word 0869, a god. Does then the Christian reve-
lation admit of gods superior and inferior P And if so, to
what class of inferior gods does the Logos belong P And
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 85
how much would such a theory of divine natures, differ from
that which admits a Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and gods to
an indefinite number greater and less 2
Dut it is said, that “ 0869 is destitute of the article, and
therefore cannot designate the divine being, who is supreme.”
This observation, however, is very far from being justified,
either by the usage of the sacred writers, or the principles of
Greek syntax. Among instances where the Supreme God is
certainly designated, and yet the article is omitted, the in-
quirer may consult the very chapter in question, vs. 6, 13, 18;
also Matt. 19:26. Luke 16: 13. John 9: 33. 16: 30. Rom.
8: 8, 1 Cor. 1: 3. Gal. 1: 1. Ephes. 2:8. Heb. 9: 14. Be-
sides, every well informed reader of Greek knows, that where
the subject of a proposition (which in this case is 6 2.670g)
has the article, the predicate (086g) usually omits it. Such
is general Greek usage; and from it commonly dissent only
propositions of a reciprocating or convertible nature, as in
v. 4 of the chapter in question. It may be added too, that if
the writer in question had said zoº 6 A670s in § 08óg, it would
have conveyed a very different idea from that of the propo-
sition as it now stands. John would then have said: The
Logos is the God with whom he is ; or the only God; whereas
I understand 0869 here to mean a divine nature, simply but not
abstractly considered, for which it so often stands in other
places. Wide Mark 8:33. 10:27. 12:24. Luke 3: 8, 11:20.
18:4, 19. John 1: 13. 3: 2. 4; 24, 10: 33. Acts 5:29. 7: 55.
10: 33. 11:18 et al. saepe. -
I readily acknowledge, that affirmative evidence of the
somewhat diverse meaning of 0869 here, cannot be drawn
merely from the word itself; it must be deduced from the
circumstances of the affirmation, united with the supposition
that John did assert, and did mean to assert, something that
is intelligible. There is indeed no very serious difficulty in
taking 0869 (God) in the same sense in both clauses, pro-
vided we understand it to denote the divinity. To interpret
the verse thus, would represent John as saying, that while
Christ was God or truly divine, there was at the same time,
8
86 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
a sense in which he was with God. In order that this should
have any possible meaning, a distinction in the Godhead of
Some kind must be admitted, viz. that the Father is not in all
respects the same as the Son.
For myself, I do not hesitate to understand the word God,
in a sense somewhat diverse, in the two clauses of the verse
under consideration. Every word takes a sense adapted to
its connection. Such is the rule which must be adopted,
after we have once conceded that a writer uses words with
propriety, and designs to be understood. So, when our
Saviour says: “Let the dead bury their dead,” the connec-
tion requires us to explain it thus: ‘Let those who are mor-
ally or spiritually dead, bury those who are corporeally so.”
It were easy to accumulate examples, where the very same
word, in the same verse, has two different shades of sense.
The exigency of the passage (eacºgentia locº) is the rule of
interpretation which guides us here. And guided by this .
exigency, what difficulty is there in supposing that God as
Father, is meant, in the first instance; and the divine nature,
without any special reference to the peculiar distinction of
JFather, in the second P
I understand John then as affirming, that the Logos was
God, and yet was with God; viz. that he was truly divine,
but still divine in such a manner, that there did exist a dis-
tinction between him and the Father. I take the word God,
in one case, to mean, as in a great number of cases it does
mean, God as Father; in the other case, I regard it as a
distinction of divine being, of the divinity, without reference
to the distinction of Father; a use of the word which is
very common. &
Least of all have those a right to object to this, who here
make the meaning of God, in the second instance, to be infi-
nitely different from its meaning in the first instance; under-
standing by the first, a created, or derived and finite being;
by the second, the self-existent, independent, and infinite God.
If you ask now : What could be the object of John in as-
serting that the Logos was with God? I answer, that the
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 87
phrase to be with one, (givºl ſtgög zivc.), indicates conjunc-
tion, communion ; see Mark 9: 19. Compare too John 1:
18, where the only begotten Son is said to be “in the bosom
(eig zöv ×óAſtov) of the Father,” which is a phrase of simi-
lar import. - *
To illustrate (but not fully explain) the meaning of the
phrase to be with God, it is useful also to compare those cases,
where Christians are promised as the summit of their felicity,.
that they shall be with God and Christ, be where they are.
See among other passages, John 14: 2, 3. 12; 26. 17:24.
1 Thess. 4: 17. Compare Rom. 8: 17. 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12.—
Colos. 3: 1–4.
In John 17:5, Christ speaks of that “glory, which he had
with the Father, before the world was.” From all these pas- .
sages taken together, it would seem that the assertion: The
Logos is with God, amounts to an assertion that he was con-
junctissimus Deo, i. e. most intimately connected with God.
• If you ask me how 3 I answer freely, that I cannot tell.
The evangelist has merely asserted the fact, but has not
added one word to explain the modus. If I could explain it,
then I suppose I could define the distinction which I believe
to exist in the Godhead.
But why should John assert such a connection ? In oppo-
sition, I answer, to those in early times, who asserted that
Christ was a being not only distinct from God, but an emana-
tion from him P. The asseveration, that the Logos was with
God—was from the beginning most intimately connected with
him, and was divine—would of course contradict such an
opinion.
But does the evangelist here mean to assert of the Logos,
that he is God in the Supreme Sense, or not ? This is the
fundamental question between us. Analogy, drawn from the
New Testament usage of the word 0869, (which nowhere
else employs 08óg simply and singly, except to designate the
supreme God), must be admitted strongly to favour the idea,
that Christ is here asserted to be truly divine. I readily
allow that in the Old Testament, the word God has various
88 - TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III"
applications; that it is applied, though only in the plural
number, to magistrates; that it is used to designate those,
who for a time stand as it were in the place of God; as
Moses was to be for a god to Pharaoh (Exod. 7: 1), and in-
stead of God to Aaron (Exod. 4:16). But it is not possi-
ble, in any instances of this nature, to mistake the meaning.
The adjuncts, or context, always guard effectually against
mistakes. Men, or inferior beings, are never called God or
Gods simply. We read of a “god to Pharaoh ;” also, “I
have said ye are gods, but ye shall die like men ;” of the god
of Ekron; the god of the Ammonites; the gods of the
heathen, etc. Is a mistake possible here P But the Logos
is called God simply. Nor is this all. Admitting that the
name determined nothing, (and for sake of the argument I
am willing to admit it), yet the writer has added explana-
tions of his meaning, which seem to place what he intended
to assert, by the expression in question, beyond the reach of
fair debate.
II&vro. 6 &tivoj čyévero x&i Yogis &özoö éyévézo odóš Šv,
ô yśyowev. . . . . . 6 xóguog 6' 0.07.00 éyévézo. “All things
were [made] by him; and without him was nothing [made],
which was [made]... . . The world was [made] by him.”
I have excluded the word made, by placing it in brackets,
merely to show that the sense is in no wise changed, by the
version of those critics who tell us that éyévézo never means
made, but simply was. Yet nothing can be farther from
correctness, than such an assertion. Accordingly, ſtouéo and
pivouat are used as synonymes; as in James 3: 9, comp.
Gen. 1: 26, in the Septuagint ; Gen. 2:4. Isaiah 48: 7.
The cases where yivouca means to make or produce, are so
numerous and obvious, that a moment’s delay in respect to
this part of the subject would be useless. Any good lexicon,
under the word yivouai, will furnish adequate proof of this.
If not, read the commentary of Theodoret on the two first
chapters of Genesis, which places the question as to the com-
mon use of yivouat in such a sense beyond debate.
But what are the all things, the universe (zó ſtcºvzo),
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 89
which the Logos made, or caused ? “The moral world—
the Christian church;” answers Faustus Socinus. To this
exposition, however, there are two objections. First, a part
of these same tº ſtºvzcz, are, in v. 10, represented as the
world, 6 ×óguog ; a term nowhere applied in the New Testa-
ment to the Christian church, nor to men as morally amend-
ed by the gospel. Secondly, this very world (6 xóopog),
which he created, did not know or acknowledge him, &izów
oùx #ywoo; whereas the distinguishing trait of Christians is,
that they know Christ; that they know the only true God
and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. -
T& 7&vro, then, which the Logos created, means, (as
common usage and the exigency of the passage require), the
wniverse, the worlds material and immaterial, v. 10. Here,
then in John 1: 1 seq., is a passage, in which beyond all rea-
sonable doubt Christ is called God; and where the context,
instead of furnishing us with reasons for understanding the
word God in an inferior sense, (as is usual when this desig-
nation is applied to inferior beings), has plainly and unequivo-
cally taught us, that this God (0.86s), who was the Logos,
created the universe. The question then is reduced to this
simple state: Is he, who created the universe, truly and
properly divine P. On this question I shall make a few re-
marks, when I have considered some other passages, which
ascribe the work of creation to Christ.
Heb. 1: 10–12. Kai 2) zoº &gy&g, zigte, tºy yºv
â98w8%iogag, x&l égy& zów Zegóy gov eigh oi oigtzvot. Ai-
zoi &zołowyzoa, gö 68 juguéveig x&i zévres oig tuézuoy to:-
Actobágoyzczi, x&i oigel zegt 362&low &#eig &izoög, x&l &A-
Awyfoovza gº 68 0 &tizög el, zai tº &m gov oëx āzāeipovot.
“And : Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda-
tion of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine
hands; they shall perish, but thou remainest; yea all shall
wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold
them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same,
and thy years shall not fail.” t
8%
90 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
These words are spoken of the Son of God; for they are
intimately connected by the conjunction and with v. 8, where
it is written : “But unto the Son he saith,” etc. According
to the laws of grammar, and most clearly according to the
nature and design of the apostle's argument, the ellipsis to be
supplied, in the beginning of the tenth verse, after and (x,zi)
is: “And [to the Son he saith): Thou, Lord,” etc. No
other exposition can be pointed out, which does not make a
violent divulsion of the passage from the connection of the
writer's argument.
The question still remains: ‘What is meant by founding
the earth, and by the heavens being the work of Christ's
hands P’ To answer the first question, and place the answer
above the possibility of a reasonable doubt, it is necessary
only to compare the passages, in which Jehovah is said to
have founded the earth. By this phrase, the creation of it
is indubitably meant. The passages may be found in Ps.
24; 2. 89: 11. 104: 5. 119: 90. Job 38: 4. Prov. 3: 19. Is.
48: 13. 51: 13, Zec. 12; 1; where, if you inspect the Sep-
tuagint, you will see the very verb (98p18%tó0) employed,
which the apostle uses in our text.
In regard to the “heavens being the work of Christ's
hands,” it is an expression plainly equivalent to the one just
considered, and signifies the creation of the heavens. Thus
in Ps. 8: 4, 6: “When I consider the heavens, the work of
thy hands;” which is parallel with “The moon and stars
which thou hast ordained;” (Sept. 30 sue?iogo.g). So in v.
6: “And hast placed him over the work of thy hands; all
things hast thou put under his feet;” i. e. placed him over
the creation.
To prove that the phrase to create the heavens and the
earth, means to create all things, it is necessary only to con-
sult Gen. 1: 1. Ex. 20:11, 31: 17. Neh. 9: 6. Ps. 121:2.
124; 8, 134: 3, and other like passages, which any Concord-
ance will supply.
It will be remembered, that the passage in question (Heb.
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 91
1:10–12) is a quotation from the Old Testament; and that
to quote the language of the O. Test., therefore, in order to
explain it, is peculiarly appropriate and necessary.
Would any one, now, unembarrassed by peculiarity of
system, ever suspect that Christ's founding the earth, and the
heavens being the work of his hands, could mean anything
less than the creation of the universe? Yet we have been
told, by some distinguished Unitarians, that the heavens
mean the Christian state or dispensation, and the earth the
Jewish one. -
But first, this is against usage, either in the Old or New
Testament; there being nothing to support such a sense of
it. Isaiah speaks indeed of creating a NEW heaven and a
NEW earth, (65:17); and of planting the heavens and the
earth (51: 16), in a moral sense, i. e. making a moral change
or creation. But then the language itself, in the first case,
indicates that the old or material creation is not meant ; and
in the second case, the context makes it as clear, what kind
of heaven and earth is to be planted or established, and what
the planting and establishing of them means, for it shows
plainly that the Jewish church and state are to be renewed
and established. The meaning then assigned by some Uni-
tarians to the passage in Heb. i, is against the plain and con-
stant usage of the Scriptures, in regard to such expressions,
when they occur in an unlimited form, as they do in the pas-
Sage under examination.
Secondly, if the Jewish and the Christian states are here
meant, in what sense are they to wax old as a garment, and
to be changed? Of the Jewish state this might, without
much difficulty, be affirmed. But how the Christian dispen-
sation is to be changed, how that “kingdom which shall have
No end,” (Luke 1: 33), is to “perish,” I am unable to ex-
plain.
“It is a moral creation of which Christ is the author,” says
Artemonius (i. e. Crellius), Init. Evang. Johan. This, how-
ever, does not explain the matter; for how is it that the
moral creation of Christ is to be changed and perish, i. e. to
92 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
be annihilated? Most obviously, his moral creation is to be
eternal.
Another method of explaining this subject has been, to
aver that the passage here quoted by the apostle from Ps.
102: 25–27, is, in the original, plainly applicable to Jeho-
vah only ; and that none would conjecture, from the simple
perusal of this Psalm, how Christ could be the subject of it.
Conceding that the passage is applicable to Jehovah only,
(and it would be difficult to show why this is not to be con-
ceded), what is the consequence P Either that the apostle
has, directly and without qualification, applied to Christ lan-
guage used by an inspired writer of the O. Test. to desig-
nate the Creator of the world, with his eternal and immuta-
ble nature; or that he has, (in a way singular indeed for a
man of piety and honesty and intelligence), accommodated
language descriptive of the infinite Jehovah only, to a crea-
ted and dependent being. Kögte (Lord), in the Greek, cor-
responds to the word Hinº (Jehovah) in the original Hebrew;
the Septuagint having commonly rendered it in this manner.
And although Hirº (Jehovah) in not in the Hebrew text, (Ps.
102: 26), yet it is evident from the preceding context, that it
must be understood there, as the subject of the verb rio",
thou hast founded. Christ then is here called by the apostle,
Jehovah ; and eternity, immutability, and the creation of the
wniverse are ascribed to him.*
* I readily admit, that Icíptog is not always synonymous with Jehovah.
But where the word Jehovah is used, in the Hebrew of the Old Testa-
ment, ſciplog stands in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, as the
habitual translation of it. Therefore ſcíptog in the New Testament must
of course, in such cases, have the same meaning as Jehovah in the Old
Testament. The reason why Icíptog is used by the New Testament wri-
ters, as the translation of Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, is, that the
Jews in reading their sacred writings, were not accustomed to pronounce
the word Jehovah (Fijñº), but for the most part they read *is (Lord,
Icípioſ) in the room of it. This custom is at least as old as the Septua-
gint version, which translates Fiji" by Icíptog; and, thus it exhibits
proof, that the modern custom of reading *is for H.H. was them re-
ligiously obscryed. Josephus speaks of Jehovah, as the name which ot
&eputóv Wažeiv, it is not lawful to utter. -
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 93
I cannot think that the paraphrase of Grotius, on the pas-
sage in question, deserves a serious refutation. “Thou wast
the cause,” says he, “that the earth was founded, and on thy
account the heavens were made.” If this be not a different
thing from what the language of the apostle naturally means,
or can mean, I confess that I know not any bounds which
may be set to paraphrastic and mystical exegesis. Suppose
now that the Gnostics, who maintained that evil demons (and
not Jehovah) created the material world, should still have
paraphrased the first verse in Genesis in this manner: “Thou
Jehovah wast the cause why the heavens and the earth were
created; and when asked, how this could consist with their
sentiments, and what they could mean by it, they should have
replied: “Out of enmity to thee, the evil demons brought
this world of matter into existence;” would not this be ex-
plaining away the creative act of Jehovah, exactly as Gro-
tius explains away the evidence, in the passage last adduced,
that Christ was the Creator 2
Col. 1: 15–17. "Os àozw sixty zoö 9,805 toà &og&rov,
agozózozog agong xzſoč0s Özı ây &özó fixtioën to ſtºvtc.,
V 5 * > *s * * > * * *f & C V * V 2 /
zo. 8v toºg ovgozyotg x&t zo. 87tt zng yng, to 090.7.0. X0:1 zo. 0.0–
goza, eſte §góvot, eite ×iguózſzeg, stre &gx.xi, eſte §§ovoſol
z& ſtºvto. 6 &titoö zoº eig &üzöy &zigzai x&i &izög ort
ngà têvrov, x&l tº advoc, čv &örð ovyčoznx8. “Who is
the image of the invisible God, the head of all creation; for
by him were all things created, both celestial and terrestrial,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions,
or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him
and for him ; and he is before all things, and by him all
things consist.” -
In the first clause (agozózozog agong xrigeog) I have de-
parted a little from our common version, merely in order to
make what I consider to be the plain meaning of the pas-
sage, as clear as the nature of the case will permit.
Because Christ is said (in v. 20) “to reconcile (zovo.2%-
&l) all things unto himself,” and these are said to be “things
in heaven and things on earth;” and afterwards he is also
94 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
represented as breaking down the wall of partition between
Jews and Gentiles; some ingenious commentators have sup-
posed, that “things in heaven and things on earth” mean
Jews and Gentiles. How very unnatural this explanation is,
no one can help feeling who reads the passage in an unbi-
assed manner. In what tolerable sense can the Jews and
Gentiles be called “things visible and invisible 3’ Or how
shall we explain the phrase, “things in heaven and things on
earth,” as applied to them P By “reconciling things in heav-
en and things on earth,” seems evidently to be meant the
bringing into union, under one great head, i. e. Christ, by a
new and special bond of intercommunication, both angels
and men. In like manner, the two great parties on earth,
Jews and Gentiles, are united together. But why Christ
should be called “the image of the invisible God,” and the
“head (ºrgozózoxog) of all creation,” because he is merely
the instrument of bringing Jews and Gentiles together, is not
apparent to me. Yet to be such an instrument, is all that
the passage in question ascribes to him, if we are to construe
it in the manner above related. But when we understand
the words of the apostle as describing the creation of the
worlds celestial and terrestrial, (oi ovgovol x&i yń, comp.
Heb. 1: 10–12), and ascribing it to Christ, then we find suf-
ficient reason for designating him by the exalted appellations
in question. -
It has also been aſſirmed, that a moral creation only is
here ascribed to Christ. But words like these, in such a con-
nexion and with such adjuncts, are no where else used in
such a sense. Moreover, in what sense has the moral crea-
tion by Christ affected the angels? The good ones needed
not repentance or pardon ; the bad ones have never sought
or obtained either. “Verily he did not assist the angels (oiſ
öfftov &yyážov Šalouffévézº), but the seed of Abraham,”
Heb. 2: 16. t
Until I see different light shed over the passage in ques-
tion, I must regard it, therefore, as very clearly ascribing the
creation of the universe to Christ.
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 95
But you will say, perhaps, that in John 1: 3, all things
are said to be made by Christ (Ötö. Xotozov), as the instru-
mental and not the principal cause ; the preposition àug usu-
ally denoting such instrumental cause. In Col. 1: 16 it is
also said, that all things were created by Christ (6 &iſzow);
and in Heb. 1: 2, God is said to have created the worlds by
his Son: At oë (Sc. ivoú) 20:1 zoög &ióvºg ártoings. -
The allegation, however, that Ötº does not designate the
principal as well as the instrumental cause, can by no means
be supported. In Romans 11: 36, all things are said to be
of God (áš &özoö), and by God (6i &üzow); which is the very
form of expression applied to Christ, in Col. 1: 16–20. So
Heb. 2: 10 : “For it became him [God the Father], for
whom (Öióv) are all things, and by whom (Öi oã) are all things,
etc. 1 Cor. 1: 9: “God is faithful, by whom (6i oë) ye were
called into the fellowship of his Son,” etc. But to prove
that Šutº may be and is employed before a noun designat-
ing a principal cause, is utterly superfluous to any one who
has a good Greek lexicon at his command. To deny this,
in the present state of philology, is fairly out of question.
The principal difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase,
“by whom (6' oi) he [the Father] made the worlds;” Heb.
1: 2. The apostle has added sufficient, in vs. 10–12, as it
might seem, to prevent mistake here. If, however, the diffi-
culty seems still to press, it may be compared with Hos. 1:
7, “I [Jehovah] will have mercy upon the house of Judah,
and will save them by Jehovah, Hirina.” Is the second Jeho-
vah merely the instrumental cause, in this case ? Of the
same nature is the phraseology in Gen. 19: 24, “And Jeho-
vah rained down, upon Sodom and Gomorrha, fire and brim-
stone FROM JEHOVAEI out of heaven.” Must the last Jeho-
vah, in this case, be inferior to the first 2 If not, then the
phrase that God made the worlds by his Son, does not imply,
as a matter of course, that the Son is of an inferior nature.
It does imply, indeed, that there is a distinction between
Father and Son; and this is what we aver to be a scripture-
doctrine. It seems plainly to declare, also, that God as SON
96 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
was ºn an especial manner concerned with the creation of the
worlds. If the Logos, as John asserts, made all things, what
is there impossible or improbable in this?
From the passages of Scripture thus far considered, it ap-
pears plain, that the apostles have ascribed the creation of the
universe to Christ. And now we come, next in order, to
the consideration of the simple question: Whether he who
created the world, is really and truly divine?
First, then, permit me to ask, if the act of creation does
not prove the being who performs it to be omniscient, om-
nipotent, and independent, then how is it possible to conceive
of anything, which does or can prove the existence of such
a Being 2 To bring this world into existence from nothing;
to establish such perfect harmony and design through all the
operations of nature; to set in motion unnumbered worlds
and systems of worlds, and all in the most perfect harmony
and order; requires more intelligence, more power, and more
wisdom, than ever belonged to any finite being. And if
these things do not characterize the infinite Being, it seems
to me that no proof of the existence of such a Being can be
adduced. *. -
It is in vain to tell me here, that the creation of the uni-
verse can be accomplished by delegated power, i.e. by an
inferior and subordinate being. What can be meant by om-
nipotence, omniscience, and infinite wisdom, (all of which
must belong to a Creator), being delegated 3 Can God dele-
gate his perfections 2 If so, then the Gnostics, when pressed
with the argument that Jehovah, the God of the Jews, was
the supreme God, because he created the heavens and the
earth, might have replied, that he did this only by delegated
power; and that the act of creation, therefore, proves nothing
as to Godhead. Would you not reply to such an allegation,
that the act of creating the universe is one which no finite or
secondary being can perform 2 If this act do not designate
the absolute, Supreme, omnipotent, and omniscient Being,
then no proof that such a Being exists can possibly be ad-
duced.
LETT. III.] . TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 97
Why may we not use, now, the very same arguments, to
confute those who maintain that Christ created the world by
delegated power? The apostle having decided the question
that Christ did create the world, has decided, consequently,
that he must be truly divine.
Agreeably to this reasoning, the Bible everywhere appeals
to creative power, as the peculiar and distinguishing preroga-
tive of the supreme God, and attributes it solely to Jehovah.
Let any one read, for example, Gen. 2: 2, 3. Ex. 20: 11.
Is. 44; 24. Jer. 10: 12. Ps. 8: 3, 4, 102: 25, and other pas-
sages of the same tenor. Let him read Isaiah xl. and on-
ward, where God by his prophet makes a most solemn chal-
lenge to all polytheists, to bring the objects of their worship
into competition with him ; and he declares himself to be dis-
tinguished from them all, by his being “the Creator of the
ends of the earth” (v. 28), and by his having formed and ar-
ranged the heavens, (v. 26.) -
Can it be made plainer than these passages make it, that
creative power was regarded by the Hebrew prophets, as the
appropriate and peculiar attribute of the supreme God? Need
I say, that the O. Test. is filled with passages which ascribe
the work of creation to Jehovah alone * Who does not find
them everywhere intermixed, in the most delightful and af-
fecting manner, with all the instructions of the sacred He-
brew writers?
Now if a subordinate agent, a finite spirit, did create the
universe, why should all the instructions of the O. Test. be
so framed, as inevitably to lead the Jewish nation to dis-
believe and reject this fact? Specially so, as the Jews were
very strongly inclined to polytheism; and a plurality of gods
would have been very agreeable to their wishes. And why,
after a lapse of So many centuries, should the writers of the
New Testament controvert all that the Hebrew Scriptures
had taught on this subject, and lead men to admit that a fi-
nite being could and did create the world? Most of all, how
could Paul say (Rom. 1: 20), that the heathem were without
excuse for not acknowledging the eternal power and godhead
9
98 TESTIMONY of scFIPTURE. [LETT. III.
of the Divinity, because of the evidence which his creating
power afforded—because they could look upon the things that
were made, and reason from them.
And is this truth, (that the Deity possesses eternal power
and godhead), so plain then, and so easily deduced from CRF-
ATING ENERGY, that the very heathen are destitute of all ex-
cuse, for not seeing and admitting it, and yet, can it be the
object of Christianity to bring us back to the very polytheism
for which the apostle condemned them 2 To bring us to
“worship the creature as the CREATOR P. Does Christiani-
ty contradict a truth of natural religion so plain and incontro-
vertible, that the very heathen were without excuse for not
acknowledging it? And after reading such a passage in the
writings of Paul, can it be possible to suppose, that he as-
cribed the creation of the world to any being but the true God
only 2 Compare now Acts 17:23–26, with John 1: 1–3,
and 10; Heb. 1: 10–12; Colos. 1: 14—17; and then say
whether it is possible to admit the rules of interpretation
which you have laid down, and not admit that the apostles
designed to assert, that Christ is the creator of the universe 2
And if he is so, is it possible to deny that he is truly divine 3
It were easy to produce passages of the New Testament
in abundance, which ascribe the same works to Christ as to
God; e. g. John 5. 17—23. 14:9, 11, and the like. But as
the vindication of these would swell these letters beyond their
proper length, I shall not enter into the discussion of them at
present. I am not anxious to increase the number of wit-
nesses; for acknowledging the New Testament to be of di-
vine authority, I consider whatever it plainly declares once
to be the truth. The relevancy and plainness of the testimo-
ny, therefore, is more the object of my solicitude, than the
number of witnesses; a point, I may add, in which many
who have defended our sentiments have greatly erred.
I shall proceed, therefore, to other texts of Scripture, in
which Christ is declared to be GOD.
Rom. 9: 5. Qy of ſtoºzégég, x&l eş on 6 Xotozóg, rô Kozó.
géozo, 6 @y in ſtévroy 080s, eúžoyſzög eig zoös gióvºs
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY of scRIPTURE. 99
Auffy. “Whose are the fathers; and from whom, in respect
to the flesh [his human nature], Christ [descended], who is
God over all, blessed forever; Amen.”
In regard to this text it may be remarked, first, that al-
though Griesbach has filled his margin with conjectural and
other readings, he attributes no considerable weight to any of
them ; for all the manuscripts of the epistle to the Romans
which have been collated, contain the text as it stands; as
do all the ancient versions, and nearly all the fathers.
In rendering to x&zó gºoxo, in respect to his human na-
ture, I feel supported by corresponding passages, in Rom. 1:
3.* Acts 2: 30. And that Ö ºvázi zºvetov 08óg, 85).oymzög
eig zoög giºvos, can be well translated, who is supreme God,
blessed forever, might be shown in various ways. O &v is
here put, as is common, (e. g. John 1: 18. 3: 13. 2 Cor. 11:
31), for 6s 80tt, who is. The ground of this lies simply in
the nature of Greek usage. Whenever 6 is used for Ög, it
takes the participle 67 instead of the verb éozi; and so we
have 6 div, or ög àozi, invariably. -
‘Ezzi zůvrov 08óg is literally over-all God, i.e. supreme
God. One should compare with the phraseology here the
word tâvzo. (all) as used with respect to the dominion of
Christ, in Col. 1: 17. Eph. 1:23. John 3: 31, and 1 Cor. 15:
27. It is used in such passages in order to describe him as
the head or ruler of the universe. What then can ärt; nºw
zov 08óg mean, but supreme God?
But on no text have greater pains been bestowed, in order
to devise an unusual construction and meaning. Schlichting
proposed to transpose 6 div, and read civ 6; i.e. of whom
[viz. the Jewish fathers] is God, blessed forever. But as in
this very epistle, the apostle has laboured to prove that God
belongs as well to the Gentiles as the Jews (ch. 3: 29), this
expedient would seem to impeach the apostle's consistency,
as well as violate the text. Nor would the text itself, as
amended by Schlichting's conjecture, be in any measure ac-
cordant with the idiom of the Greek language. If 0.86s has
* As it stands in the Textus Receptus.
100 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
the article, (and his transposition makes it 6 0869), then
8üAoymzóg must of necessity have it too; inasmuch as an ad-
jective following a noun with an article, and agreeing with
it, of necessity takes the article.
Wetstein's conjecture, that it should be read 6 &v, 5 &ti
nºvzor 0869, is not any more fortunate. Such a mode of
expression as Ö ºv 6, all relating to the same subject, is repug-
nant to Greek usage. Besides, this conjecture, like that of
Schlichting, not only violates the integrity of the text, but
assigns the article to 0869, and omits it before giàoymzóg ;
which is surely inadmissible.
Enough of amending the apostle's words by conjecture,
without the authority of a single manuscript or ancient ver-
sion. Critical acumen has also employed itself, in dividing
and translating the verse in question, in a manner different
from that in our common Testament. The late Professor
Justi, at Marpurg, a man of some acuteness and much taste,
undertook to defend the ingenious supposition, that the latter
part of the verse is a dozology. He renders it thus: “Whose
ancestors were those [renowned] fathers from whom the
Messiah, as to his mortal body, was derived, who is exalted
over all [the fathers], God be blessed forever !” Thus, by
the aid of supplying an idea not contained in the text, and by
doing violence to the usages of language in the doxological
part, he has devised a method in which we may avoid the
assertion that Christ is God over all or supreme God. But
who does not perceive the violence and inaptitude of the
divulsion which he makes, by separating the former from the
latter part of the verse. Besides, how would a doacology fit
the passage in question ? Crellius, (Init. Evang. Johan. p.
230, 237), long ago was candid enough to own, that when
the apostle was affected with the greatest sadness, on account
of the unbelief of his Jewish brethren and the loss of their
privileges, a doacology or exclamation of praise was not very
congruous. A prayer (as in ch. 10: 1) would seem, as he
thinks, to be much more appropriate.
Omitting however all this, it may be added, that Greek
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 101.
usage by no possibility admits of the doxological version of
Justi, Osóg sūoymzós means God who is blessed; i. e. the
proposition in such a case is assumed, not asserted. But
sińoymzög 6 0869 means God be blessed, or let God be blessed
or praised. In accordance with this Greek usage, we find
five instances of doxology in the New Testament, and about
forty in the Old, in whicn 85%oyſzóg is uniformly placed first.
The same order is observed in respect to x&tºgo.zog (cursed),
when an imprecation is uttered.
Besides, the text mus be changed to make out a doxology;
for we must read 6 0869 instead of 0.86s, since universal
usage prescribes ei).oymzög 6 0869. (The instance in Ps.
46; 19. Sept., brought by Stoltz in his Erleuterungen, to sup-
port Justi’s rendering, depends merely on wrong punctuation,
and the repetition of a word which does not correspond to the
Hebrew text.) -
Finally, if a doxology to the Father were intended here,
it is scarcely possible to suppose, that some particle of transi-
tion should not have been inserted, in order to give notice of
so great a change. But no text, no manuscript, no ancient
version, gives us a trace of such a particle. To invent a new
reading and force it upon the text, or to substitute a conjec-
tural reading which originated merely from theological specu-
lation, and all this when the evidence of the integrity of the
text is incontrovertible—what is it but to introduce a princi-
ple fundamentally subversive of all interpretation and criti-
cism, and to give up the Scriptures to be moulded according
to every man's own wishes 2
All conjectures and theories, then, appear to be quite in-
competent to explain away the common rendering of the
verse, and the meaning connected with it. On the other
hand, we may ask: How comes it that Christ, according to
his human nature (tò zºrd. Gºgº), is said to have descended
from the fathers ? What if I should affirm that David, as to
his human nature, was descended from Jesse? Would you
not of course ask, what other nature had he except a human
one 2 And such an inquiry, forced upon us by the method
9%
102 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
*
of expression in question, the apostle has immediately an-
Swered; for as to his nature not human, he asserts that he
was “supreme God, blessed forever; Amen.” To have
been progenitors of the human nature of such an exalted
being as Christ, the apostle reckons as one of the special
privileges which the Jews had enjoyed. Comp. Rom. 9:
1—4.
I do not argue that Christ is divine, merely because the
appellation 0869 is bestowed upon him. But if Ó CŞv Šal
tºvzov 08óg be not supreme God; and if the antithesis in
this verse do not require us to understand a divine nature
here; then I must despair of ever discovering the sentiment
of any text of Scripture, by appealing to any or all the rules
of exegesis. -
Heb. 1: 8, 9. ‘O 0.0600g oov, Ö 0.86s, eig zów &iojvo, row
&iojvog 66860s 850iſtºrog i öð60s rijg 3&olketog Gov. 'Hyg-
amogg 6tzºtogóvny, x&i čutonggg &vouíov, Ště zoözo &gtoš
oé 6 08ós, ò 686s gov, &c.uoy &yºut:680s to gº točg uszó-
yovg Gov. “But unto the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God,
is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre
of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated
iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” .
This passage is quoted from Ps. 45: 6, 7. It has been
objected, that Ó 08óg here should not be translated as a Voca-
tive but as a Nominative; e. g. “God is thy throne forever
and ever, or thine everlasting throne or eternal support.”
So far as the form of the word is concerned, 6 0869 is the
common Vocative of the New Testament and the Septuagint.
No objection, therefore, to the usual rendering of this verse
in the Vocative case, can be made from the form of the word;
for the practice of assigning a Vocative sense to a Nomina-
tive form, is altogether common in Hellenistic Greek. The
Attics often adopt the same usage. One needs only to open
the Septuagint in the book of Psalms, or in almost any other
part, to see incontrovertible evidence that 6 0869 is the com-
mon Vocative of the Hellenistic writers.
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 103
To the translation God is thy throne, i. e. thy support,
several objections may be made.
(1) Greek usage does not permit such a version. The
subject and predicate cannot both have the article, in a case
like this. God is thy throne would be thus written in Greek:
306 vog gov 6 0869.” For such a change in the text there
is no authority whatever.
(2) Such a translation would render insipid the argument
of the apostle, in this chapter, to prove the prečminently ex-
alted nature of Christ. To say of this illustrious personage:
“God is thy throne,” i. e. thy support, might well excite the
persons to whom the epistle was addressed to ask: And who
is not supported by God? How can it help to show that
Christ is entitled to high prečminence, by alleging that an-
other being is his supporter?
(3) Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the word
throne, understood either literally or figuratively. Literally
it is the seat on, which kings sit. This sense is here out of
the question. Figuratively, it stands for dominion, empire,
regal authority, because it is one of the symbols of such au-
thority. But I know of no such figurative sense to this word
as that of support. And what possible sense would it make
to say: God is thy dominion, thy regal authority? If you
aver that this may mean as much as to say: God is the cause
of thy dominion or regal authority; then I ask again, of
what king's dominion and authority is not God the cause 2
Is it not the universal doctrine of the Bible, that “by him kings
reign, and princes decree justice P’ And how then is Christ
entitled to any prečminence, because God is the cause of his
dominion ? Qr what advances does the apostle make in his
argument, by such an assertion ?
To the translation in question, there is still another objection,
which is drawn from the nature of Hebrew parallelism in poet-
ry. The verse under discussion plainly is one, in which the
* See the latter clause of the verse, where # 643dog (with the article)
is the subject, but föffdog (without it) the predicate, according to the
usual laws of the language.
104. TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
subject is the same in both parts, i. e. it is a synonymous
parallelism. Now the second member of this is: “The
sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness;” in
other words, thy dominion is righteous. Thé first member of
the parallelism, consequently, is to be explained in the same
way, and evidently means: Thy dominion (throne) is ever-
lasting. What could be more tasteless or unmeaning here,
than to say: God is thy throne, meaning to say: God is thy
support or cause of dominion, when the evident object of the
writer is, to show the prečminent dignity and dominion of the
Son of God P
The proposed mode of rendering, then, violates Greek
usage; it frustrates the argument of the apostle; it forces an
unexampled meaning upon Ögövog; and finally it transgres-
ses the laws of poetic parallelism in the Hebrew original,
from which the passage was taken.
But several objections have been made against understand-
ing the word God, in the passage now under consideration,
in its highest sense when applied to Christ. It is said, that
the person called God (Elohim) here, is addressed as having
a God above him, thy God; and also, as having fellows who
are merely kings; and therefore that he cannot be supreme
God. As to the mere application of the name God, in this
case, I should not be disposed to make more out of it, than
that it designates the King Messiah as Lord of all. So much
seems to be certain, viz. his supremacy over all others. His
throne, i. e. dominion, is everlasting. As the Messiah, the
anointed king, it might with the greatest propriety be said
that Jehovah is his God; for as Messiah, he is to be consid-
ered as incarnate, and of course subordinate in respect to his
human nature. Is it a matter of wonder, that the same per-
Son can, at one moment, be said to have everlasting domin-
ion, of whom it is said, at the next, that Jehovah is his God?
It is a wonder of the same nature as that which perplexed
the Jews, when Christ asked them how David could call the
Messiah Lord, while at the same time he was his son. It is
a wonder which no ground but that of Trinitarians can ever
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 105
well explain; I mean the ground, that the divine and human
natures co-existed in Christ; and consequently that in the
same sentence, he could with propriety speak of himself as
human or divine. The sacred writers appear not to take the
least pains definitely to separate the two natures, in anything
which they say of either. They everywhere speak of Christ,
(so it appears to me), as either human or divine, or as both,
according to the exigency of the passage. They do not seem
to apprehend any danger of mistake, in regard to the subject;
no more than we do when we say that Abraham is dead, or
that Abraham is alive. We never think it necessary to add
the words as to his body in the one case, or as to his soul in
the other. -
This very negligence, (if I may be allowed the expression,
saving everything that would imply improper want of care),
presents a powerful argument to me, I must confess, to prove
that the sacred writers regarded the human and divine na-
tures as so intimately connected in Christ, that it was un-
necessary and inexpedient to attempt a distinctive separation
of them, on every occasion which brought to view the person
or actions of Christ.*
As to the objection that the king is spoken of as one who
has “fellows,” and ºtherefore as one who is not divine, I
would merely remark, that Christ is introduced here as the
incarnate Messiah. To the office of king, God “consecrated
him with the oil of gladness,” i. e. placed him in a royal sta-
tion more exalted than that of other kings; and that there is
given to him the “oil of gladness above his fellows,” imports
that his rank is above that of others who also hold a regal
office.
* I am aware of the translation, by Gesenius and others, of the clause
in question: “Thy Gods-throne is forever and ever.” But, (1) This
concedes the principal thing which it is designed to deny, namely, that
the throne of the king here is like to, or the same as, the throne of God;
for the meaning must be this. (2) This rendering admits the suffix
pronoun *ſ- to belong to the first of two nouns in the construct state;
which is against the ordinary laws of the Hebrew language. Rosen-
mueller therefore rightly translates: Thy throne, O God, etc.
106 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
As to the allegation, that the 45th Psalm does not belong
to the Messiah, but to David, or Solomon; how can this be
proved 2 I know it is easy to assert, that this Psalm is a
mere epithalamium or nuptial ode, on the marriage of one of
the Jewish kings (probably Solomon) with a foreign princess,
either of Persia or of Egypt. But I know not how to reconcile
such declarations as this Psalm contains, with the views of
the Hebrews in regard to intrenching upon the prerogatives
of the Godhead. At all events, the writer of the epistle to
the Hebrews has expressly affirmed, that the passage in ques-
tion was uttered ſtgög toy juáv, i. e. in respect to the Son.
Here then, if our view be correct, is one instance more in
which Christ is called God, with such adjuncts as render it
probable that supreme divinity is designed to be predicated
of him.
I should rank the texts, which I have already produced, as
leading ones to establish the divine nature of Christ. But
there are others which should not be neglected. Will you
permit me briefly to advert to some of them, inasmuch as they
Ought not to be omitted in an impartial examination of Scrip-
tural evidence with respect to the present topic.
1 John 5:20. Kozłotówpsy Özt 6 viðg zoö 080i, fast, zai 68-
ôoxey juiv Čučvowy, ivo, yuejoxopley vöy &Amöwów x&i équey
év tá, ºffötvö, äv tº vić, wizoö Ingoiſ Xolotó. Oözög £ozw
6 &#9tvög 980s zal j Čoj &idivuog. “And we know that the
Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that
we may know him that is true ; and we are in him that is
true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and
eternal life.”
There are two reasons here, why 6 &/ºwóg 0869, the true
God, may be referred to Christ. 1. The grammatical con-
struction favours it. Christ is the immediate antecedent. I
grant that pronouns sometimes relate to a more remote ante-
cedent; but cases of this nature stand on the ground of ne-
cessity, or mere poetic usage, and are not of common gram-
matical usage. What doubt can there be, that John could with-
out scruple call the Logos the true God, Ó GAſ) wog 0869, when
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 107
he had before asserted that he is God, and has created all
things 3 -
But secondly, my principal reason for referring the phrase
true God (6 &M/{}wóg 0869) to Christ, is the other adjunct
which stands with it : This is the true God—and the ETER-
NAL LIFE. How familiar is this language with John, as ap-
plied to Christ “In him (i. e. Christ) was LIFE, this LIFE
was the light of men—giving LIFE to the world—the bread of
LIFE—my words are spirit and LIFE—I am the way, the truth,
and the LIFE—the Logos of LIFE. This LIFE (Christ) was
manifested and we have seen it, and do testify to you, and
declare, the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and
was manifested to us.” 1 John 1: 1, 2. Now as I cannot find
any instance in John's writings, in which the appellation of
LIFE and eternal LIFE is bestowed upon the Father, to de-
signate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as
this occurs so frequently in John’s writings as applied to
Christ; the laws of exegesis compel me here to accord, in
my exposition, with the common laws of grammar, and to
construe both Ö &Amºwog 0869 and j Čo) widjvuog, (or as
some manuscripts more consonant with Greek idiom read: ;
Ço) iſ gićvtog), both of Christ. If then he is the true God,
must he not be really divine 2 If the true God be not divine,
who is 2 4.
John 20: 28. Aztexqí0m 0096.9 x&l elzey witó: ‘O zögtóg
pov ×c., 6 0869 wov, “And Thomas answered and said unto
him : My Lord, and my God!” º
I have three reasons for adducing this text. (1) There is
no satisfactory proof, that it is an exclamation of surprise or
astonishment. No phrase of this kind, by which the Jews
were accustomed to express surprise or astonishment, has yet
been produced; and there is no evidence that such a phrase,
with the sense alleged, belongs to their language. (2) The
evangelist tells us, that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus,
i.e. spoke to him, elzey &özó; he did not merely exclaim.
(3) The commendation, which the Saviour immediately be-
stows upon Thomas, serves chiefly to defend the meaning
108 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
that I attach to the verse. Christ commends him for having
seen and believed. The evidence that he believed, was con-
tained in the expression under examination ; for before utter-
ing this expression, he is represented as doubting. On the
supposition then, that the expression was a mere exclamation,
what evidence was it to the mind of Jesus, or could it be to
the minds of others, that he admitted the claims of the Sa-
viour of men, to the character which was connected with this.
office P What more proof of real belief can be found in such
an eacclamation, (if it be truly one), than we can find that men
are Christians, when they repeat, as is very common on occa-
sions of surprise or delight, the name of Christ by way of ex-
clamation ? But if we admit, that the words of Thomas were
the proper evidence and expression of that belief for which
the Saviour commended him, (and I do not see how we can
fairly avoid this); then we must admit that he will commend
us, for believing that he is both Lord and God, Küglos zai
08óg. Schlichting, indeed, gets rid of this by a notable ex-
pedient. He avers that Lord is to be referred to Christ, and
God to the Father; which latter, as he thinks, Thomas spoke
after some interval of time had elapsed -
I pass over several passages, where our common text ap-
plies the name of God to Christ; e.g. Acts 20: 28, and 1 Tim.
3: 16. In regard to this latter text however, it appears to me
a plain case, that the authorities, which Griesbach himself has
adduced, would fairly lead to a decision different from his own,
respecting the genuineness of the reading 0869. I will not
attempt to weigh them here, as I feel no desire to press into
my service witnesses of a character at all dubious. I admit
the merit of Griesbach, in his critical edition of the New Tes-
tament. I believe he was a man, who would not willingly or
consciously misrepresent either facts or arguments, either for
or against any reading. But the work which he undertook
was too great to be accomplished by one person, or even by
one whole generation of critics. Dr. Lawrence, in his Essay
upon the Classification of Manuscripts by Griesbach, has ren-
dered it more than probable, that Griesbach’s account of facts
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 109
is not unfrequently very erroneous, (not through design but
from human infirmity), and that the principles by which he
estimated the value of Manuscripts, and of course the genu-
ineness of particular readings, are some of them fundamentally
erroneous. But Griesbach is not the only recent editor of a
critical New Testament, to which critics attach importance.
Matthäi, whom Middleton calls the best Greek scholar that
'ever edited a Greek Testament, published at Riga (between
A. D. 1782–1788) a critical Testament of 12 volumes, which
approaches much nearer our common Textus Receptus than
the edition of Griesbach; with whom, indeed, he is often at
variance. Eichhorn, (after giving a high character of this
edition of Matthäi, and remarking that in his maxims, re-
specting the formation of the N. Test. text, this editor differs
very much from Griesbach and some others), says, that “for
a long time he had followed the middle path between the two
parties.” (Bibliothek, Band ii. St. 2. s. 311). On this sub-
ject his judgment in general was both enlightened and sound.
The whole system of classifying manuscripts, which lies at
the very foundation of all Griesbach’s decisions in regard
to the text, is rejected by Matthäi as worthless; and Dr. Law-
rence has, in the Essay above mentioned, made an attack upon
the same classification, which renders very questionable the
principles of it, or at least the application of those principles
as made by Griesbach.
Professor Knapp of Halle also published a Greek Testa-
ment, the text of which is independent of Griesbach's, although
it approximates to it. This edition has been much esteemed
for its punctuation, order of words, accentuation, and spiritua-
tion; and it still has a large circulation; although at present
it is giving place to that of Hahn.
The critical editions of Lachmann and of Tischendorf have
also a large run, both of which are in a good measure inde-
pendent of Griesbach.
I acknowledge this is digression. But it may be useful to
those, who are in the habit of attributing so much weight to
10
110 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. . [LETT. III.
Griesbach’s decisions, to know that they are far from being
uncontroverted, by many of the best critics among his own
countrymen. I know of no commentator of note, who has
made Griesbach's text his basis, except Paulus; and he has
reéxamined all his decisions. . f zº
To return, however, to our subject; we do not want, and
feel no disposition to use, either of the texts referred to above
as proof texts in the question before us.”
There is another class of texts, which I have not hitherto
mentioned, because the certainty of their meaning is com-
monly thought to be less capable of demonstration, than that
of others which I have produced. I refer to such texts as
Eph. 5: 5. Ev vſ. B&otleig zoö Xotozoij zo: 0800, “in the
kingdom of Christ and God.” Titus 2: 13. IIgogósyóuevot
zºv ugxogtow éºzièg x&i éaugºvetov zig 36&ng row uey&Aov
3805 x&i gotºgos jutºv Ingoiſ Xgtozov, “Looking for the
blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and
Saviour, Jesus Christ.” 2 Tim. 4: 1. Auguo.gzúgouot fivoſ-
alow row 9800, xzi 'Ingoi Xotozoiſ row uéAAoyzog Agivew ºv-
zog Kai vezgots, x&zé tºv Šalºptºvetov «itoi, zai zi), Bozqūgiov
&üzov : “I adjure you before God, even Jesus Christ, who
will judge the quick and the dead at his appearance and king-
dom.” 2 Pet. 1: 1. . . . . zov bedü ju6v x&l govăgog 'Ingov
3 otozov “ of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.”
The mode here proposed of translating these texts, is cer-
tainly in conformity with the Greek idiom. Middleton (on the
Article) thinks it absolutely essential to it. For although
proper names and abstract nouns, in such a connection as
08óg and Xotozóg here, may take the article before the first
noun and omit it before the second, and yet designate differ-
ent things and persons; yet if words, which are attributives,
omit the article in such a case, they exhibit evidence that
they are to be connected with a preceding noun, and are the
predicates of it, and not significant of something separate.
* As to 1 Tim. 3:16, Dr. Henderson seems to have settled the point
diplomatically in favour of its genuineness, in an Essay of his, which
was republished in the Biblical Repository, Vol. II. p. 1, seq.
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 111
E. g. in the first case; Eph. 5: 5, “The kingdom of Christ
and God,” according to this rule would mean “of Christ who
tis God.” In the second instance, Tit. 2: 13, the meaning
would be, “of the great God who is our Saviour,” etc.
Mr. Wordsworth, a few years since, instituted a most la-
borious investigation of the Greek fathers, to see whether the
idiom which respects the article here was admitted into their
writings; and whether they ever understood more than one
person to be designated by such expressions. The result I
will give in his own words, (p. 132). “I have observed
more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form 6
Yougróg zoº 08óg (Eph. 5: 5); some hundreds of instances
of 6 uéyo.g. ôeóg x&i gözng (Tit. 2: 13); and not fewer than
several thousands of the form 6980s zoº gojzng (2 Pet. 1: 1);
while in no single case have I seen, where the sense could be
determined, any one of them used but only of one person.”
After all, if there were no other evidence of the divinity
of Christ in the New Testament, than what depended solely
on these texts, one might perhaps hesitate concerning the sub-
ject. But when I consider that the method of translating,
here proposed, is conformable to the Greek idiom, and must
be adopted in various other passages, (e. g. Rom. 15:6. Eph.
5: 20. James 1: 27), and if adopted in these, will give them
a sense conformable to that of other parts of the sacred vol-
ume, I must confess the evidence which these passages afford,
if not decisive, at least serves to confirm the testimony of
those other texts. Specially is this the case, in regard to the
text in Titus; for where is the appearing of God the Father
ever spoken of by the New Testament writers? It is Christ
who has appeared to execute vengeance upon the Jewish
nation, and who will again appear at the general judgment.
The appearance of the great God and Saviour seems to be
fairly applied to Christ.
Thus much for the texts, which bestow upon Christ the
appellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what sense the
word God must be understood, according to the common rules
of interpreting language. I come now,
112 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
II. To examine another class of texts, which attribute to
Christ equality with God, or that power, and dignity, and
honor, which belong appropriately to God. -
Phil. 2: 5–8. Towto yog qigoveto 50 åy juiv 5 xod Śy
Yotozó Indow Ös év pog.ſpſ () cow Uzógyov, oùy &gſtayudy
myńgazo to eval too. 086, &AW' éovzów Śzévoge, woggy 60'ſ.
Žov A&Boy, Św 6/10tºuczzl &vögoſzow Yevöuevos, zoº oftucci
edgeøeig Øg &vögozos, Štºreſvogey &vzów, yeyóuevos ūzīzo-
og uégot 9&vºzov, 0&vátov 68 ozºvgow. “Let the same mind
be in you which was in Christ Jesus; who, being in the con-
dition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an ob-
ject of solicitous desire, but taking the condition of a servant,
being made after the similitude of men, and being found in
fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.” W
Such is the rendering, which, after much examination, I
am persuaded the Greek of this passage not only admits but
demands. I will state my reasons for dissenting from the
common method, in which either Trinitarians or Unitarians
have translated it. - -
Our common version runs thus: “Who being in the form
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but
humbled himself, etc.” This version seems to render nuga-
tory, or at least irrelevant, a part of the apostle's reasoning
in the passage. He is enforcing the principle of Christian
humility on the Philippians. In order to urge this in the
most effectual manner, he proposes to them the example of
Christ: “Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ.”
What was this? It was manifested by the fact, that though
essentially divine (§y u09 pil 9,800), he did not eagerly retain
his divine condition, but assumed the station or condition of a
servant (woggy Soóżov). Here the relevancy of his reason-
ing is sufficiently plain. But how was it any proof or exam-
ple of humility, that “he did not think it robbery to be equal
with God?”
Besides, the Greek will not fairly bear this construction.
‘Agzoyuág, translated robbery, does not here signify an act of
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 113.
robbery, but res rapta, or rather res avide diripienda et vindi-
canda, i.e. something which is eagerly to be seized and appro-
priated. Moreover &gto:yuág, which our translators have
placed next to the verb yºgo.zo, does not by the rules of syn-
tax belong there. The Greek syntax would place the words
thus, as to their sense: oix yīgazo to cival too. 966 &gtºy-
Móv; literally, “he regarded not, or he deemed not, the being
equal to God as ſigzoyuáv, i. e. as a thing to be greedily
Sought or appropriated.
For these reasons, I cannot believe that our common ver-
sion gives the true sense of the passage. And for similar
reasons, I feel compelled to reject the version so common
among some Unitarians: “He did not think of the robbery
of being equal with God.” The objections to it are, that it
translates &gacyū6v here as designating the action of robbery;
and that otz my jog to zó sivo, too. 086 &nczywów can never
be proved to mean: He thought not of the robbery of being
equal with God. The verb my footo is not susceptible of such
a meaning as thought of, i. e. did not aspire to, imagine,
form expectations of, etc. In its primary sense it signifies
to lead, to be prečminent, etc.; in its secondary sense, to es-
teem, judge, regard, repute, etc. To render oùx ſyſgozo
&gzoyuáv, he did not think of the robbery, would therefore be
violating the obvious principles of the Greek language. To
justify in any measure such a version, the passage must run
thus, où TOW &gzoyuoy jyńac.zo TOT civoſt too. 086.*
And as no ancient manuscript or version has given a hint of
such a form of the text, it seems to be placed beyond fair de-
bate, that the translation now in question cannot be admitted.
Both our translators and Unitarians appear, generally, to
have mistaken the import of the word uogſpſ; in this passage.
On the one hand, wogſpſ, does not seem to me at all parallel
with the brightness (&actygopacz) and express image (zagaz-
zig), which are applied to the Son in Heb. 1: 3. These
* Even then obk #yńoato could not be rendered thought not of The
word does not permit this sense.
10%
114 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
words designate the glory of the incarnate Messiah, who had
appeared “in these last days,” and spoken to men. They ex-
press the same view of Christ which John gives (1:14), when
he says: “We beheld his [Christ's] glory, verily the glory
of the only begotten of the Father;” and this glory was seen
after the “Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Com-
parison then of u09q) 080i with these passages, will not as-
certain its meaning; for to Christ belonged the woop) 0800,
before he humbled himself and took upon him the form of a
servant. Indeed, in occupying the condition of a servant, (if
I may so express the Greek ézévoo's geovzów), consisted his
humiliation.
A fair examination of woggſ, either generally or in special
relation to the passage before us, will end, as I must believe,
in the conviction, that the word is not unfrequently synony-
mous with gºats (nature) and ovato, (being). The proofs
which Schleusner has offered of this are sufficient. (Lex.
in voc. woggº). But the proof of what it means in the pas-
sage before us, is too plain to be easily mistaken. If you
say, uogq) 0800 means only a similitude or resemblance of
God in moral qualities, as we speak of Christians resembling
God, then I ask, whether his humiliation consisted in de-
pressing, or subjecting to a lower station, the moral qualities
which Christ possessed.
Does uogºp) 0800 mean then a resemblance to God in re-
spect to office, even as magistrates are sometimes called gods?
Not so ; for on the supposition that Christ was only a finite
being, what office did he lay aside in order to become incar-
nate? If Christ be only a created being, who were his sub-
jects, and what was his dominion, before his mediatorial king-
dom commenced by the event of his incarnation ?
But this is not all. If uogg); mean only similitude, then
what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ is said to
have taken upon him the wogg.jv Šoćkov * That he bore
merely a resemblance to a servant, i. e. to one who obeys,
or is in a humble station; or that he did actually take the
condition of one who was in a humble and depressed state,
&
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 115
and persevere in it to the very death of the cross? The lat-
ter must be admitted, unless we hearken to the doctrine of
the Docetae, who taught, that Christ was a man in appear-
ance only, and not in reality. If u09q) Šovkov, then, means
the condition or state of one who is humbled or depressed,
and subjected to the command of others, does not u09q) 0800
mean the condition or state of one who is truly divine 2
After all, it should be sacredly remembered, that on such
a subject as this, human language, (made up of terms invent-
ed to express the ideas of finite and mutable beings about
finite and mutable objects), is of course incompetent fully to
designate the mode of union between the divine and human
natures. I must regard the language here, and in all other
passages which respect this awe-inspiring subject, as only an
approacimation toward describing what exists in the Divinity,
or is done by him. He who was in the condition of God,
and equal with God, i. e. divine, Šzévoge écºvzów - which we
translate: eacănanivit seipsum, or made himself of no reputa-
tion. Yet how incompetent must these translations bel So
far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot change, i. e.
he cannot divest himself of his essential perfections. He
cannot cease to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc.
But he may veil the brightness of his glories for a time, by
assuming to himself a union with the human nature, and
making this the organ through which he displays his per-
fections, during the time of the incarnation. Does the natu-
ral sun cease to shine—are his beams extinguished, when an
intervening cloud obscures for a while his lustre 2. Or is the
sun in any measure changed?
In reply to a multitude of questions, with which you and
others press Trinitarians on this subject, we may ask: Be-
cause God is omnipotent, does it follow that the whole of
that omnipotence must be every moment exerted 2 If not,
(and who will refuse assent to this?) then why may he not
have veiled his glories for a time in the incarnate Saviour,
and still retain all his essential perfections unchanged? Is
116 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
it too much to say, that he may have done so 2 I believe the
text in question decides that he did so. -
I approach such a subject, however, with solemn awe; and
never do I feel my own weakness and ignorance more in-
tensely, than while endeavouring to think upon it. The
familiar, I had almost said irreverential manner, in which
some speak and write respecting this mystery, is calculated,
I freely acknowledge, to excite painful emotions. On the
one hand, it would seem, if we are to credit one mode of rep-
resentation, that the greatest portion of Christ's humiliation
consisted in his having renounced and absolutely laid aside
his divinity, during the time of the incarnation; and that as
God, in this diminished condition, (if I may so speak), he
did actually expire upon the cross. All the powers of lan-
guage are exhausted, in order to show how great must be the
sufferings and condescension of Christ, in undergoing such a
degradation as this. On the other hand, some who revolt
from these mistaken representations, verge to the other ex-
treme. Lest they should degrade the divine nature of Christ,
they are so careful to separate the human nature from it, that
one is compelled to suppose, that the man Jesus had simply
a higher degree of inspiration and communion with God than
other prophets. The New Testament does not seem to me
to justify either of these extremes. e
A thousand questions may be raised here; a thousand dif-
ficulties suggested, which no sober man will undertake to an-
swer. The history of past ages exhibits an appalling picture
of disputes about the person of Christ; all springing from
the denial of facts revealed in the New Testament, or from
the unhallowed curiosity of men who desired to know what
God has not revealed. The very last age witnessed a dis-
pute in Germany between the theologians of Giessen and
Tübingen, whether the humiliation (závogug) of Christ con-
sisted “in abstinence from both the direct and reflex use of
divine majesty;” or in the “occultation of divine majesty;”
a dispute which agitated the Lutheran Church to the very
Centre.
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 117
The humble inquirer after truth, who once is brought
clearly to see the boundaries of human knowledge, will shrink
from disputations of such a nature, and pour forth his earnest
supplications to God, that the simple verities which the
Scriptures reveal may be believed on the authority of God ;
while the manner in which the facts revealed for our credence
exist, is left with him “whose ways are unsearchable and
whose judgments are past finding out.”
I have used the freedom of letter-writing, in this discus-
sion; "I can hardly call it digression, as it is so nearly con-
nected with the explanation of the text which I am examin-
ing. . Will you now permit me to repeat, that the version
which would correspond best with the real meaning of the
passage in question, must express the following ideas: “Who
being of divine nature or condition, did not eagerly seek to
retain his equality with God, but took on himself a humble
condition, etc.” In this way, and in this only, does the pas-
Sage appear to be consistent with the apostle's argument and
design, at least appropriate to them; and in this way only,
can the Greek be fairly and grammatically rendered.
* With the passage that has now been considered, several
others seem to me to agree, in respect to general import.
E. g. John 5: 19, “Whatsoever things he [the Father] doeth,
the same doeth the Son likewise;” i. e. he has the same
power as the Father. And when it is said in the context:
“The Son doeth nothing by (or of, ºn 6, &g') himself, ex-
cept he see the Father do it;” I understand the meaning to
be, that the Jews had no reason to believe that Christ had
any disposition to break the divine commandments, (of which
they had so frequently accused him), because he acted in en-
tire concert with the divine purposes and commands, and
had no separate interests of his own. Any other interpre-
tation than this, makes the passage inept, and wholly irrele-
vant to the case in hand. . . .
Several passages there are, of the like nature with the one
just considered, which assert a dependence of the Son upon
the Father, but all of which relate to his mediatorial state,
118 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
when he had assumed a human nature. Such are the pas-
Sages which declare that Christ was taught, shown, instructed,
and sent or commissioned, by the Father ; e. g. John 5:20,
26, 27, 30, 36. John 6:38. In John 6:57 is a strong ex-
pression of this nature: “As the living Father hath sent me,
and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall
live by me.” Now here Christ represents himself as living
by the Father, that is, through his power or influence, in like
manner as his disciples are spiritually nourished by him. But
all this evidently belongs to his mediatorial person afid na-
ture; and of this it is plainly true. The passages which
teach us that Christ was guided or instructed by the Father,
in all the revelations which he made, are somewhat frequent,
specially in the works of John ; e. g. Rev. 1: 1. John 12:49.
8:38. 14: 10, 24, 15: 10, 15. But, intermingled with these,
(and, on the ground of Christ's two-fold nature, easily inter-
preted), are others of a very different tenor. For example;
he says (John 16: 7 sq.), that he will send the Paraclete, i. e.
the Spirit of truth, to teach and comfort his disciples; and
then he adds: “He [the Spirit] shall glorify me; for he
shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” Nor is
this all. He goes on to say: “All things that the Father
hath are mine ; therefore said I, he shall take of mine, and
show it unto you.” Very different is the tenor of the mean-
ing here, from that of the words of Paul, when he tells the
Corinthians, that “all things are theirs.” The apostle
means, that all the privileges and blessings of the gospel with
all its teachers, and all its hopes and promises, are theirs, and
that they and all these belong to one common Lord, i. e.
Christ; also that Christ himself, as the mediator of the new
dispensation, and according to the economy of grace, belongs
to God, or is subordinate to him, 1 Cor. 3: 21—23. . The
apostle says all this, to quell party spirit and the assumption
of superiority among the Corinthians. But when Christ
promises to his disciples, first, that he will send the Paraclete ;
and then says that the Holy Spirit will glorify him ; and
finally adds, that “all which the Father hath is his ;” can
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 119
we reasonably suppose that any pious man, nay that any
created being who is filled with the fear of God, would make
use of such language as this? To speak of himself as glori-
Jied by the Spirit, and as possessing all things in such a sense
that the Spirit is said to take and to receive of the things
which are his, and to show them to the disciples—is this lan-
guage becoming in a mere human being, yea, decorous in any
measure for any created being whatever? The Holy Spirit
then is to take of what belongs to him who is a created and
dependent being, in order to furnish himself for the work of
guiding and comforting the disciples It is improbable—
nay, it is morally impossible, for any created being filled with
reverential awe of God, and with deep humility, to express
himself in such manner while in the use of his sober senses.
Such language, in his mouth, would amount to little or nothing
Short of blasphemy; if blasphemy may mean the saying of
that which detracts from God, and elevates the creature to
the rank of a divine being. I venture to say, that no theory
of doctrine which denies the Godhead of Christ, can fairly
make out an exegesis of this language, which is consistent
with fact, with piety, and with reason.
Again, in that last memorable prayer of Jesus, recorded in
John Xvii., when speaking of his disciples, he says to the
Father: “All mine are thine, and thine are mine ; and I am
glorified in them,” v. 10. Here is even additional reason for
applying the remarks just made. Such claims forsooth as
these, on the part of a mere man, or a mere creature How
can I admit this, and admit that the being who uttered it was
full of reverence and humility, or even that he was in a state
of sanity? I confess myself utterly at a loss to reconcile this
with any Unitarian theory, of which I have any knowledge.
Of the same nature is a text already cited above: “My
IFather worketh hitherto, and I work,” John 5: 17. In other
words, (as Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath): “My
Father suspends not his operations on this holy day; and I
have a right to continue mine on the same ground.' If this
be admitted, then is the justification of Jesus complete. But
what human or merely created being could place his justifi-
120 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
cation, on such ground as this? The Jews immediately accused
him of blasphemy. They were in the right, if he was nothing
more than a mere man. But how does he vindicate himself?
By telling them that they had wholly mistaken the meaning of
his expressions? Not at all. He merely tells them that he
follows the example of the Father, and that he is commission-
ed by him to do the greatest of miracles, to raise the dead,
and to judge the world; and all this, in order that “all men
should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.”
He not only asserts, then, his right to supersede the law of
the Sabbath, but his right to share in the same honours
which are to be paid to the Father.
I must confess, that passages like these make a deeper
impression on my mind, than many a passage which seems
directly to assert that Christ is God. For such passages as
those before us show that the truth in question was in-
wrought into the mind of Jesus, and that he was in readiness
to develop it, directly or indirectly, on every proper occasion.
John 5: 21—23. “For as the Father raiseth the dead and
restoreth them to life, so also the Son restoreth to life whom
he'pleases. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath com-
mitted all judgment to the Son, that all men might honour
the Son, even as they honour the Father.”
Is there not here an equality of power and honour, ascrib-
ed to the Father and Son? The Son is introduced as “head
over all things;” but could he be such a head, could “all
judgment be committed to him,” if at the same time he was
not divine, and consequently omniscient It is perfectly
plain, that in so far as the “committing of judgment to the
Son” is concerned, it must be to the mediatorial person; to
one who in respect to office is subordinate to God. But in
so far as qualifications requisite to perform the duties which
that commitment requires, are concerned, the Saviour is di-
vine; and the honour to be claimed by him, is the same with
that which the Divinity himself claims. It matters not
whether you interpret this of obedience to be rendered to the
Son, or of homage to be paid to him. Multitudes of prophets,
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY of scripture. 121
as commissioned by God, have borne his messages of mercy.
and of judgment to his people ; but to whom among them all,
did he grant the privilege of being honoured as himself?
Or to what created being shall the glory of the blessed God
be rendered, without infringing upon the fundamental princi-
ples of both the Jewish and the Christian religion ?
You will expect me, perhaps, to adduce John 10: 30, “I
and my Father are one.” It is a clear case, that the Jews
here seem to have understood Christ as claiming equality
with God, or rather claiming to be God; see v. 33. But I
am not satisfied, that the manner in which they often expound-
ed his words, is a sure guide for our interpretation of them
at the present time. The malignant disposition which they
frequently displayed, may well lead us to suspect, that they
would, if possible, put such a construction on his words as
would subject him to the imputation of blasphemy, or of re-
bellion against the Roman government. I would expound
the words of Christ, therefore, independently of any construc-
tion which his embittered enemies put upon them. And in
the present case, it seems to me, that the meaning of “I and
my Father are one,” is simply: “I and my Father are united
or one in counsel, design, and operation.’
So in John 17:20, 21, Christ prays that “all who shall
believe on him may be one. As thou Father,” continues he,
“art in me, and I in thee, so they also may be one in us;”
i. e. that the disciples may have the “same mind which was
in Christ Jesus,” may copy after his example, and may be
united in the temper of their souls to him, as he is to God,
and thus may be one with the Father and with him.
So also, in Gal. 3: 28, Christians of different ranks and
nations are said to be one in Christ; and 1 Cor. 3: 8, he that
planteth and he that watereth are one, i. e. they have the
same affections and designs, they are united to accomplish
the same object. In the same manner Cicero says: Unus
fiat e pluribus, i. e. many constitute one, when persons are
united in temper and pursuits; De Offic. I. 17.
11
122 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
From the consideration of those texts, which ascribe to
Christ, in a general sense, equality with God or divine power
and honours, let us now turn,
III. To the examination of those, which assert or imply,
that particular divine attributes, or works, belong to him.
1. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ. -
Matt. 11:27. “All things are delivered to me of m
Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father;
neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”
If, in this passage, the same omniscience be not ascribed to
the Son as to the Father, I am unable to make out satisfac-
torily what the meaning of it is. In the latter clause of the
verse, men are declared to be entirely dependent on the Son
for that knowledge of the Father which is revealed, i.e. he
only is capable of making this revelation. “No man hath
seen God at any time; the only begotten who dwelleth in the
bosom of the Father he hath revealed him,” John 1: 18. At
the same time I concede it to be possible, that the knowledge
here spoken of may be merely that which is intended to be
revealed in the gospel. \
John 6:46. Oñy 6tt rôy ſtºvãow zig diggxey, eiu) 6 cy
ºtºg& roi 3800 oizog ádigºxe rôy ſtovágo. “Because that
no man hath seen the Father, save he who is of God; he
hath seen the Father.” The word ádigoxe here does not
mean to see with bodily eyes, but with the mental eye, i. e. to
Know. What but omniscience could be adequate to the
Rnowledge, which is here predicated of Christ P And is it
a satisfactory explanation of the text, to say, that the know-
Tedge here meant, is simply that which is conveyed in the
instructions of the gospel?
In the same manner, the knowledge of the most intimate
secrets of the human heart is ascribed to Christ. John 2:
24, 25, “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them be-
cause he knew all men, and needed not that any should testi-
fy of man; for he knew what was in man.” John 6: 64,
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 123
“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus
knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray him.” -
Acts 1: 24. “And they prayed, and said: Thou, Lord,
which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these :
two thou hast chosen.” That Lord (xãgtog) here means
Christ, seems to me very plain from vs. 21, 22 (comp. v. 6),
of the context. Besides, this is the common appellation of
the Saviour in the Acts of the Apostles. The appeal made
in this case respects the choice of an apostle. “Show, Lord,”
say the apostles, “which of these two thou hast chosen, that
he may take part of this ministry and apostleship.” Is there
any room to doubt here, that the apostle did appeal to the
same Lord who had chosen them, beseeching him to desig-
nate who should fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of
Judas' There can be none. -
1 Cor. 4: 4, 5, “For I know nothing by myself; yet am I
not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come,
who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness,
and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then
shall every man have praise of God.” That Lord (zügtog)
here means Christ, is plain, both from the office of judging.
ascribed to him, and from his coming to judgment. . With-
out citing numerous other passages, which confessedly rep-
resent Christ as the final judge of all the human race, permit
me here to ask: Is it possible for any being who is not om-
nºscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can
he for thousands of years, (possibly of ages), be present every-
where, and know all that is transacted 2 Can he penetrate
the recesses of the human heart 2 Can he remember the
whole character and actions of countless myriads so diverse
in talents, temper, circumstances, and situation, and yet be
finite, be neither omnipresent nor omniscient? God claims
it as his distinguishing and peculiar prerogative, that he
knows the secrets of the human heart, (Jer. 17: 10); what
them must he be, who knows the secrets of all hearts, at all
124 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
times, and in all worlds? If he be not God, the proof that
the Father is God, must also be defective; and we have the
question again to dispute with the Manicheans, whether
Jehovah be not a limited and imperfect being.
But, you will say: ‘Christ acts as judge by delegated au-
thority; why not then by knowledge imparted to him?” He
does indeed act as judge by delegated authority, because it is
in his mediatorial capacity that he acts as judge; but to act
as judge is one thing, to be qualified for such an office is an-
other. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge in that
capacity; omnipresence and omniscience only can qualify him
for the duties of that station. And can omniscience be im-
parted? We may as well say omnipotence or self-existence
can be imparted. There is, and there can be, but one God;
and a second omniscient being (omniscient simply by know-
ledge imparted), would force us into all the absurdities of po-
lytheism.
- Rev. 2:23. “And all the churches shall know that I am he
which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto
every one of you according to your works.” The same per-
son speaks here, who “was dead and is alive,” i. e. Christ,
(ch. 1: 18). The sense of the passage is too plain to need
any comment.
To conclude this head; when I compare such passages
as those above cited with the description of omniscience,
how can I doubt that the New Testament writers mean to
ascribe the knowledge of all things to Christ? To say
that whatsoever pertains to God or man is known by any
being, is to predicate omniscience of that being. Com-
pare now with this the knowledge which God ascribes to
himself only, in Jer. 17:9, 10: “The heart is deceitful above
all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I
the LORD Search the heart, I try the reins, even to give
every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit
of his doings.”
2. Divine power is ascribed to Christ.
Phil. 3: 21, “Who shall change our vile body, that it may
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 125
be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the
working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto
himself.” . . .
Compare now with this passage, 1 Cor. 15:26–28, where
the same language is applied to God the Father. And if
“to subdue all things to himself,” (itozºści zè advtc. &v-
zó), be not characteristic of omnipotence in Phil. 3: 21 when
applied to Christ, why should it be so when applied in 1 Cor.
xv. to the Father ?
Heb. 1: 3. "Og (@y &taſygouc, tiſs 66&ng x&i zºgºzzig zig
tizogróosog wizoö, pégow re zö tävco, tº §uozi tās 6vy&-
usog girov), Sö &vrov. 20.00.0tguów zoºmoºuévos zów Gugget-
6v judjv, Šzóðugev Šv Šešić ris umycºlogiſms év inpıſıois'
“Who, (being the brightness of his glory and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of
his power), when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down
on the right hand of the majesty on high.” The word pågøy
which is translated upholding, means preserving, directing,
governing. Thus Chrysostom: pégow, says he, ºvščovov
ôtoºziazovzo ovyºgo.zóv, i. e. governing, preserving things
perishable. So the corresponding Hebrew word Niº, Isa.
46: 3. 63: 9.
In John 10: 16, Christ says, that “he has power to lay
down his life, and to resume it again.” In other places the
resurrection of Jesus is ascribed to God; Acts 2: 24, 32. 3:
15. 5: 30. 1 Cor. 6: 14. 15: 15. *
In 2 Pet. 1: 3, divine power (987& Sºvgutg) is ascribed to
Christ; comp. v. 16.
Most decisive, however, of divine power belonging to
Christ, are those passages above, which ascribe to him the
creation of the universe. This is the distinguishing charac-
teristic of Jehovah. Jer. 10: 10—16. “But the Elord is the
true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King; at
his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not
bé able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto
them: The gods that have not made the heavens and the
earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under
1.1%
126 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
these heavens. He hath made the earth by his power, he
bath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched
out the heavens by his discretion. When he uttereth his
voice there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he
causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he
maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out
of his treasures. Every man is brutish in his knowledge;
every founder is confounded by the graven image; for his
molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
They are vanity, and the work of errors; in the time of their
visitation they shall perish. The portion of Jacob is not like
them ; for he is the former of all things, and Israel is the rod
of his inheritance: the LORD OF HOSTS is his name.”
Acts 14: 15. “Sirs, why do ye these things? we also are
men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye
should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which
made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are
there???.”
Whatever views other persons may entertain, who read
Such passages and compare them with the creative power
ascribed to Christ, I cannot but admit, with the apostle, that
“he who built all things is God.”
3. Eternity is ascribed to Christ. *-
That those passages of Scripture, which speak of Christ's
existence before the creation of the world, do not explicitly
assert his eternity, I have already suggested. But then, it is
difficult to conceive that they do not imply eternity. “For;”
says Doederlein. (Inst. Theol. i. p. 390,) “to exist before the
beginning of the world, what can it mean but to exist from
eternity ?” Passages of this nature are the following; viz.
John 1: 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.” 1 John 1:2, “For
the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear wit-
ness, and show unto you that eternal Life which was with the
Father, and was manifested unto us.” John 17: 5, “And
now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was.” John 17:
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 127
24, “Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me
be with me where I am ; that they may behold my glory,
which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the
foundation of the world.”
But specially do I apprehend that Rev. 22:13 is decisive
on this subject. Eyo) to 4 x&l zö 9, 6 ſtgözog zo. 6 &oxº-
zog, jºgy; X&t to zékog. That it is Christ who here speaks,
is clear ; for, (1) In the preceding verse he says: “Behold I
come quickly.” (2) In the sixteenth verse the same person
says: “I Jesus have sent mine angel,” etc. Now the same
description that is here applied to Christ, is given of the
eternity of God in ch. 20: 5, 6; comp. vs. 7 and 3. To know
still more fully what this form of expression means, we must
récur to the Old Test, where we find it divested of its
technical shape. In Isa. 44; 6, Jehovah says: “I am the first,
and I am the last, and beside me there is no God;” i. e.
eternity distinguishes me from all that are falsely called gods.
So in Isa. 48: 12, after declaring that he will not suffer his
name to be polluted, nor give his glory to another, he adds:
“I am he [i. e. the true God]; I am the first, and I also am
the last.” * -
Now if the same things be asserted of Christ, (as plainly
they are in the texts under consideration), how can we avoid
the conclusion, that the holy apostle meant to assert his eter-
mal existence?
4. Divine honours and worship are ascribed to Christ.
John 5:23. “That all men might honour the Son even
as they honour the Father.” On this text I have before re-
marked (p. 95) in another connexion.
Heb. 1: 6. “Let all the angels of God worship him.”
The word worship, it is said, has two significations, viz.
obeisance and spiritual homage. This is true; and the first
of these meanings often presents itself in the Old Test., and
(as I am willing to concede) in the Gospels. Many who
worshipped Christ, while he sojourned among men, that is,
prostrated themselves before him, probably knew or acknowl-
edged nothing of his divine nature. But what shall we say
128 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
of the angels 3 Are they ignorant of his true nature ? And
is not the worship which they who are pure spirits pay, of
course spiritual, and not simple obeisance 2
Phil. 2: 10, 11. “That at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under the earth ; and that every tongue should con-
fess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Fa-
ther.”
“Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth,” is a com-
mon periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers,
for the universe, (tò 7&v or tº acºvzº). What can be meant
by things in heaven, i.e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee
to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant? What other
worship can heaven render 2 And if the worship of Christ
in heaven be spiritual, should not that of others, who ought
to be in temper united with them, be spiritual also 2 And
when it is added, that this worship shall be “to the glory of
God the Father,” I understand the sentiment to be, that Je-
sus in his mediatorial character is the proper object of uni-
versal adoration; but inasmuch as this mediatorship was ap-
pointed by God the Father, and has a peculiar connexion
with and relation to him, so the worship paid to Christ as the
Mediator, should redound to the glory of God the Father as
well as to his own. -
Rom. 10:9–14. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For
with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with
the mouth confession is made unto Salvation. For the Scrip-
ture saith: Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek;
for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they
have not believed 2 and how shall they believe in him of
whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear with-
out a preacher ?” -
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 129
The Lord on whose name they are to call, is plainly and
clearly the Lord Christ; for he is the same in whom they
are to believe, (vs. 11, 14). And this Lord (Christ) on
whom they are to call, and in whom they are to believe, is
Kügtog ºrgyrov, universal Lord, and therefore able to bestow
the blessings which they need.
Rev. 5: 8–14. “And when he [i. e. Christ, see vs. 6, 7],
took the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell
down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and
golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the
saints. And they sung a new song, saying: Thou art wor-
thy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou
wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of
every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And
hast made us unto our God kings and priests ; and we shall
reign on the earth. And I beheld and I heard the voice of
many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the
elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten
thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud
voice: Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power,
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory,
and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and
on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea,
and all that are in them, heard I saying: Blessing, and hon-
our, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the
throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever. And the
four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell
down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.”
If this be not spiritual worship—and if Christ be not the
object of it here; I must confess myself unable to produce or
imagine a case, where worship can be called spiritual and di-
vine, or where it can more plainly be attributed to Christ.
Is it not equally clear that the apostles and primitive mar-
tyrs worshipped Christ? And was not the practice of wor-
shipping him, recognized among other Christians? Let us
SČ6
. . Acts 7: 59, 60, “And they stoned Stephen, making invo-
180 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
cation (Śrix&Aoûuevow) and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit ! And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice:
Lord, lay not this sin to their charge And when he had
said this, he fell asleep.” **
Now here is a dying martyr, who is expressly said to “be
filled with the Holy Ghost,” and to enjoy the vision of the
heavenly world, and of the Saviour who was there; he is in
his last moments too—on the very verge of eternity; here is
such a martyr, committing his departing spirit into the hands
of the Lord Jesus, in the very same language and with the
same confidence, with which Jesus, when expiring upon the
cross, committed his spirit into the hands of the Father.
This expiring disciple also implores forgiveness for his mur-
derers. Of whom does he implore it? Of the same Lord .
Jesus. Can our departing spirits be committed to any be-
ing, and the forgiveness of sin be expected of him, unless he
has omnipotence and supreme authority ? And can a dying
martyr, with his eyes fixed on the very vision of God, and
his soul filled with the Holy Ghost, ask and pray amiss?
2 Cor. 12:8, 9. Tzig zoövov reig röy züotov ſtagext:Mego,
ivo. Gºtogzi Gºt àuoiſ x&i elonzé uot Agxei got jzºgts uovº
# y&g Stºvcuiç uov čv 300eveig teletoizczi. "Hôtozo. otiv učA-
Aov x&vzºo.ouca Św twis &0&evelolg uov, ivo, intoxnvojom éz'
ăuš i öövºurg zoö Xotozov. “For this thing I besought the
Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto
me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made
perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather
glory in mine infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest
upon me.”
The Lord whom Paul here besought, is plainly Christ; for
this same Lord, in answer to the apostle's supplication, says:
“My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength (; Öiſvguig
pov) is perfected in weakness.” Then the apostle immedi-
ately subjoins: “Most gladly then would I rejoice in my in-
firmities, that the strength of CHRIST (; Öivoquig Xotozov),
may rest upon me.” A clearer case that Christ was the ob-
ject of the apostle's repeated prayer, cannot well be presented.
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 131
1 Thess. 3:11, 12. “Now God himself even our Father,
and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. And
the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one to-
ward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward
you.” g *
Can any distinction be here made, between the rank of
those who are addressed in supplication by the apostle 2
And does not the twelfth verse plainly show, that the suppli-
cation of the apostle is specially directed to the Lord, i. e. to
Christ P - l
2 Thess. 2: 16, 17. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself,
and God even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath
given us everlasting consolation, and good hope through
grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good
word and work.”
Here the order of the persons, to whom supplication is
made, is the reverse of that in the last instance quoted ; which
shows that nothing depends on the order, but that it was a
matter of indifference with the apostle, which was placed first;
the supplication being equally addressed to the Father and
to Christ.
Rom. 1: 7. “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God,
called to be saints: Grace to you, and peace from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Here the same blessings are solicited and expected, from
Christ and from the Father. See the same formula repeated
in 1 Cor. 1: 3. 2 Cor. 1: 2.
Acts 1: 24. “And they prayed and said: Thou, Lord,
which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these
two thou hast chosen.”
That Lord here means the Lord Jesus, seems evident from
vs. 21, 22. It is the usual appellation, moreover, which the
book of Acts gives to the Saviour. (See above, p. 104.)
2 Tim. 4: 14. “The Lord reward him according to his
works P’ Again vs. 17, 18: “Notwithstanding the Lord
stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching
might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear:
132 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the
Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will pre-
serve me unto his heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for-
ever and ever. Amen.” (Comp. 3:11). Usage hardly ad-
mits a doubt here, that Lord means Christ.
Nor can I separate from religious invocation, trust, and
confidence, such expressions as these : “Then Peter said:
Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee;
in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk,”
Acts 3: 6. Nor can I see how the solemn adjuration by
Christ (§y Xotozó), which the apostle uses in Rom. 9:1.
1 Tim. 2: 7 (text. recept.), can be separated from religious
invocation or appeal.
We must add to all these instances of worship, the fact
that Christians were so habituated to address their supplica-
tions to Christ, that the expression, “they who invoke Christ,”
became, as it would seem, a kind of proper name, by which
they were in primitive times designated as Christians.
Thus Paul (1 Cor. 1: 2) addresses himself to all ézizºlov-
uévois zö 6vouc, zoö xvgtov judov Ingoû Xotozoö, äy ſtºvcı
zózq), who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, IN
EVERY PLACE. That the verb ézizcz.80 is an appropriate
one to designate the act of prayer, will not be questioned.
The literal translation of it is to invoke. The simple mean-
ing of the passage is: “I address myself to all Christians.”
But instead of using the name Christians directly, the apostle
uses a periphrasis and says: To all the invokers of Christ, i. e.
to those who pray to him, meaning the same as &yiots, x\m-
zoig, etc., in the context. He has signified also, that the
practice of invoking Christ was not confined to Corinth. He
addresses “those who pray to Christ in every place,” (äy adv-
zu zózq).
Exactly in the same manner does Ananias describe Chris-
tians, when the Lord Jesus bade him go to instruct and com-
fort Saul. “Lord,” said he, “I have heard of many con-
cerning this man, what things he has done (zoig &yiots oov)
to thy Saints at Jerusalem; and even now, he has a commis-
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 133
A V
sion from the high priest to bind all (zoög &tizo...ovuévovg zö
ôvouc Gov) those who invoke thy name,” i. e. all Christians.
See the same thing repeated in v. 21.
The very heathen, in the primitive age of Christianity,
little as they knew about Christians, discovered that they
made Christ an object of worship. Says Pliny, in writing
to Trajan: “Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, soliti essent [i. e.
Christiani] dicere secum invicem. They (Christians) sing
in social worship a hymn to Christ as a God.” (Lib. X.
Epis. 97.)
Eusebius too, (Ecc. Hist. v. 28), in writing against the
Artemonites, appeals to the ancient songs of Christians, thus:
“Whatever psalms and hymns were composed by faithful
brethren, from the beginning, praise Christ the word of God.”
Can any example of a church in the apostolic age, which did
not practice thus, be produced P
Did not the Saviour give his disciples a general. precept
and encouragement, to make him the object of prayer P “If
ye shall ask anything in my name,” i. e. as my disciples, on
my account, said he to the apostles, “I will accomplish it,”
(śya, 70thgo); John 14: 13, 14. The disciples appear to
me to have understood this, as directing that he should be
regarded by them as the special object of prayer. Hence,
instead of finding few or no examples of prayer to Christ, in
the history of the primitive Christians as exhibited in the
New Testament, I find more of this nature than of any
other. -
When I have contemplated the precepts which encourage
prayer to Christ and the worship of him, both by the inhabi-
tants of the heavenly world and by the churches on earth, I
then compare these things with the exclusive worship and
trust which Jehovah claims to himself. Is. 45: 22, 23,
“Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by my-
self, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness and
shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every
12
134 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
tongue shall swear.” Is. 42:8, “I am the Lord; that is my
name, and my glory will I not give to another, neither my
praise to graven images.” Jer. 17: 5–7, “Thus saith the
Lord : Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh
flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord; for
he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see
when good cometh, but shall inhabit parched places in the
wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the
man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.”
Matt. 4: 10, “Then Saith Jesus unto him : Get thee hence,
Satan; for it is written: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy
God, and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve.”
I am ready now to ask, whether I can avoid coming to the
conclusion, either that Christ is truly divine, inasmuch as he
is so often represented as the object of worship; or that the
sacred writers have mistaken this great point, and led us to
that which must be considered as idolatry. And yet the
worship of Christ is placed, as it would seem, in opposition to
that of idols, 1 Cor. 8: 4–6. That Christianity utterly and
forever renounces all idolatry—all polytheism, in a word,
everything inconsistent with the worship of one only living
and true God, is a point so plain and so universally conceded,
that I shall not dwell for a moment upon it.
Were it not that I fear becoming tedious, by detailing my
reasons for believing in the divine mature of Christ, I should
add a great number of texts, which require us with all the
heart to love him ; to obey him ; to confide in him; and to
commit ourselves to him; in such a manner as I can never per-
suade myself to do, with respect to any being who is not God.
The New Testament tells me that my consolation, my privi-
lege, my happiness, must be derived from trusting in Christ.
But can I trust myself to a finite being, when I have an inft-
nite, almighty, all-sufficient GOD to whom I may go 2 Shall
I be satisfied with a mere mite, when more than all the mines
of Peru are set before me *
I might also add those texts, some of which are very
LETT. III.]
135
TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE.
striking ones, where, in the New Testament, the very same
things are applied to Christ, which in the Old Testament are
affirmed of Jehovah. Some specimens of these follow :
Isa. 6: 5–10. Then said I, Woe
is me ! for I am undone, because I
am a man of unclean lips; for mine
eyes have seen the King, the Lord
of hosts. Then flew one of the sera-
phim unto me, having a live coal
in his hand, which he had taken
with the tongs from off the altar.
And he laid it upon my mouth, and
Said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips,
and thine iniquity is taken away,
and thy sin purged. Also I heard the
voice of the Lord, saying: Whom
shall I send, and who will go for
us? Then said I: Here am I, sond
me. And he said: Go and tell this
people, Hear ye indeed, but under-
stand not ; and see ye indeed, but
perceive not. Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears
heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they
see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and understand with
their heart, and convert, and be
healed.
Mal. 3: 1. Behold, I will send
my messenger, and he shall pre-
pare the way before me; and the
Lord, whom ye seek, shall Sud-
denly come to his temple, even the
messenger of the covenant, whom
ye delight in ; behold, he shall
come, saith the Lord of hosts.
Ps. 78; 56. Yet they tempted and
provoked the most high God, and
kept not his testimonies.
John 12: 37–41. But though he
had done so many miracles before
them, yet they believed not on him ;
that the saying of Esaias the pro-
phet might be fulfilled, which he
spake : Lord, who hath believed
our report? and to whom hath the
arm of the Lord been revealed 7
Therefore they could not believe,
because that Esaias said again: He
hath blinded their eyes, and har-
dened their heart, that they should
not see with their eyes, nor under-
stand with their heart, and be con-
verted, and I should heal them.
These things said Esaias, when he
saw his [Christ's] glory and spake
of him.
Mark 1: 2. As it is written in the
prophets: Behold, I send my mes-
senger before thy face, which shall
prepare thy way before thee.
I Cor. 10: 9. Neither let us tempt
Christ, as some of them also tempt-
ed, and were destroyed of serpents.
It were easy greatly to increase the number of such passages
as these; but I shall desist.
Instead of that want of evidence,
in the New Testament, with respect to the divinity of Christ,
of which you repeatedly speak, and in strong terms, I find
evidence almost everywhere to illustrate or to confirm the doc-
trine in question. &
In fact it is often developed, to the practised eye, where
a superficial reader would not even suspect it. For ex-
136 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
ample ; in Rev. 2: 17, a promise is made to him that over-
cometh, that he shall eat of the hidden manna, and wear a
diadem like that of the high-priest, on the front of which is a
precious stone, and in this “a new name is written, which no
man knoweth, save him that receiveth it.” This is intelligi-
ble only by a reference to the Jewish customs and the high-
priest's mitre. The proper name of God, viz. JEHow AH,
was never pronounced by the Jews, at least in later times;
and in the Hebrew Bible it has no vowel points appropriate
to guide the pronunciation, but is always read as *s or
bºrºs, and so translated JCord or God. Josephus says, that
it was not allowed to the Jews to pronounce the name Jeho-
vah. Still, this name was inscribed on a metallic plate, fixed
upon the front of the high-priest's mitre. That priest was
the only one entrusted with the secret of pronouncing it;
which he is understood to have done (by himself), when
blessing the people. This explains the phrase, “which no
man knoweth, save he that receiveth it.” A new name is to
be added to this, on the mitre of “him that overcometh.”
What new name is there, then, that can be associated with
the dread name of Jehovah 3 I know of but one ; and this
Paul has developed, when he says that to Christ is given “a
name that is above every name . . . a name at which every
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth,” Phil. 2: 9, 10. The name of
Jesus, then, is to be associated with the awful, the peculiar,
the incommunicable name of Jehovah, on the crown of glory
which the faithful follower of Jesus will wear, in the world of
light and love.
That I have rightly referred this new name to Jesus, seems
to be clear from his own words in Rev. 3: 12, “I will write
upon him my new name.” And again in Rev. 19:12, 13,
Christ is represented as having on his many crowns, “a
name written, which no man knew but himself,” i. e. a sa-
cred, unpronounceable name; which in the sequel is said to be
THE WORD OF GOD.
But where shall I end, if I go on pointing out similar cases
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 137
of accidental evidence in favour of the great doctrine in ques-
tion ? An attentive and intelligent reader cannot fail to dis-
cern them in very many portions of the New Testament; and
to find them, moreover, so conditioned, that the writer ap-
pears evidently to build on the doctrine in question, as one
that is acknowledged and felt to be true. This I regard as
evidence of the strongest kind.
In giving the preceding brief summary of scriptural evi-
dence respecting the divinity of Christ, you will perceive that
I have omitted a considerable number of texts, which are of
tentimes adduced to establish the point in question. I have
done this for several reasons. First, those texts, the genuine
reading of which is fairly questionable, I could not with pro-
priety adduce ; e.g. 1 John 5:7 and some others. Secondly,
a passage doubtful as to its genuineness, can add nothing to
the weight of authority, when the strength of evidence is
sifted and pondered. Thirdly, I regard an eagerness to seize
on everything of this nature, and to press it into our service,
as indicative of a feeling on our part, that our cause is some-
what wanting in adequate support, and therefore must be
propped up by all sorts of shores, Sound and unsound. Some
Trinitarians, I concede, (and it is to my great regret), have
not unfrequently shown such an eagerness. But they are not
alone in it. Unitarians, for the most part, put attacks upon
the genuineness of certain texts, in the very van of their in-
wading army. It is a mistaken policy. The text in 1 John
5: 7 is beyond all question indefensible. But all the other
cases of this nature which are of any importance, e.g. 1 Tim.
3: 16, and several others, are so plainly and decidedly against
them on diplomatic grounds, that I am astonished to see such
attacks continually repeated. They can surely make no real
advances in this way. The unskilled public may indeed, for
a while, be misled. But sooner or later the truth will come
out. Besides, if we should concede to them every text
against the genuineness of which they contend on the ground
of defective diplomatic certainty, it would do their cause no
service. These are so few, and the texts which are full and
12%
138 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
direct and above all exception are so many and so strong,
that the main question must lie just where it did before these
specialities in the controversy began. For my part, although
it were easy to double the passages that might be employed
in defending the Godhead of Christ, when compared with
those quoted above, I have no ambition or desire to do this.
As I have already said, it is not on the number, but on the
quality and character of the witnesses that I would lay stress.
My feeling is, that the testimony proffered in behalf of the
cause which I advocate, is veracious and unimpeachable.
Notwithstanding these considerations, however, I feel
bound, before I quit the production of testimony, to appeal to
one or two texts more, which have an indirect bearing on the
Godhead of Christ, and a direct one, as it seems to me, on
the doctrine of the Trinity. I do this principally, because
we are constantly challenged to ‘produce from the New Tes-
tament, anything which looks like the doctrine of a Trinity.’
At the moment when Jesus was about to leave the world
and ascend to the Father, he addressed his disciples and said:
“All power is given to me in heaven and on earth ; Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name
of the Father, and of the Soń, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt.
28: 18, 19.
On this passage I remark, first, that there is every appear-
ance of equality here, so far as it respects the relation of the
baptized person to each of these. Secondly, the first two of
these will surely be admitted to be persons; the third must
therefore be something different from a mere influence or
energy, or else the language is very strange, and greatly ex-
posed to misapprehension. Thirdly, the ancient Israelites
were “all baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10: 2), i. e. they ac-
knowledged Moses as their lawfully constituted head and
lawgiver, and that they were his followers and disciples. So
in the new and better dispensation, where a mere human
head or lawgiver gives place to one of higher rank, the disci-
ples of Christ were to be “baptized into Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost;” by which they came of course to acknowledge
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 139
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as their head, lawgiver, father,
redeemer, and sanctifier. This looks to me, as if the Saviour
meant to place this truth at the very head of all Christian
profession and acknowledgment. Here is TRINITY; not the
name, indeed, but the thing. If Christ is a mere man, and
the Holy Spirit a mere influence, how can they thus be placed
side by side (so to speak) with the eternal Father, and in the
same relation to all Christians as he himself? This is a mat-
ter that cannot be explained on any Unitarian ground. The
natural force and meaning of such language is lost, or ob-
scured, by any exegesis of it which they can give. And
when we give a forced meaning to a passage, the mind never
rests satisfied with it, unless it is filled with party spirit, or
obscured by ignorance.
A second passage, kindred to this, is in 2 Cor. 13: 14. It
runs thus: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with
you all.” s
Here is at least a prayer or supplication, on the part of Paul.
To whom is it directed? To the Father, (for so God is here
to be understood), Son, and Holy Ghost. This is the most
natural construction. Still, I acknowledge the possibility of
a different interpretation, viz. one which regards Paul as ex-
pressing the wish, that all the blessings which God and Christ
and the Holy Spirit bestow, be they what they may, may rest
upon the Corinthians. Viewed simply in this light, the pas-
Sage might not be decisive as to the divine nature of each.
Thus John wishes grace and peace to the seven churches of
Asia from “Him who was and is and is to come, and from
the seven spirits before his throne,” Rev. 1: 4. Paul says:
“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and
the elect angels,” 1 Tim. 5: 21. The Saviour himself speaks
of confessing his faithful followers “before the angels of God,”
Luke 12:8. In all these cases, the presence-angels of God,
(so to speak), i. e. angels of the highest order, in immediate
waiting before his throne, are doubtless meant. Yet in neither
case is a supplication addressed to them. They are recog-
140 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
nized in the Apocalypse as the instruments of dispensing bless-
ings, and in the other cases as in immediate attendance be-
fore the throne of heavenly majesty. It is possible, therefore,
to view the text, in 2 Cor. 13: 14, in some such light; and
in such a case, it would not follow with certainty that the be-
nediction there uttered necessarily implies a Trinity in the
Godhead. But when we take into full view the formula of
Christian baptism, it seems to my mind more probable, that
Paul has spoken in conformity with this.
At all events, if the form of doxology employed in church
services, is not to be found in the New Testament, the sub-
stance of the thing is there. The doxologies to Christ, scat-
tered through the epistles and the Apocalypse, are inexplica-
ble on the ground of Unitarianism. “ To him be glory and
dominion forever and ever,” 2 Pet. 3: 18. “Christ, over all,
God blessed forever. Amen.” Rom. 9: 5. These are speci-
mens. And if Christ is merely a created being, and still
more if he is a mere man, these doxologies are some of the
strangest of all things which Christianity has disclosed, or
which it requires us to believe and practise. How can we
believe that so enlightened a Jew as Paul could employ them,
unless he believed that Christ is divine 3
Thus have I endeavoured to show, that the New Testa-
ment bestows upon Christ the appellation of God, accom-
panied by such adjuncts as naturally, (not to say necessarily),
lead us to understand this word in its highest sense; that it
attributes to him equality with God; that it represents him
as the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of the universe;
declares his omniscience, his omnipotence, and his eternity;
and both by precepts and examples, exhibits Christ as the
object of prayer and divine worship, by the church in heaven
and on earth. To these conclusions, do the plain rules of
exegesis necessarily conduct me. I am sensible that allega-
tions are frequently made, that we receive our systems of
belief from the Creeds and Confessions of faith, which have
descended from former unenlightened, and superstitious or
philosophizing ages. That some of our technical phraseolo-
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 141
gy has been derived from men, who sometimes speculated too
boldly, and substituted names for ideas, I am ready to con-
cede. I feel the embarrassments, which, on account of this,
are occasionally thrown in the way of inculcating truth at the
present time. Men are very apt to suppose, that if you
throw away the old terms or names, you reject the old ideas
also. Yet it can be only superficial thinkers who will sober-
ly believe this. It is in general, therefore, a sufficient reason
with me for dismissing phraseology, when it must, almost of
necessity, be misunderstood by the great body of men. Yet
a sudden and entire revolution in theology in this respect,
would be undesirable ; because such a revolution must again
lead, at first, to other misapprehensions. I am willing, there-
fore, to retain many terms which have become venerable for
their antiquity, which I should reject without hesitation, if
they were now presented de novo. º
I am not conscious of being led to the adoption of Trinita-
rian views, or to the ascription of true and proper divinity to
Christ, by any creed or any human authority on earth. Un-
less I am quite ignorant of myself, the only influence which
creeds and confessions exercise over me, is to modify my
phraseology. I take the language of theology as I find it; and
do not venture upon the composition of a new nomenclature.
And now, in concluding this Letter, permit me to say,
that as reason does not, and cannot, decide against the doc-
trine of the Trinity, as explained in my second Letter; nor
against the union of the divine and human natures in Christ;
the question whether these are truths or not, rests solely on
the decision of revelation. What then is that decision ?
This question I have endeavoured to answer. -
My immediate inducement for undertaking the above ex-
amination of the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, was the
challenge which you make (p. 9) in the following words:
“We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the
New Testament, where the word God . . . unless turned
from its usual sense by the connection, does not mean the
Father.” I have accepted this challenge, not I hope in the
142 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
spirit of contest, but with the desire of contributing, so far as
lies in my power, to develope what the New Testament does
teach, in relation to this matter. I have laboured to show,
that the very reason why I believe Christ to be truly divine,
is because the connection, when he is called GOD, ascribes to
him such attributes and works, as leaves me no room to doubt
that the New Testament writers meant to assert his proper
divinity.
After stating your apprehensions in regard to the doctrine
that Christ has two natures, the belief of which you affirm to
be “an enormous tax on human credulity,” you say: “I am
aware that these remarks will be met by two or three texts,
in which Christ is called God; and by a class of passages,
not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be
ascribed to him,” p. 14. Whether the number of texts in
which Christ is called God, amounts to no more than two or
three, it would be superfluous now to inquire, when they lie
before us, and can easily be counted. We can also judge,
whether the class of passages is “not very numerous, in
which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him,” with
equal facility. It is too late, however, for you and me to rest
our faith upon the number of passages that inculcate a doc-
trine. We have conceded the Bible to be of divine authority.
The simple question is: What does any passage mean, ac-
cording to the rules of interpretation admitted in all other
cases * This being ascertained, only two courses are before
us; the one to receive its meaning as the guide of our faith;
the other to reject its authority, and deny our obligation to
believe the decisions of the Scripture. If the New Testament
does teach that Christ is not really divine, but a mere finite
creature, and this can be made out by an unbiassed interpre-
tation of it, I must either receive this doctrine, receive it im-
plicitly, (for if I am not deceived in respect to myself, I only
desire to know what God has taught in order to believe it),
or else I must reject all claims to inspiration in the sacred
writers, and follow their instructions only so far as they coin-
cide with my own speculations. I am fully satisfied there is no
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 143
middle path here; and that a man who investigates for him-
self extensively and independently, must eventually follow
one or the other of these courses.
Convince me then that you apply the principles of interpre-
tation which you have laid down, in an unbiassed manner,
and that the New Testament does according to them clearly
teach that Jesus is not, and cannot be, divine, and you will
make me a convert to the doctrines, (at least to some of
them), which you embrace. Where the apostles lead me, I
will go ; or if not, then I will renounce all deference to them.
While I have a being also, I will cherish a grateful remem-
brance of any man, who shall convince me by sound reason-
ing, that I am in an error on this great subject, and am wan-
dering from the path of life.
But you will allow me to say, what you will doubtless af-
firm of yourself: ‘I cannot be convinced, until I am satisfied
that my principles of interpretation are wrong, and my ap-
plication of them erroneous.’ You have described (p. 14) in
what manner you avoid the conclusion drawn from those
texts which call Christ God, and which apparently ascribe
divine attributes to him. On the principles of exegesis which
you have there disclosed, I shall remark in another letter. I
will at present say only, that they appear to me far from be-
ing well established. -
I hope your candour will concede, that the positions which
I have just laid down are correct, and are such as become
every sincere lover of truth. I am quite ready to grant, that
we ought not to expect to convince you and your friends, by
using reproachful epithets or severe appellations. We can-
not convince you by appealing to our New England fathers,
or to their creeds; to the ancient fathers of the church, or to
any body of men whatever. You may always say in reply
to us: “Are not men fallible 2 And have not the best of
uninspired men cherished some errors 2 Give us the reasons
why our fathers received the doctrines in question, and then
we will hear you ; the fact that they did receive them is
merely a part of church history, but certainly no theological
144 TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. [LETT. III.
argument. The papal hierarchy is supported by many of
the ancient fathers; and perhaps there never has been a
sect in Christendom, who did not feel that they might make
an appeal to fathers, whom they at least respected.’ To this
reply I have nothing to object. .
Nor can we convince you, by a tenacious and unreason-
able opposition to all critical examination of the New Testa-
ment; or by throwing out hints in our sermons or writings,
that critical studies belong only to those who have a wish to
be heretical or skeptical; or by a forced and mystical expla-
nation of various passages of Scripture, and converting them
to the support of sentiments which they never were designed
to support. The Sound rules of interpretation will soon
Sweep away every vestige of such defective and extravagant
opinions about the word of God; and Orthodoxy must ständ
or fall, at last, by the simple decision of the Scriptures inter-
preted according to the general laws of language.
On the other hand; you will, I hope, as cheerfully concede
that we cannot be convinced by calling us hard names; by
misrepresenting our sentiments; by proving that Calvin
helped to burn Servetus; by affirming that our sentiments
come from creeds and confessions of human authority, fabri-
cated by superstition and philosophy; by representing us as
gloomy, Superstitious, malignant, and unsocial; by appropri-
ating to Unitarians all that is kind and noble and generous
and exalted, and leaving to us only all that is opposite to
these virtues; by affirming that we are desirous of infringing
upon Christian liberty, and of establishing an Inquisition to de-
fend our sentiments, and by exhorting others to resist such ty-
ranny; or by representing us as admitting in words that God is
kind and paternal, while we think meanly of him, and treat him
as the heathen did their Jupiter. Such things may add fuel
to the fire of controversy; but can the lover of truth and of
the word of God be convinced by them 1 They are the arts
indeed of controversialists—and arts like them, I am sorry
to say, are not confined to any one party. Passion has more
control over disputants than they are aware of Zeal for
LETT. III.] TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. 145
what they believe to be truth, is what they think inspires
them; while perhaps their words, or the spirit of their rep-
resentations, “breathe out threatenings,” if not “slaughter,”
to their opponents. I hardly dare trust myself to write this
paragraph, least I should catch the spirit while I am describ-
ing it. I know in some measure how frail I am ; but I think
I do sincerely disapprove of such a spirit, in whatever party
it may be found.
In consulting writers of different views and sentiments, one
is grieved to find how much of this spirit has been indulged.
I have seen it even in many great and good men. Possessed
of feelings maturally ardent, I am aware that there is reason to
tremble for myself, lest I may, in some respect or other,
transgress the laws of Christian propriety in these letters,
and hinder in a measure the conviction, in the minds of some,
which they might possibly produce. -
In one thing we shall certainly be agreed. The sober in-
quirer after truth must be convinced by reason and argument.
All else is nothing to him. And where these lead him, he
will go. The path of truth is the path of duty. The appro-
bation of God is worth infinitely more to a sincere and candid
and honest and believing heart, than all the honour which
party zeal can bestow, or the world is able to give.
, POSTSCRIPT.
AFTER finishing the above letter, your “Note for the second
Edition” came to hand. But as it seemed to me, that most
which it contained had already been anticipated, I did not think
it of importance to change the shape of the preceding letter,
and adapt it to your Note as well as to your Sermon. I was
still less inclined to this, because I had endeavored, as far as
possible, to avoid giving any personal shape to the controversy;
knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject all con-
troversies soon become, when personalities are admitted. I have
not the most distant design of saying anything, with a view to
wound your personal sensibility; but I do feel, and I ought to
13
146 PostsCRIPT. [LETT. III.
feel, a deep interest in addressing the understanding and reason
of a man, who by his weight of character, sobriety of mind, and
eminent talents, has acquired so much influence in society as
you have. And in order to do this with propriety, I have en-
deavored as far as possible, to throw the whole subject into the
shape of a discussion respecting principles; and to avoid that
form of writing, which too commonly involves personal reflec-
tion.
Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few
things, which the perusal of your Note has suggested to me 2
I am unable to reconcile the first passage of your Note, with
another, in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say:
“We are told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme
God, the same Being as the Father, and that a leading end of
Christianity is to reveal him in this character.” In the latter
you say: “According to this doctrine, [i. e. the doctrine of the
Trinity], there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing
supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each
of these persons, as described by theologians, has his own par-
ticular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each
other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's so-
ciety. They perform different parts in man's redemptioni, each
having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the
other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father
sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious,
like the Son, of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelli-
gent agents, possessed of different consciousnesses, different
wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and
sustaining different relations; and if these things do not imply
and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to
know how three minds or beings are to be formed.”
But how can Trinitarians maintain that Jesus Christ is the
“same Being as the Father,” when a prominent trait of their doc-
trine is, that there is a distinction between him and the Father ?
You yourself represent them as even holding this distinction to
be equal to that which exists between two different men. Thi
indeed is incorrect; but it is equally so, to represent them as
holding that Jesus Christ is the “same Being as the Falher,” if
you mean by this the same in all respects.
Nor can I see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if
Christ were “the same being as the Father . . . we should ex-
pect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God.”
For first, are we to receive the book of God as it is, or are we
LETT. III.] POSTSCRIPT. 147
at liberty to insist that it must be conformed to our expectations?
And secondly, if Christ was truly man, (a point as certain as
that Christ ever existed), and was conversant in the human na-
ture with men, how, in a book which gives us the history of
what he said and did during his incarnation, should we expect
to hear him continually spoken of as the supreme God? The
reasonableness of such an expectation seems to be, at least, very
questionable. &
In truth the sacred writers do not appear to me to write as
controversialists, on the subject of Christ's divinity. It is the
way with men, who have extravagant views of the importance
of any particular subject, to be ever dwelling upon it, and tak-
ing occasion to introduce it as often as possible. Thus I have
heard some preachers, who will not utter a single public dis-
course, or offer a single prayer, without letting it be known of all
men, that they are champions for the doctrine of the Trinity.
I have heard others, who never fail to let their hearers know
that they are ermancipated from the thraldom of the dark ages;
that they have thrown off the shackles of creeds and confes-
sions, and forms imposed by ignorant and bigoted men; that
they are enlightened and reasonable Christians; and that their
audience are bound in duty to become their imitators. The holy
apostles however possessed, as I must believe, none of the spirit
which prompts to either of these courses. They did not view
subjects in a distorted and sectarian light. The edifice of truth
—the temple of the living God—rose under their hands not on-
ly into a lofty and magnificent structure, but into one which
was as conspicuous for its symmetry as for its grandeur.
All parts of Christian doctrine held their proper place in the
system which they taught. Why should they then be continu-
ally speaking of Christ as supreme God, when (as I verily believe)
they expected no professed follower of Christ to call this doc-
trine in question. John seems to have had opponents to it in his
eye, when he wrote the first verse of his gospel; but excepting
this, I do not remember another passage of the New Testament
which has the aspect of opposition to gainsayers, in regard to
the divinity of Christ. The apostles doubtless expected to be
believed, when they had once plainly asserted anything. That
they are not, is indeed to be lamented; but it cannot be charged
to their fault. They felt (what we feel now) that very frequent,
strong, and direct asseverations of anything are apt to produce a
suspicion in the minds of a hearer or reader, that the person
making them has not arguments on which he relies, and so sub-
148 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. III.
stitutes confident affirmations in their room; or that he is him-
self but imperfectly satisfied with the cause which he defends;
or that he has sinister motives in view. For myself, I confess I
am inclined to suspect a man of all these, who makes very fre-
quent and confident asseverations. -
I am the more satisfied, then, that the New Test. treats the
subject in question as one which was not controverted, and as
one which was not expected to be called in question. My con-
clusion from the apostles' mode of treating it is, I acknowledge,
quite different from that which you draw, as stated in your Ser-
mon and Notes. But with my present views, I must think it to
be more probable than yours. -
In regard to what follows in your Note, most of it has been
anticipated. I will touch upon only a few points.
With respect to the passages which we adduce in proof of
Christ's divine nature, you observe that the “strength of the
Trinitarian argument lies in those, in which Jesus is called
God.” This may be true; but it lies in them, as I have from
the first endeavoured to show, not simply because the name God
is given to him, but because those things are ascribed to him as
God which no being but the supreme God can perform. JMy
whole argument is constructed on this ground; while your whole
Note stands on the ground, that we draw our conclusion sim-
ply from the fact that the appellation of God is given to Christ.
What you say respecting the argument in favour of Christ's di-
vine nature, from the name given him in Matt. 1:23, accords in
the main with my own views. To maintain, as some have
done, that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine in question,
is a fallacious argument. Is not Jerusalem called Jehovah our
righteousness. And is Jerusalem divine, because such a name is
given to it 2
Why should yon say in the third paragraph of your Note, that
in looking through “Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you meet with
no instance in which Christ is called God P Are there no
proofs here of his omniscience, of his ornnipotence, of his au-
thority to forgive sin, of his supreme and legislative right 2
And are not these things better proof of his divine nature than
a mere name can be P Why moreover should such an invidious
distinction be applied, to the prejudice of John's writings, and
of the Epistles P Do you not admit all the New Testament to
be of divine origin and authority ? Of what importance then is
it, whether the doctrine of Christ's divinity is found in one part
or another ? Besides, if any disciple could know who the Lord
LETT. III.] POSTSCRIPT. 149
f
in reality was, has any one a better claim to be considered as
knowing it than John, the disciple “who leaned on Jesus' bo-
Som P’’
You have passed the whole of John 1: 1, with merely com-
menting on the name Osóg. My dear Sir, can you expect to sat-
isfy candid inquirers with this? Are you not bound to tell us
how this Logos (Word) could create the worlds (tò toºvto, the
universe), before this text is disposed of? You must tell us how
creative power, the highest, the distinguishing act of Deity, which
constitutes the characteristic and prominent feature of the true
God in distinction from all false gods, (Is. 40:40 and onward),
can be delegated ? When you can explain this, then you will
bring us upon ground, where we shall be unable to controvert
the Gnostics, who denied that the Jehovah of the Old Testa-
ment is the supreme God. Inferior power, they maintained,
was competent to create the world. What less do they, who
ascribe creation to Christ and yet reject his divinity ?
Why should you pass over all that on which we rely for
proof, and touch only that on which we do not profess to place
confident reliance 2 I mean, why should you descant on the
name GoD, and say nothing of the attributes ascribed to him who
bears this name 2 If we should argue in the same manner with
you, ought we to expect to convince you? Much less could we
fairly acquit our consciences of an obligation to represent fairly
the gospel of Christ to the world, should we publish to them a
solemn appeal, in which we should endeavor to make them be-
lieve, that all the arguments in favor of a particular doctrine held
by many Christians, consisted in that very thing on which they did
not rely; or at most, in that which constituted merely but a part
of their grounds of belief.
The simile from Plato and Socrates, I must think, is less hap-
pily chosen, than your fine taste and cultivated mind commonly
lead you to choose. In the same breath that you say “Plato
was in the beginning with Socrates, and was Socrates,” you
add, “that whoever saw and heard Plato, saw and heard, not
Plato, but Socrates, and that as long, as Plato lived, Socrates
lived and taught.” That is, your first sentence would either be
not at all understood, or understood of course in a sense totally
different from that which you meant to convey, unless you
added a commentary along with the sentence. John has in-
deed added a commentary; but this is, that he means to call
Christ THE GOD who created the Universe. Of this commentary
you have taken no notice. But of this you are bound to take
13%
150 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. III.
notice, if you mean to convince those who differ from you, or to
deal uprightly with those whom you design to instruct.
On the texts John 20:28. Acts 20:28. Rom. 9: 5. 1 Tim. 3:16.
Heb. 1: 6. and John 5:20, I have already said what I wish to
say, at present. The remarks in your Notes do not seem to
call for any new investigation.
You say, (near the close of your Note), that you have “col-
lected all the passages in the New Testament in which Jesus is
supposed to be called God.” The foregoing letter, however, does
represent us as supposing that there are still more, in which he
is called God; although I have omitted not a few, in which
many Trinitarians have supposed that Christ is called God. Why
you should affirm this, when nearly every book on the doctrine
of the Trinity that ever has been published by Trinitarians, will
contradict it, I am unable to explain. t
You repeat also the assertion here, “that in two or three pas-
sages the title [of God] may be given him, [Christ] ; but in
every case, it is given in connections and under circumstances,
which imply that it is not to be received in its highest and most
literal sense.” - *
But in no single instance have you noticed, the “connections
and circumstances,” in which the appellation God is bestowed
on Christ. Can you reasonably expect your thinking readers
will take this assertion upon credit P Are you not sacredly ob-
ligated to prove to these same readers, by the Scriptures interpre-
ted according to the universal laws of explaining human language,
that the New Testament writers have not ascribed to Christ
cREATIVE power, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, divine
worship, divine honours, and etermal existence? What are names
in this dispute 2 Show that these attributes are not ascribed to
Christ, and you make us Unitarians at once. Do not take the
advantage of representing our arguments as consisting in that
on which we do not place reliance, and then say to your read-
ers: ‘This is all which Trinitarians have to allege in their own
favour.” Dispute can never be terminated in this way. Meet
fairly and openly the points in debate. Many of your readers
are too intelligent to be satisfied with any other course. Any
other does not become your high character and distinguished
talents.
LETT. IV.] HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. 151
L E T T E R IV.
REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,
IN my last Letter, I endeavoured to offer reasons why I
believe that Christ is truly divine. You will very naturally
expect me to take some notiče of those texts, on which you
would specially rely, to prove his inferiority to the Father.
This I must do; but in as summary a manner as possible.
Not because it would not be easy to say much, even more
easy than to write briefly, and yet with perspicuity; but be-
cause there would be danger of protracting the subject, and
tiring the patience of readers.
Let me begin, then, by stating certain things which are
intimately connected with the subject in question. While I
believe that Christ is truly divine, I believe that he is as truly
human, i. e. that he was a real man, and lived, acted, suffered,
and died as a man. He resembled, however, man in his
primitive state, i.e. Adam as he came out of the hands of
his Maker. He was pure and sinless. But he possessed all
the feelings and all the innocent infirmities of human nature.
I know no proposition that can possibly be proved from the
New Testament, if this cannot ; nor do I know of a more ab-
surd heresy than that of the Docetae, who averred that Christ
was a man in appearance merely, and not in reality.
I had actually added to this last sentence, the following
one.: “In this, I know, you perfectly accord with me;” but
hesitating for a moment whether it was correct, I instituted a
a reëxamination of your Sermon, in order to see if this were
the case. I can Scarcely express my surprise, when, after a
diligent search, I was not able to find an intimation that
Christ was truly and properly a man. All that you maintain
is, that he was a being distinct from the Father, and inferior
to him. I must retract therefore my sentence against the
1:52 HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. [LETT. Iv.
*
Docetae, lest I should seem to have treated your opinion with
severity. But the state of my mind in regard to the weight
of evidence, I cannot retract. If the evidence be not over-
whelming, that Christ was perfectly man, I cannot conceive
it possible, that any point in theology or morals is capable of
being established. .*
The Gnostics maintained, that from the supreme Divinity
proceeded certain Eons, who were a kind of lesser gods; and
one of whom (Christ) created the world. This Eon descend-
ed upon Jesus at his baptism, and forsook him at his cruci-
fixion. In what important respect he differs from this, who
holds to a superangelic soul in Christ, and a human body,
(as it must be presumed you do), I confess I cannot see.
The Socinian theory seems to me incomparably more ration-
al, and more tenable, in respect to this matter, than any
shade of the Arian hypothesis. If the evidence be not com-
plete, that Christ was really a man from his birth, actions,
sufferings, death, and affirmations respecting himself, then.
how is it to be proved that Christ ever existed at all 2 And
will you refuse to assent to the proposition, that Christ partici-
• pated in the divine nature, because you cannot see how such a
union of different natures could take place, and yet believe
that a human body was united to a soul not human 3 To
what order or class of beings, then, does this new compound
and strangely mixed person belong P He is not divine; he
is not human, for a human soul is surely essential to human
nature; nor is he angelic, for angels have no corporeal
forms. Are we to be freed from mystery, then, by such a
view of Christ's person? It does seem to me, if there be
mystery in any theory which has ever been proposed respect-
ing the person of Christ, it is surely to be found here. I will
not say, (as you do about the twofold nature of Christ in
which we believe), that “it is an enormous tax upon human
credulity;” but I must say, that it appears to me more like
such a tax, than any other theory with which the church has
hitherto been agitated. I can never bring myself to view it
as probable, in the remotest degree, unless I find it in the
LETT. IV.] EIUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. 153.
Scripture: But there I find that the Logos, who existed be-
fore the world was made, was God; even that God who cre-
ated the universe. I cannot then admit him to be a super-
angelic being simply, until I am convinced, either that John
was mistaken, or that his language has a different meaning
from that which it plainly appears to have.
As to the theory which maintains that Christ was God’s
own proper Son, before the creation of the world, (and of
course before his incarnation), and God’s own Son in the
same sense in which Solomon was the son of David, it is
natural to ask, first : Who then was his mother? And
secondly : How much do the Divinities of the Christian
system, viewed in such a light as this, differ from Jupiter and
his progeny among the Greeks and Romans?
After all, I cannot but hope that I have not understood
you correctly, and that I have not sufficient grounds to believe
that you embrace any species of Arianism, or deny the proper
humanity of Christ. For if this humanity be not a matter
of fact, I cannot help believing, that we must forever aban-
don the hope of acquiring any definite ideas of what the wri-
ters of the New Testament meant to teach, in any case what-
€Ver. - *
To return to my purpose. The proper humanity of Christ
being considered as an established fact, I have one general
observation to make on the principles of exegesis which are
connected with it. -
It is this, viz., that inasmuch as Christ has truly a human
nature, everything said of him in respect to this nature, must
necessarily be spoken of him in a capacity in which he is
inferior to the Father. . In a word, as his human nature is
inferior to the divine, so whatever has relation to it, or is
predicted of it, must of course be that which implies inferior-
ity to the divine.
We do then, (if you will allow me to use your own ex-
pressive words, though applied by you in a manner some-
what different), “we do maintain, that the human properties
and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings, and death
154 EIUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. [LETT. IV.
—his praying to God, his ascribing to God all his power and
offices; the acknowledged properties of Christ, we say,
oblige us to interpret” them of human nature; and to draw
the conclusion that whatever could be predicated of a real
man, pious and sinless, might be predicated of him. How
would he—how could he—have assumed our mature, (except
as the Docetae affirmed that he did, viz. in appearance only),
unless everything could be predicated of him which properly
belongs to man? Accordingly, we know that “he increased
in wisdom, stature, and favour with God and man;” that he
ate, drank, slept, laboured; was fatigued, hungry, thirsty;
rejoiced and sympathized with his brethren, wept, was in
an agony—prayed, bled, died, was buried, and rose again.
If these things do not forever exclude all hope of making
any shade of the Arian theory probable, I must confess that
I am an entire stranger to the nature of evidence, and to
what the New Testament contains.
Do you ask me, how you shall distinguish, when a text
speaks of Christ in respect to his human nature, or in respect
to his divine nature? I answer: Just as when you speak of
a man, you distinguish whether what is said relates to his
body or his soul. When I say: ‘Abraham is dead,” I mean
obviously his mortal part. When I say: ‘Abraham is alive,’
I mean obviously his immortal part. When the evangelist
says that Jesus, increased in stature, and wisdom, and in
favour with God and man ; and when he affirms of him other
things predicable of our human nature, he obviously means
to apply all this to his human nature. When he affirms that
the Logos is God, and that he made the universe; when the
apostle says, that he is God over all and blessed forever; I
cannot help thinking it to be equally obvious, that they pre-
dicate this of his divine nature. The simple answer to your
question then is, that we must determine which nature is
meant, by what is affirmed concerning it. The subject is
known by its predicates, i. e. eaſ praedicatis cernitur subjec-
t?!???. -
To the remarks just made on the proper humanity of
LETT. Iv.] EIUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. 155
Christ, and to the principles -of exegesis which result from
it, let me add,
Secondly, that the appellation Father, is not always used
to designate that distinction in the Godhead which we com-
monly describe by calling it the first person. It is sometimes
a general title of the divine nature. (See Deut. 32: 6. Isaiah
63; 16. 64; 8. Matt. 5: 16, 48. 6: 4. 7: 11. John 8: 41). In
the same manner Küotog (Lord) is often applied to Christ
in particular; and sometimes to God as a general appella-
tion. The divinity is called Father, on account of that pe-
culiar and provident care which he extends to all the crea-
tures of his power. He is called Lord (Kögtog), because of
his universal dominion. ſº
Proper attention to this obvious principle will explain
several passages, which have been thought to relate merely
to what is denominated the first person in the Trinity, and to
ascribe properties to him in an exclusive manner.
Thirdly, there is another observation, which I cannot re-
frain from making here, and which seems to me of great im-
portance, in regard to our mode of thinking and reasoning on
the subject of the distinction in the Godhead. This is, that
no terms which are applied by the Scriptures to designate
this distinction, or to predicate anything of it, can be sup-
posed fully and definitely to express what exists in the God-
head, or what is done by it. The obvious reason of this is,
that the language of men, (being all formed from perceptions
of finite objects, by beings who are of yesterday, and whose
circle of vision is extremely limited), cannot possibly be ade-
quate to express fully and definitely what pertains to the self-
existent and infinite God. How often do men forget this, in
their reasonings about the Deity In some things, nearly
all men agree in observing caution, with regard to language
which is applied to God. When the Scripture speaks of his
having eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc., all men, who do not rave
with Immanuel Swedenborg, understand these terms as being
figurative. They do so for the obvious reason, that God is
a spirit, and that things of this nature can be literally pre-
156 HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST. [LETT. Iv.
dicated only of human beings that have flesh and blood. . We
mean to say: God sees ; God hears; God acts; God moves ;
when we attribute to him those members, which we employ
in performing such acts. And still, this language is, from
the nature of the case, only an approacimation to a full and
complete description. What corresponds in the infinite,
omniscient, omnipresent Spirit, to our seeing, and hearing,
and acting, and moving, must necessarily be different, in
many important respects, from all these things in us.
When we say: God is in heaven; the Lord looked down,
or came down, from heaven; Jehovah sits upon a throne
high and lifted up; or when we predicate anything of him
which corresponds to the exaltation and magnificence of
earthly monarchs; we understand, of course, that this lan-
guage is not to be taken literally, and as adequate to a com-
plete description, but only as the language of approximation.
When we say : God is angry; God hates; God scorns;
the Lord will deride, will laugh, will frown, will abhor, and
the like ; do we predicate all these things of God in a literal
manner, or do we understand them all as conveying to us an
idea of something in the divine affections, actions, or mode
of treating us, which corresponds to something that men do
or feel? The answer is very obvious; and in all this mat-
ter we apprehend or feel little or no difficulty. At least,
none but enthusiastic visionaries, who would fain make
heaven like earth, and God like themselves; or ignorant
men, whose thoughts are so chained down to the objects of
sense, as to be incapable of elevation above them ; are em-
barrassed by such subjects, or substantially misapprehend
them.
Are we not now prepared to advance one step further ?
May we not say, when the Scripture speaks of the Logos as
becoming flesh and dwelling among us; of his dwelling in
the bosom of the Father; of his coming from God and being
sent of him ; of his humbling himself and taking upon him-
self the condition of a servant, and other things of the like
mature; that we are not to suppose this language is adequate
LETT. IV.] NATURE OF CHRIST. 157
to describe fully and definitely the incarnation of the Son of
God, or his distinction from, or connection with the Father ?
It is all merely the language of approacimation toward a com-
plete description. It is merely this of course, and necessa-
rily nothing more, as it regards description of the manner of
these things. Language, from its very nature, must be in-
adequate to such description. It was not formed with such
facts in view ; and finite beings, moreover, may well be sup-
posed incapable of forming it so as to be adequate to the full
and definite description of all that pertains to the divinity.
It may nevertheless express enough to excite our highest
interest, and to command our best obedience. And this un-
doubtedly is done, in the case which has just been mentioned.
The principle of exegesis here exhibited, had it been early
acknowledged, and generally practised upon, would have
saved the world a great deal of dispute, and two parties of
men much trouble. The one of these are men, who, while
admitting the inadequacy of language in other respects fully
and definitely to describe the divinity, have taken it for granted
here, that no such inadequateness was to be found, and have
sought to define, and distinguish, until they have overwhelmed
themselves and their readers with subtilties too tenuous for
comprehension. The other, hostile to the doctrine of a dis-
tinction in the Godhead, have forced upon the expressions in
question a sense that was far-fetched, and which violence only
could make them to speak. It seems to me, that the path of
Sound reason and common sense is the medium between these
two extremes. I would not do violence to the expressions in
question; nor would I understand them as fully and definite-
ly describing what does exist in God, or is done by him. I
believe they are, as I have said, the language of approxima-
tion; that they signify something which is in God, or some-
thing that has been done by him, that corresponds to those
things among men which would be described by language of
the like nature ; and something too of the highest interest and
of the deepest moment to the welfare of the human race. And
though it might gratify my curiosity, and perhaps my pride,
14
158 TEXTS RELIED ON BY UNITARIANS. [LETT. IV.
to know something more of the divine constitution or mode of
existing and acting, yet I can have no assurance, no good rea-
son to believe, that it would contribute at present to facilitate
my duties, or to increase my happiness. I certainly have no
good reason to suppose, that in my present state, I am capa-
ble of understanding such subjects beyond what is already re-
vealed respecting them. -
With the observations before us that have now been made,
I will next proceed to make some remarks on such New
Test. representations of Christ, as have been supposed to pre-
sent serious difficulties in regard to the views of Trinitarians.
Christ, in his mediatorial capacity, I take to be a complex.
person, who may be spoken of as either human or divine; in
like manner as we may say of ourselves, we are mortal or we
are immortal. As Mediator, then, one may truly say that by
his obedience he merited and obtained a high reward; i. e.
this is predicated of that nature, which was capable of obey-
ing and of being rewarded. So God is said to have “highly
exalted him, and given him a name above every name.”
(Phil. 2:9–11). In a similar way, all power is given him
in heaven, and in earth, i. e. he is constituted “head over all
things to his church.” (Matt. 28: 18). Acting as such a
head, “all enemies are put under his feet.” (1 Cor. 15:25
—27). And this mediatorial dominion, when the work of a
mediator is completed, will be resigned at the final judgment,
1 Cor. 15: 28. -
Of the same tenor are many passages. When God is said
to be the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3), I understand it of
that nature in Christ of which this can be predicated. When
Christ is called the image of the invisible God, the brightness
of the Father's glory and the express image (yºgozzio) of
his person, i.e. of him; or the only begotten of the Father,
the Son of God; God’s own Son; God's beloved Son; his
dear Son, etc.; I understand all this phraseology as descrip-
tive of his mediatorial nature and station. I know indeed,
that many of these texts have been appropriated by some
Trinitarians, to prove the divine nature of Christ; in my ap-
LETT. IV.] TEXTS RELIED ON BY UNITARIANs. 159
prehension, however, this has been done injudiciously, and
without any solid reason. Texts of this class may be found.
Matt. 17: 5. John 1: 14. 10: 36. 14: 10. 3: 35. Col. 1: 13.
Heb. 1: 5. Rom. 8:29, 32.
In Heb. 5: 7–10, is a passage which has occasioned much
speculation. “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had
offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and
tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and
was heard in that he feared, though he were a Son, yet
learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and
being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation
unto all them that obey him; called of God, an high priest
after the order of Melchisedec.”
If Christ were really human, what is more perfectly con-
Sonant with reason and piety, than that he should act in the
manner here described; or than that he should be exalted to
glory as the reward of these actions, and be constituted the
Saviour of his people *
It is certainly more difficult to satisfy the mind in regard
to John 14:28: “My Father is greater (usiſov) than I.”
From the context of this passage it appears not to have been
the object of Jesus, on this occasion, to compare his own na-
ture with that of the Father, but his condition. “If ye loved
me,” said he to his weeping disciples, “ye would rejoice that
I said, I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than
I;” i. e. ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suf-
fering and humiliation, and resume that “glory which I had
with the Father, before the world was.” You ought to re-
joice at my exaltation to the bliss and glory of the Father.
In Hebrew, biº (great) is used to indicate a state of pros-
perity, a happy state, Gen. 26: 13.
It is obvious here, that these two texts (both uttered on the
same occasion), cannot be consistently explained, without the
supposition of two natures; the one, which is in a suffering
and depressed state, and the other that which was in a state
of glory with the Father before the world was, i.e. from eter-
nity. I cannot accede to the opinion of those interpreters,
Aſ
160 TEXTS RELIED ON BY UNITARLANs. [LETT. Iv.
who suppose that the glory spoken of is only that which the
Father had decreed from eternity that Christ should have, in
consequence of the promulgation of the gospel by him; for
the glory spoken of is not one that results from what is to
be done, it is a glory which Christ had with the Father (agög
zów ſtºregº) before the world was. On this passage the com-
mentary of Kuinoel may be consulted, who has defended this
exposition, as it seems to me, in a manner entirely unanswer-
able. -
After all, it can be only in consequence of the peculiar
union of the Logos with Jesus, that his return to the Father
(so far as the Logos can be said to return) is here spoken of;
and only in reference to his humiliation (āovzów Śxévoge, šov-
zów Śzoºteivode), that his return to glory can be prayed for.
A thousand questions can easily be raised, and as many diffi-
culties suggested; but they all spring from interpreting the
language literally, and not in such a way as the nature of the
case requires. .
Mark 13: 32 offers serious difficulties. “Of that day and
hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heav-
en, neither the Son, but the Father.” The day and hour are,
according to some, the day of judgment; but, as I apprehend
(from comparing the context), the day of vengeance upon
the Jews is meant. To solve the difficulty presented, some
have objected to the reading oijóē 6 juág (neither the Son);
but for this objection there are no adequate authorities. Oth-
ers, with Hilary (de Trinitate 9.) say, that not to know means
not to publish or declare ; Ea nescit, quae aut in tempore non
sunt confitenda, aut mon agnoscuntur ad meritum.” There
is no doubt that the verb yºvojazco may sometimes have the
sense of making known ; but a derivative of the verb etó6) is
used here, which does not bear such a sense, nor will the ten-
or of the verse admit it. To say: “That day and hour no
man maketh known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the
father,” would be the same as saying that the Father does
make it known. But where has he revealed it P After all,
what more real difficulty presents itself in this case, than in
LETT. IV.] TEXTS RELIED ON BY UNITARIANS. 161
that where Jesus is said to have increased in wisdom ? Luke
2: 52. If he did possess a nature really human, that nature
was capable, of course, of progressive improvement and
knowledge. As it appears to me, there is no proper method
of solving the difficulty, as the text stands, but by appropri-
ating the expression, as in other like cases, to that nature of
which the assertion made can be predicated.
John 17: 3, “And this is life eternal, that they might
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent.” The true God here seems to me plainly not to
be opposed to, or contrasted with, Christ, but, as everywhere
else in case this expression is used, opposed to idols. In the
verse preceding, Christ says: “Thou hast given me the pow-
er over all flesh, that thou mightest bestow eternal life upon
all whom thou hast given me,” i.e. both Gentiles and Jews.
He proceeds: This is eternal life, that they might know thee
the only true God, i. e. the only God and true God, and Je-
sus Christ whom thou hast sent.” Now what is there here,
different from that which we preach and inculcate every Sab-
bath? Do we not teach that there is one only living and
true God? And that he sent his Son to die for sinners?
And do we not insist, that eternal life is connected with the
reception of these truths? I really see no more difficulty
here, than in the text: “God so loved the world, that he
Sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish but have everlasting life.” Besides, it is
Christ himself, who is addressing the Father, that utters the
words in question. Could he otherwise express the senti-
ment, that the same Father is the only true God, in distinc-
tion from all false or pretended gods? That he should join
with this his own name, inasmuch as he was the only media-
tor and Saviour, was necessary in order to the full expression
of the great gospel truth which he uttered.
1 Cor. 8: 4–6, “As concerning, therefore, the eating of
those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know
that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none
14*
162 TEXTS RELIED ON BY UNITARIANS. [LETT. IV.
other god but one. For though there be that are called gods,
whether in heaven or earth, (as there be gods many, and lords
many), yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we in him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we by him.” I have cited sev-
eral verses, for the sake of introducing the context. From
this it is plain, that the one God, the Father, is not here
placed in opposition to Christ, but to the lords many and
gods many of the heathen. If you insist that the one God is
in opposition to Christ, or excludes him, then, as Christ is
the one Lord (eig Kügtog), you must insist that he is so named
in opposition to the Lordship (xvguózmg) of the Father, and
of course that this denies the Lordship of creation in respect
to the same Father. It is plain, however, at least according
to my apprehension, that God and Lord here are mere syn-
onymes. (See v. 5, where Aeyóuevot 080i is explained by
680i ſtožof and zügtot 70%0ſ). Nothing is plainer than that
zügtog is a common title of God, both in the Old Testament
and the New. - -
Moreover, that which is predicated of the one God and one
Lord here is the same, viz. that they are the author and pre-
server of all things. The use of the preposition Suð, in cases
of this nature, has already been the subject of remark.
The nature of the whole case shows, that the apostle places
the object of the Christian's worship, in opposition or in con-
trast with, the heathen or idol gods. What then is that ob-
ject? The one God the Father, and the one Lord Jesus
Christ, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things.
The passage evidently holds out Christ to be the object of
the Christian's worship, in the same manner as the Father is.
And as the apostle seems to me simply to assert the unity of God
in opposition to idols, I am not able to perceive how the divinity
of the Saviour is impeached by it, any more than the lordship
of the Father is impeached by making Christ the one Lord.
To embrace my view of the whole passage in a brief para-
phrase: ‘Idols are nothing; there is but one God. There
LETT. IV.j TEXTS RELIED ON BY UNITARIANs. 163
are indeed among the heathen such as are called gods (28)6-
uévot 080i), who comprise gods and lords many; yet Chris-
tians have only one object of worship—one God and Lord.”
John 10:35, 36, “If he called them gods, unto whom the
word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken ; Say
ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into
the world : Thou blasphemest, because I said that I am the
Son of God?” Christ had previously said: “I and my Fa-
ther are one.” At this the Jews took up stones to stone him,
“because being a man, he made himself God.” It is perfectly
clear, that the Jews frequently understood, or at least pre-
tended to understand, his affirmations respecting himself, as
amounting to assertions that he was truly divine. . In this case,
however, it is said that Jesus repelled such an interpretation
of his words, by an explanation which shows that he applied
to himself the word God only in an inferior sense.
I am not satisfied that the passage requires this exegesis.
The reply of Jesus is evidently argumentum ad hominem. “If
the Old Testament, [the divine authority of which you admit],
calls them gods to whom the word of God was addressed (Ps.
82; 6), i. e. if it calls the magistrates of the Jews gods, is it not
proper that I, whom the Father bath sanctified and sent into
the world, should call myself the Son of God?” That is, if
you are not offended, when your Scriptures bestow the title of
Jºlohim upon civil magistrates merely, much less is there rea-
son to be angry, when I, whom God hath distinguished from
all others and made prečminent above them, and sent into the
world on the designs of mercy, should call myself the Son of
God. V. 37, ‘If I prove not the truth of these assertions by
miracles; then disbelieve them.” V. 38, ‘But if I do, believe
the proof exhibited by my miracles, that the Father is in me
and I in him.' Now wherein did Jesus explain away anything
which he had before said? The expression that the Father
*s in him and he in the Father, I do not understand as here
asserting his divine nature in a direct manner. It is a phrase,
which is used to express the idea that any one is conjunctissi-
mus cum Deo, i. e. most nearly and affectionatelg wnited with
I64 TEXTS RELIED ON BY UNITARIANS. [LETT. IV.
God. (See 1 John 4: 16, where it is applied to Christians;
also vs. 12, 13.) * r
It appears plain to me, that Jesus has not asserted anything,
in the whole passage, which could not be predicated of him-
self as sustaining the office of Messiah. He had called God
his Father; and as the Jews supposed, or seem to have sup-
posed, in a peculiar and appropriate sense. But it did not
follow, that by using this term he meant here to assert his di-
vine nature. Rather the contrary appears: “Say ye of him
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,” i. e.
say ye of the Son of God, etc.? Jesus does not undertake,
then, to answer the question here whether he is truly divine,
but simply to vindicate the language he had used against the
accusations of the Jews. “If your magistrates are called Elo-
him, is it presumption in me to call myself the Son of God?”
This leaves the question unagitated as to his divine nature,
while it vindicates the language which he had used against
the malignant aspersions of the Jews, by an argument drawn
from their own Scriptures.
It shows indeed, that the phrase “Son of God” does not
appropriately and necessarily designate Christ as divine, but
only as the incarnate mediator—as him whom the Father hath
sanctified and sent into the world. As Mediator, as Messiah,
Christ was sent into the world; as Son he filled, and acted in,
a subordinate capacity; how then can his being Son in such
a sense, prove him to be divine 2 Son of God indeed, by
usage, has become a kind of proper name; and in this way
it is used to designate occasionally a distinction in the God-
head which I believe to be eternal. In this manner we very
commonly use the term now ; and in this way the apostles
sometimes use it; see Heb. 1: 1–3. But this is only an oc-
casional and secondary use of it in the Scriptures. Commonly
and appropriately it designates the incarnate Messiah, as born
in a manner supernatural (Luke 1: 35, comp. 3: 38); as the
special object of divine love, (Matt. 17: 5. Col. 1: 13. John
3: 35); and as exhibiting the best and highest resemblance
of the Father, (Col. 1: 15. Heb. 1: 3. John 1: 14, 10: 38.
LETT. IV.] MODE OF CONTROVERSY. 165
14: 10). Would theologians keep these ideas in view, I can-
not help thinking they might be able to understand each other
better, and to reason more conclusively.
I have thus summarily touched upon the principal texts,
which are employed by Unitarians, to oppose the doctrines
which I have been endeavouring to defend. Whether I have
violated the laws of exegesis in doing this; and whether you
or I depart most from them, in explaining the texts which
seem to be at variance with the opinions that we defend ; must
be discussed in another letter.
I must observe, however, before I close this letter which
concludes what I have at present to advance in regard to the
support of your views from the Scriptures, that I do not omit
making observations on Some other doctrines of your Sermon,
because I accede to all which you profess to believe, or ap-
prove of the mode in which you have represented the senti-
ments of Trinitarians. The manner in which you accuse us
of treating the moral attributes of God; your appropriating to
yourself and your party the exclusive belief in all that is ami-
able and excellent in the Deity, (pp. 15–18); your assertion,
that the reproaches which you are obliged to encounter, are
occasioned chiefly by your zeal to vindicate the dishonoured
goodness and rectitude of God (p. 18); the manner in which
you state our views of the atonement, and appropriate to your
party only many important things in which we all agree,
(pp. 18–21); the appropriating also to Unitarians only many
views respecting the love of God, rational zeal in religion,
and the benevolent virtues; and the intimations that we are
opposed to all that is excellent, and rational, and worthy of
belief; all this and more of the like kind, I must be permit-
ted to say, do not seem to me well adapted to conciliate, nor
very consistent with your declaration (p. 24), when you say:
“Charity, forbearance, a delight in the virtues of different
sects, a backwardness to censure and condemn . . . are vir-
tues . . . which we admire and recommend.” But, my dear
sir, I will not trust myself one moment on this ground. I am
sure that a sober review of your discourse, in prospect of your
#66 MODE OF CONTROWERSY. [LETT. IV.
accountability to God for the manner in which you have
represented and treated so large a portion of the Christian
community in this country, (some of whom at least are accus-
tomed to think and reason for themselves, although they can-
not agree with you);-a review after the heat of the occasion
is past that prompted such representations, and induced you
to place us in an attitude so debasing and repulsive—will
give you more acute sensations than anything which I can say
would inspire, or than I could even wish. I do not know but
I may betray excitement, in my remarks. But if I have at-
tempted to hold up you, or Unitarians, to ridicule; if I have
misrepresented your sentiments; if I have charged you with
treating Jehovah as the heathens did Jupiter; or endeavoured
to frame my arguments so as to captivate and lead away the
unwary and unthinking; or made any effort to use the argu-
mentum ad invidiam; or appealed to human authorities to de-
cide the question between us; or appealed to anything but the
sober rules of exegesis; then I desire to know it, and be hum-
bled for it. I will not say that I have not transgressed in any
of these particulars; for who that knows the human heart
does not know that it is deceitful? But I can say sincerely, I
did not mean to transgress; and that, with all my heart, I
will thank the man, who in the spirit of Christian love will
point out my errors, and show me wherein I have written in
Such a way as to endanger or render repulsive the cause which
I am advocating. That cause I believe to be just ; and I
should regret to employ any devices, management, stratagem,
or unfairness to defend it. What other real interest have we,
but to know the truth P And what but simple, unimpassioned
argument can lead us to know it?
I retire, then, for the present, from the field of review which
the remainder of your Sermon presents; for the pressure of
my official duties is so great, that I am compelled to relin-
quish the idea, which I at first entertained, of pursuing the
investigation of the topics presented by that remainder.
LETT. W.] MODE OF EXEGESIS. 167
L E T T E R V.
REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,
IN p. 14 of your Sermon, you inform us of the method in
which you explain those passages, which seem to speak of
the divine nature of Christ. The paragraph is as follows:
“I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or three
texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages,
not very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be
ascribed to him. To these we offer one plain answer. We
say, that it is one of the most established and obvious principles
of criticism, that language is to be explained according to the
known properties of the subject to which it is applied. Every
man knows, that the same words convey very different ideas,
when used in relation to different beings. Thus, Solomon built
the temple in a different manner from the architect whom he
employed; and God repents differently from man. Now, we
maintain, that the known properties and circumstances of Christ,
his birth, sufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of
God as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his
ascribing to God all his power and offices, these acknowledged
properties of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret the compara-
tively few passages, which are thought to make him the supreme
God, in a manner consistent with his distinct and inferior na-
ture. It is our duty to explain such texts, by the rule which we
apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods,
and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to possess all
things, and to be filled with all God’s fulness. These latter pas-
sages we do not hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from
the most obvious sense, because this sense is opposed to the
known-properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we
maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no
greater, latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which
are thought to support the Godhead of Christ.”
I must hesitate however to adopt this principle, without
examining its nature and tendency. On the supposition that
168 MODE OF EXE GESIS. [LETT. V.
you admit the Bible to be a revelation from God, as you
aver, permit me to ask, whether it is the object of a revela-
tion to disclose truths which are NOT known, or are insuffi-
ciently established; or whether it is the object of a revela-
tion, to disclose truths already known and established 2 If
you answer: The latter; then your answer denies of course
that it is a revelation. What the book of nature fully ex-
hibits, the Scriptures do not reveal. Is there then anything
in the Scriptures which the book of nature does not ex-
hibit? If you concede this, then I ask: How are we, on
your ground, to obtain any notion of that thing which was
wnknown before it was revealed ? E. g. the resurrection of
the body is revealed. Now it is a known property of the
human body to corrupt and perish. Shall I construe a pas-
sage of Scripture then in such a manner, as to contradict this
known property 2 If not, then I can never suppose the
resurrection of the body to be revealed. I however do in-
terpret the Scriptures so as to contradict this apparently
known property of the human body—following the obvious
assertion of the sacred writers, and not allowing myself to
force a constructive meaning upon their language. Yet, if I
understand you, I am at liberty, “to restrain, and modify,
and turn the words from their most obvious sense,” because
this sense is opposed to the known properties of the matter
of which our bodies are composed.
The case is just the same, in regard to any other fact or
doctrine. What I know already of a thing, is, if you are
correct, “to modify, restrain, and turn from their obvious
sense,” the words which are employed in revealing it because
we may suppose what is revealed to be at variance with
some known doctrines or properties. Is there not need here
of great caution ? If the principle, in some obvious cases,
is to be allowed, (which I grant), yet is there not need of
much more definite limitations of it than you make?
According to this principle, moreover, the Scriptures may
be construed very differently, by persons of different degrees
of knowledge. One man knows the properties of things, for
LETT. V.] MODE OF EXEGESIS. 169
example, far more extensively than his neighbour. He sees
that what is revealed may consist with known properties of
things; but his neighbour, who lacks this knowledge, is un-
able to perceive the consistency of revelation with what he
knows, and this, because his knowledge does not qualify him
to judge, or because what he thinks he knows he is really
ignorant of. The same text in the Bible, therefore, may be
received by one, as a consistent part of revelation, and re-
jected by the other as inconsistent. The measure of a man’s
knowledge, therefore, cannot be a proper rule by which we
may test the meaning of Scripture.
But you will say: ‘I can never believe in the reality of a
revelation, which contradicts my reason.' I accede; on the
supposition that reason is understood in a proper sense. - And
here is the very place, where I find the greatest difficulty
with your theory of interpretation. You do not carry your
objections back to the proper place. If God manifest in the
flesh be an absurdity, a palpable contradiction—“an enor-
mous tax upon human credulity,” as you aver—then the
claims of the book which asserts this, are no doubt to be dis-
regarded. What is palpable contradiction, we certainly
never can believe.
But in determining what the Scriptures have taught, we
have no right to say, that because any particular doctrine is
repugnant to our views, therefore we will “modify, and re-
strain, and turn from the obvious sense,” the words in which
it is conveyed. The rules of exegesis are not a mass of wax,
which can be moulded at pleasure into any shape that we
may fancy. We do as great violence to reason—to the first
principles of all reasoning—when we reject these rules, as
when we admit absurdities to be true. -
In case an obscure term is used, I acknowledge that clear
passages, relating to the same subject are to be adduced to
ascertain its meaning. If Christ had been simply called
God, I should allow that this term might be explained by its
use as applied to inferior beings. But when the sacred
writers themselves have explained the meaning which they
15
170 MODE OF EXE GESIS. [LETT. v.
attach to it, by telling us that Christ is the God who created
and governs the world; who is omniscient and eternal; who
is the object of religious worship and prayer; who is God
over all or supreme God; (not to mention “the true God,”
and the “great God”); there is no law of exegesis, no
method of interpretation which can fritter away the meaning,
that is not absolute violence—a real infringement of the fun-
damental principles of interpretation, an abandonment of the
first principles of our reason. It does appear to me, there-
fore, that my only resort in such a case is, to reject the au-
thority of Scripture, if I disbelieve the doctrine. To say
that they do not mean to teach, what they most obviously
have taught, I cannot, must not. No book can be under-
stood, no writer can be interpreted at all, by such a rule of
exegesis, without forcing upon him the opinions of his read-
ers. My system of philosophy, we will say, differs from
yours. What you view to be a palpable contradiction and
absurdity, I view as rational and consistent. This, we know,
is not an uncommon fact. In reading a book, then, that re-
spects the subject of our differing opinions, you hold yourself
bound to construe it so as to save all that appears to you con-
tradictory, or absurd ; I interpret it just as its language ob-
viously means, i.e. by the common laws of exegesis which
do not depend on my philosophy. This book, then, may
have two different meanings, according to us, in the same
passage. Is this So P Can it be Or rather, are not the
laws of interpretation independent of you or me 2 If not,
how can the meaning of any writer be ever obtained?
You and I differ, as to what John has taught in the first
chapter of his gospel. I commence reading him, with the
full conviction that I cannot determine a priori, in all respects,
what the mature of God and Christ is ; and also with the
belief, that John wrote what is a revelation from heaven. I
read John and interpret him just as I do any other author,
ancient or modern, i.e. by the general rules of exegesis mod-
ified by the special circumstances and dialect in which he
wrote. I am as well Satisfied that he meant to assert the
LETT. V.] MODE OF EXEGESIS. 171
truly divine nature of the Logos, as I am that he has made
any assertion at all respecting him. I receive this assertion,
therefore, as declaring a fact which I ought to believe, and
which, if I admit his inspiration, I must believe. In the same
manner I treat all other passages, which respect this subject.
I come in this way to the conclusion, that Christ is truly di-
vine ; and that he has a human and divine nature so united,
(I undertake not to tell in what manner), that he speaks of
either nature as himself. The passages which seem to imply
his inferiority to God, I find to be capable of explanation
without doing violence to the language, by the obvious fact
that he has two natures united, which the sacred writers seem
to me so plainly to inculcate. In this way I find one con-
sistent whole. Isave the laws of exegesis. I admit, indeed,
on the authority of revelation, doctrines which natural re-
ligion never taught; but why show.ld not a revelation teach
something which natural religion did not?
Here then I take my stand. I abide by the simple decla-
rations of the New Testament writers, interpreted by the com-
mon laws of language. Such views as I take, seem to me
to reconcile all the seeming discrepancies of description in
regard to Christ, without doing violence to the language of
any particular passage. I can believe, and do believe, that
the sacred writers are consistent, without any explanation
but such as the laws of interpretation admit and require.
On the other hand; when you read the first of John you
say: ‘The known properties of Christ must modify the de-
scription.” How then are those properties known 2 By the
Same writer, the same authority, the same revelation. But
what can give to one part of John’s book, any more credit than
to the other part You will say, that you can understand
better how Christ can be inferior to God, than how he can
be divine. Granting that this might be the case—is a rev-
elation merely to teach us things which are obvious? May
it not disclose those which are more difficult, and cannot be
discovered by unassisted reason 2 If the latter, how can
you aver that Christ may not be revealed as a divine person 2
172 MODE OF EXEGESIS. LETT. V.]
To show a prior that this is impossible, or absurd, is really
out of the question. The religion of nature teaches nothing
for or against this fact. The simple question then is: What
has John said P and not, What has your philosophy led you
to regard as probable or improbable P And I must be allow-
ed to say again: If John has not taught us that Christ is truly
divine, I am utterly unable, by the laws of exegesis, to make
out that he has asserted anything in his whole gospel.
If I believed then, as you do, that a Saviour with a human
and divine nature is “an enormous tax on human creduli-
ty,” I should certainly reject the authority of John. To vio-
late the laws of exegesis in order to save his credit, I could
regard as nothing more than striving to keep up a fictitious
belief in divine revelation. It is what I cannot do; and
what no man ought to do. It would be impossible for me,
with your views, to hesitate at all, about giving up entirely
the old idea of the divine inspiration and authority of the
sacred books. How can they be divine, if they teach palpa-
ble absurdities 2 And that they do teach what you call
palpable absurdities, I feel quite satisfied can be amply proved,
from the simple application of the laws of interpretation that
are established on an immovable basis.
You have, however, undertaken to vindicate your method
of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the necessity of
interpreting several seemingly unlimited assertions in respect
to Christians, in the same way as you interpret many in re-
spect to Christ. “Recollect,” you say, “the unqualified
manner in which it is said of Christians, that they possess all
things, know all things, and do all things.” And again, in
order to show how we may “modify and restrain and turn
from the obvious sense,” the passages that respect the divinity
of Christ, you say: “It is our duty to explain such texts by
the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human
beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the di-
vine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled
with all God's fulness.” -
I have already sufficiently examined the manner in which
LETT. V.] ExEGESIS OF SPECIAL PASSAGES. 173
the Bible calls men gods. There is, and can be, no mistake
here; for instead of attributing to them divine attributes, it
always accompanies the appellations with such adjuncts as
guard us against mistake. It does not call them God, and
then add, that the same God is meant who is the creator of
the universe. -
Nor does the New Testament, (your sole statute book),
anywhere call men God. Will you produce the instance?
That the appellation God, as applied to Christ, is bestowed
under circumstances totally diverse from those in which it is
applied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too obvious to
need further explanation. The Hebrew word Bºrſºs (Elohim)
had plainly a latitude more extensive, i. e. it was capable or
a greater variety of use, than the Greek word 08óg. Can
you produce from the Greek Scriptures, i. e. the New Tes-
tament, an instance where 08óg is applied to any man what-
ever ?
In regard to the assertion, “that Christians are made par-
takers of the divine nature,” (2 Pet. 1: 4), a mistake about
the meaning is scarcely possible: “Whereby [i. e. by the
gospel] are given unto us,” says the apostle, “exceeding
great and precious promises, that by these ye might be par-
takers of the divine nature.” But how P He answers this
question: “Having escaped the corruption that is in the
world through lust.” That is, by moral purification you will
become assimilated to God, or partakers of that holy mature
which he possesses. Does the context here afford any
ground for mistake P
In 1 John 2: 20, Christians are said to have “an unction
from the Holy One, and to know all things.” In the preced-
ing verse, the apostle had been describing apostates, who
forsook the Christian cause because they were not sincerely
attached to it. The case of real Christians, who have an
unction from the Holy One, is different. They “know all
things.” And what means this 2 The sequel explains it.
“I have not written unto you,” says he, “because ye know
not the truth; but because ye know it, and that no lie is of
15%
174: . ExEGESIS OF SPECIAL PASSAGES. [LETT. V.
the truth.” To “know all things,” then, plainly means here
to know all that pertains to Christian doctrine and duty, so
as to persevere and not apostatize from the truth as others
had done.
Is this however asserting (as you affirm in your Sermon)
in “an unqualified manner, that Christians know all things?”
In John 14:26, the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles,
“to teach them all things, and to bring all things to their re-
membrance,” whatsoever Christ had said unto them. Again,
John 16:23, the “Spirit of truth is to guide the disciples in-
to all truth;” and in 1 John 2: 27, the anointing which
Christians have received, is said to “teach them all things.”
In all these cases, the context leaves no room to doubt, that
“all things essential to Christian doctrine and practice” is
meant. No person, I presume, ever understood these pas-
sages as meaning, that the apostles or Christians should be
endowed with omniscience.
Yet in the other case, where Christ is asserted to be God,
the context is such, that the great body of Christians, in every
age, have understood the sacred writers as asserting that he
was truly divine. Is there no difference between the two
cases? You make them indeed the same, in respect to the
principle of interpretation. To my mind, the difference is
this, viz. that in the one case, the adjuncts prevent you from
ascribing omniscience to Christians, while in the other, they
lead you necessarily to ascribe divine properties to Christ, un-
less you “turn their meaning from the obvious sense” so far
as to transgress the fundamental maxims of interpreting lan-
guage.
In 1 Cor. 3:22, the apostle says to the Corinthian churches:
“All things are yours;” and the same apostle speaks of him-
self (2 Cor. 6:10), as “having nothing, and yet possessing all
things.” In the first case, the context adds: “Whether Paul,
or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things
present, or things to come—all are yours; and ye are
Christ's;” i.e. simply, (when the phraseology is construed as
elsewhere), let no man glory in this or that particular teacher,
LETT. V.] ExEGESIS OF SPECIAL PASSAGES. 175
for all teachers belong to the church, and all things in the
present and future world will minister to the good of the church.
In other words: Why should you covet exclusive individual
possessions, when you have an interest in the whole P Re-
frain, therefore, from the spirit of jealousy and contention.
The second case is merely antithesis. The apostle evi-
dently asserts, (compare the context), that although he has
little indeed of this world’s good, yet he possesses a far more
excellent and satisfactory good, in comparison of which all
else is nothing. In the same sense, we every day speak of a
man's all, meaning that which he most desires and loves best.
I can no more see here, than in the other instances already
discussed, why you should affirm that Christians are said “in
an unqualified manner to possess all things.”
One expression still remains. In Eph. 3:19, the apostle
exhibits his fervent wishes, that the Christians at Ephesus
might “be filled with all the fulness of God.” By comparing
this expression, as applied to Christ in Col. 1: 19. 2:9, with
John 1: 14, 16, and Eph. 1:23, it appears evident, that by the
fulness of God is meant the abundant gifts and graces, which
were bestowed on Christ, and through him upon his disciples;
John 1: 16. Eph. 1:23. When Paul prays, therefore, that
the church at Ephesus might be “filled with the fulness of
God,” he prays simply, that they might be abundantly re-
plenished with the gifts and graces peculiar to the Christian
religion. But how does such an affirmation concern the prin-
ciple of exegesis in question ?
I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in which
you have embarked, and the principles by which you explain
away the divinity of the Saviour, must eventually lead most
men who approve them to the conclusion, that the Bible is
not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or obe-
dience. I do not aver, that they will certainly lead you there.
The remains of your former education and belief may still
serve to guard you against the bolder conclusions of some of
your brethren, who have not been placed under instruction
such as you enjoyed in early life. You have more serious views
176 MODES OF EVADING THE RESULTS [LETT. V.
of the importance of religion, than many, perhaps than most,
of those who speculate with you. Consistency, too, will afford
strong inducement not to give up the divine authority of the
Scriptures. Yet many of your younger brethren have no in-
consistency to fear, by adopting such views. Deeming what
you have publicly taught them to be true, viz. that it is “no
crime to believe with Mr. Belsham,” who boldly and plainly
declares that the Scriptures are not the word of God; feeling
the inconsistency, (as I am certain some of them will and do
feel it), of violating the fundamental rules of interpretation,
in order to make the apostles speak, as in their apprehension
they ought to speak; and unable to reconcile what the apos-
tles say with their own views; they will throw off the re-
straints which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility
of the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them simply
on the ground, on which they place any other writings of a
moral and religious nature.
I make no pretensions to uncommon foresight, in regard to
this subject. I certainly do not say these things with invidi-
ous designs, and for the sake of kindling the fire of conten-
tion. Very far from it. On the contrary; Ibelieve that the
parties now contending here, will have no quiet, until this
ground be openly taken on the part of those who side with
you. For myself, I view it as incomparably more desirable,
in every point of view, that the authority of the Scripture
should at once be renounced, and its claims to divine inspira-
tion rejected, than that such rules of exegesis should be in-
troduced, as make the Scripture speak molens volens whatever
any party may desire. Avowed unbelief in the divine au-
thority of the Scriptures can never continue long, as I would
hope, in the present day of light and examination. Such a
state of things may pass away, with the generation who are
actors in it. But it is a more difficult matter to purge away
the stain, which Christianity may contract by violated laws of
interpretation ; because those who indulge in such a violation,
profess to respect the Christian religion, and to acknowledge
its divine original. They may therefore obtain, and hold, for
LETT. V.] . OF SIMPLE EXEGESIS. 177
a long time, great influence over the mass of people, who are
not accustomed to examine in a critical manner the nicer
points of theology. If opponents to the sentiments in ques-
tion lift up the voice of warning, they may not be heard. They
are liable to the imputation of bigotry, or illiberality, or igno-
rance. But when men professedly cast off their respect to the
authority of the Scriptures, the case becomes different, and
the great body of plain and sober people will revolt.
In making these observations on the nature and probable
consequences of your system of exegesis, which explains
away the Deity of Christ, I do not feel that I am building
castles in the air to amuse my own imagination. TMy duties
have necessitated me for some time past, to be conversant
with the history of exegesis, as it has of late appeared in Ger-
many; a country which, in half a century, has produced more
works on criticism and sacred literature than the world con-
tains besides. About fifty” years since, Semler, Professor of
Divinity at Halle, began to lecture and publish on the sub-
ject of interpretation, in a manner that excited the attention
of the whole German empire. The grand principle by which
he explained away whatever he did not think proper to be-
lieve, was that which has since been called accommodation.
He maintained that the apostles and the Saviour often ad-
mitted representations and doctrines into their instructions,
which were calculated merely for the purpose of persuading
the Jews, by being accommodated to their prejudices; but
which were not intended to be a general directory of senti-
ment. In this way, whatever was inconsistent with his own
views he was led to call accommodation ; and thus he at once
expunged it in effect from the list of Christian doctrines.
Semler's original genius and great learning Soon gave cur-
rency to his views in Germany, where a system of theology
and exegesis had prevailed, which in not a few respects needed
reformation. Since his time a host of writers, (many of them
possessed of distinguished talents and most extensive erudi-
* Some seventy years now, at the period of issuing the present edition.
178 MODES OF EVADING THE RESULTS [LETT. V.,
tion), have arisen, who have examined, explained, modified,
and defended, the doctrine of accommodation. A more re-
cent shape of exegesis in Germany is, the solution of all the
miraculous facts related in the Bible, by considerations which
are affirmed to be drawn from the idiom and ignorance of an-
tiquity in general, and in particular of the sacred writers
themselves. Thus, with Eichhorn, the account of the crea-
tion and fall of man, is merely a poetical and philosophical
speculation of some ingenious person, on the origin of the
world and of evil. (Urgeschichte, passim.) So, in regard to
the offering up of Isaac by Abraham, he says: “The God-
head could not have required of Abraham so horrible a
crime ; and there can be no justification, palliation, or excuse
for this pretended command of the Divinity.” He then ex-
plains it in his own way: ‘Abraham dreamed that he must
offer up Isaac ; and according to the Superstition of the times,
he regarded it as a divine admonition. He prepared to exe-
cute the mandate, which his dream had conveyed to him. A
lucky accident, (probably the rustling of a ram who was en-
tangled in the bushes), hindered it; and this, according to
ancient notions, was the voice of the divinity.' (Bibliothek,
Band I, S. 45, etc.)
The same writer represents the history of the Mosaic leg-
islation, at mount Sinai, in a curious manner. Möses as-
cended the top of Sinai, and built a fire there, [how he found
wood on this barren rock, or raised it up to the top, Eichhorn
does not tell us], which was consecrated to the worship of
God, and before which he prayed. Here an unexpected and .
tremendous thunder storm occurred. He seized the occasion,
in order to proclaim the laws, which he had composed in his
retirement, as the statutes of Jehovah; thus leading the peo-
ple to believe that Jehovah had conversed with him. Not
that he was a deceiver; but he really believed that the oc-
currence of such a thunder storm was a sufficient proof of the
fact, that Jehovah had spoken to him, or sanctioned the work
in which he had been engaged. (Bibliothek, Band I. Theil
1. S. 76, etc.). The prophecies of the Old Testament are,
LETT. V.] OF SIMPLE EXEGESIS. 179
according to him, patriotic wishes, expressed with all the fire
and elegance of poetry, for the future prosperity and a future
deliverer of the Jewish nation. (Propheten, Biblioth, Ein-
leit., passim.)
In like manner, C. F. Ammon, professor of theology at
Erlangen, tells us, in respect to the miracle of Christ's walk-
ing on the water, that “to walk on the sea, is not to stand on
the waves as if they were solid ground, (as Jerome dreams),
but to walk through the waves so far as the shoals reached,
and then to swim.” (Pref. to edit. of Ernesti Inst. Interpret.
p. 12). So in regard to the miracle of the loaves and fishes
(Matt. 14:15), he says, that “Jesus probably distributed some
loaves and fishes which he had, to those who were around
him, and thus excited, by his example, others among the mul-
titude who had provisions, to distribute them in like manner.”
(p. 16.)
Thiess, in his commentary on Acts, explains the miracu-
lous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.),
in the following manner: “It is not uncommon,” says he,
“in those countries, for a violent gust of wind to strike only
a particular spot or house. Such a gust is commonly accom-
panied by the electric fluid; and the sparks of this are scat-
tered all around. These float about the chamber, become ap-
parent, and light upon the disciples. They kindle into en-
thusiasm at this; and believe the promise of their master is
now to be performed. This enthusiasm spectators assemble
to witness; and instead of preaching as before in Hebrew,
each one uses his own native tongue to proclaim his feelings.”
I have not followed the words of Thiess through the
whole, but have given the substance of his views in my two
last sentences. Such was the outpouring of the Spirit; and
such the gift of tongues. *~,
The same Thiess (Comm. on Chap. iii.) represents the
miraculous cure, by Peter, of the man who was lame from
his birth, in a very singular way. “This man,” says he,
“was lame only according to report. He never walked any ;
and so the people believed that he could not walk. . . . . Pe-
180 MODES OF EVADING THE RESULTS [LETT. V.
ter and John however, being more Sagacious, threatened him.
“In the name of the Messiah,” said they, ‘stand up.’ The word
Messiah had a magical power. He stood up. Now one saw
that he could walk. To prevent the compassion of men from
being turned into rage, [at his deceit], he betook himself to
the most sagacious party, and connected himself with the
apostles.”
The case of Ananias’ falling down dead is thus represented
by the same writer: “Ananias fell down terrified; but prob-
ably he was carried out and buried while still alive.”
Heinrichs, however, who produces this Comment of Thiess,
relates another mode of explaining the occurrence in question,
viz. that Peter stabbed Ananias; “which,” says Heinrichs,
“does not at all disagree with the vehement and easily exas-
perated temper of Peter.” (Nov. Test. ICoppianum, Vol. iii.
Partic. ii. pp. 355–357, etc.)
- You may smile, my dear Sir, or shudder at these explana-
tions; but I am entirely unable to see how they imply a
greater liberty than you take with John 1: 1. Rom. 9:5, and
many other passages. s
Numerous systems of Hermeneutica, i. e. the Art of Inter-
pretation, have been written and published in Germany, on
this plan. Meyer, in a very laboured system of Hermeneuti-
ca of the Old Testament, in two large octavos, has a body of
rules, by which everything miraculous is to be explained
away. He concedes that there is the same objection to ad-
mitting any one miracle, as to admitting all. He therefore
rejects the whole. So Bauer, in his Hermeneutica; and a
multitude of others. *
In the course of the discussions which these principles have
excited in Germany, the question about Christ's divinity has
been almost entirely forgotten. When the contest first began,
this point among others was warmly contested. But the
fundamental questions, whether the Scriptures are divinely
inspired, and whether the doctrine of accommodation can be
used in all its latitude in interpreting them, soon took the
place of this. Accommodation has been sifted, attacked, de-
LETT. V.] OF SIMPLE EXEGESIS. 181
fended, explained, moderated, modified, itself accommodated;
so that at last it is nearly driven from the ground, and the
plain and simple rules of grammatical interpretation are tri-
umphant among the best part of the German critics.
In the mean time, they have not returned to the principles
of their Lutheran Symbols. Very far from it. While they
allow that John, and Peter, and Paul, did believe and teach
the doctrine of Christ's divinity and of the atonement, they
hold themselves under no obligation to receive them. De
Wette, who has recently published a System of Theology
and is Professor of the same at the University of Berlin,”
maintains that the Pentateuch was composed about the time
of the captivity; that the Jewish ritual was of gradual forma-
tion, accessions being made to it by Superstition; and that the
book of Chronicles, (which is filled with scraps and inconsis-
tencies), was foisted into the Canon by some of the priest-
hood who wished to exalt their own order. His Beiträge,
which contained these sentiments, was published before the
death of Griesbach, and came out recommended by him;
who says: “If you object to the young literary adventurer
[De Wette], that he has endeavoured to bring Judaism into
disrepute, my answer is: This is no more than Paul himself
has labouled to do.’ (Pref. to Beiträge.)
In his book De morte Christi expiatoria, (on the Atone-
ment of Christ), he represents Christ as disappointed that
the Jews would not hearken to him as a moral teacher sim-
ply; which was the first character he assumed. Christ then
assumed the character of a prophet, and asserted his divine
mission, in order that the Jews might be induced to listen to
him. Finding that they would not do this, and that they
were determined to destroy him, in order not to lose the
whole object of his mission, and to convert necessity into an
* This was the fact, when the former editions of this work were pub-
lished. But many years since he was dismissed from his place there,
on the ground of a supposed political offence; and since this, he has been
at Băsle in Switzerland.
16
182 GERMAN WEITERS. [LETT. v.
occasion of giving himself credit, he gave out that his death
itself would be expiatory. -
Yet De Wette holds a most exalted rank in Germany. . I
doubt whether Germany can boast of an oriental scholar, or
a literary man, who has more admirers than De Wette. Ge-
senius, Professor at Halle, has spoken of him, in a letter re-
cently received, in the highest terms; and selects and recom-
mends him, among all the literati, critics, and orientalists, of
Germany, as most deserving of special acquaintance and
confidence.
Both of these gentlemen are Professors of Divinity in
Universities; both men of great genius, and profound erudi-
tion ; men, too, who stand at the head perhaps of oriental
literature in the German empire, not to say in the whole
world. -
What shall we say, now, of De Wette 2 That he is not a
Christian P Surely he would look with disdain on any man
who should think of such an accusation, and tax him with
the highest degree of illiberality and superstition. -
Perhaps you will say: “What is all this to us? We do
not avow or defend such opinions.’ True, I answer; at pres-
ent you do not avow or defend them. A short time since they
did not. But as soon as their numbers increased, so that they
began to be fearless of consequences, and when their antago-
nists urged the laws of exegesis upon them, they abandoned
the ground of defending the divine authenticity of the Bible
at once. A few years since, the state of the question in Ger-
many, in many respects, was similar to what it now is here.
At present, most of the German critics, (rejecting accommoda-
tion and casting off all ideas of the divine origin of the Scrip-
tures), are disputing with great zeal the questions: Whether
a miracle is possible P Whether God and nature are one
and the same thing? Whether the Jews ever expected any
Messiah 2 Some time ago many of their critics maintained
that no Messiah was predicted in the Old Testament; but
now they question even whether the Jews had any expecta-
y
LETT. V.] ENGLISH writeRs. . . 183
tion of one. Whether Christ actually rose from the dead,
was long ago disputed; and now it would seem, that they
have gone on so far beyond this, as to have come, (so one
would be inclined to think), nearly to the end of questions on
theology. It is difficult to say what is to come next.
It needs now only a moderate acquaintance with German
reasoners and critics, (a thing which is fast coming in), to in-
duce young men to go with them, who set out with your max-
im, that “to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime.” No
man can read these writers, without finding a great deal of
excellent matter in them, well arranged, and of real utility.
I venture to add, that no man can read them, and ever after
take up Priestley, Belsham, Carpenter, Yates, Lindsey, or any
other of the recent English Unitarian writers, as critics, but
with disgust. Cappe is the only one whom I have seen, that
appears to have studied diligently his Bible. He was evi-
dently a man of thought, and a lover of biblical study. But
the incomparably greater acquisitions of the German critics,
in every department of study, spread a charm over their writ-
ings for the lover of discussion aud literature, that is not of-
ten found in productions of this nature. I must add, that
much as I differ in sentiment from them, and fundamentally
subversive of Christianity as I believe their views to be, I am
under great obligations to them for the instructions they have
given me; and specially for convincing me, that we need
nothing more than the simple rules of exegesis, and a candid
and believing mind, to see in the Scriptures, with overpower-
ing evidence, all the substantial and important doctrines
which have commonly been denominated orthodox.
Such has been the impression on me, from reading Ger-
man writers. And with such impressions, I can never re-
gret the time that I have spent in studying them. Abler
advocates than they for the fashionable philosophy, which is
endeavouring to explain away the book of God, I do not
expect to find.
Si Pergama dexträ
Defendi possent, etiam hāc defensa fuissent.
184 TJSE OF GREMAN BOOKS. [LETT. V.
Able however as they are, my mind returns from the study
of them with an impression more deep, radical, and satisfac-
tory than ever before, that the great doctrines of the gospel,
commonly denominated evangelical or orthodoac, are the doc-
trines of the Scriptures, and are the truth of God. My views
as to the exegesis of particular texts, in some cases, have
been changed by the study of philology and interpretation.
I should not rely for the proof of doctrines now, on some texts
which I once thought contained such proof. But my impres-
sions of the real truth and importance of evangelical doc-
trines, I can truly say, are greatly strengthened.
Before you pronounce sentence upon the German exposi-
tors and critics to whom I have referred above, I trust you
will give them a hearing. I can hardly think it probable,
that with the maxims in regard to reasoning about the Serip-
tures which you defend, you should not, at last, go full length
with the most liberal of them all. The difference between
their sentiments and yours, is immeasurably less than the dif-
ference between your sentiments now, and those which you
avowed when you first became a preacher of the gospel. A
mind capable of reasoning and thinking in such a manner as
yours, must necessarily, as it seems to me, come to the same
conclusions with Eichhorn, and Paulus, and Henke, and Eck-
ermann, and Herder, and other distinguished men of the new
German school, when it begins to reason with such maxims
as those which you adopt.
You may be ready, perhaps, to express your surprise, that
I should commend the study of such writers as those whom I
have quoted. I am well aware, indeed, that the serious mind
revolts at the glaring impiety of such comments as those
which I have produced. But after all, if a man were to judge
and condemn these very writers by a few selections of this
nature, it would be hasty. On points which are not concern-
ed with the special doctrines of Christianity; in illustrating
critical and literary history, philology, natural history, and
grammatical exegesis—in a word, as to everything literary
or scientifical that pertains to the Bible ; who can enter into
LETT. V.] TJSE OF GERMAN BOOKS. 185
competition with recent German writers? But it should be
understood, that there are writers on these subjects, in Ger-
many, who are what is denominated orthodox, as well as
those of a different character which I have just mentioned.
The lover of acute, thorough-going, radical discussion, will
lose much, if he does not cultivate an acquaintance with both
these classes of writers. •.
I know, indeed, that you are an advocate for unlimited re-
search. For myself, I have long practised upon this princi-
ple. And I cannot but think the cautious fears of many of
those with whom I agree in sentiment, in respect to the limits
of study, though honourable to the spirit of piety which they
cherish, and indicative of real interest and concern for the
prosperity of the church, are not well founded. The funda-
mental principle of Protestantism is, that the Bible is the suf.
ficient and only rule of faith and practice. To know what
the Bible teaches, then, is the great object of all religious
knowledge. To understand this, (as to acquire everything
else), study and diligence are necessary. Men are not in-
spired now, as the apostles and primitive Christians were, to
understand all truth. Men are imperfect, and have imper-
feet knowledge. No one sect, party, or body of men, can
claim absolute perfection of knowledge or virtue. And as a
great many points of inquiry, (interesting and important ones
too), may be managed by men of sobriety, in the use of only
their natural intellect and their resources of learning, the
man who loves the book of God, and desires the most exten-
sive acquaintance with it which he can possibly make, will not
neglect their works, nor any other source of knowledge with-
in his power. It was a noble maxim of a heathen : Fas est
ab hoste docer; ; i. e. we may receive instruction from an
enemy. Christians too often forget this, and permit antipathy
to particular sentiments to exclude them from all the profit,
which might be derived from a more enlarged acquaintance
with the writings of opponents. Believing as I do, that
many who are arrayed against the sentiments that I espouse,
are not destitute of sense, or of learning, and are not to be
16#
186 TJSE OF GERMAN BOOKS. [LETT. V.
despised, I am inclined always to see how they vindicate
their cause. If I am not convinced by their arguments, I
at least become better satisfied with my own, and more able to
defend them in consequence of such an investigation. But
if I could not practise upon the noble maxim, fas estab hoste
doceri, I would at least apply another one to vindicate the
study of the German writers, and justify myself for even re-
commending it in proper cases. I would say, (as was said
in a different connection and for a different object: Egypti,
sunt, spoliemus ; They are Egyptians, let us take their spoils.
Shall I not accept the good which they proffer me, and prof-
fer me in a more scientific manner, and in a better digested
and more lucid form than I can elsewhere find P. Without
hesitation I answer: Yes.
I cannot help viewing the subject in another light. Every
student in theology, certainly every Christian minister, ought
to be established in the truth and able to “convince gain-
Sayers.” How can he do this, if he does not know what
these gainsayers allege P. Is he to engage in war against the
foes of truth, without knowing the weapons by which his
enemies are to assail him? It is a mistaken system of edu-
cation, indeed, which teaches him thus. It is a mistaken
arrangement, which thrusts out a young man upon the church,
unacquainted with the nature of its enemies' assaults, and
liable of course to become the victim of the first powerful
attack that is made upon him. Without any doubt, private
Christians had better have little or nothing to do with all
such grounds of dispute; but it is a shame for a minister of
the gospel, who has the opportunity, not to seize upon every
advantage in his power, to render himself as able as possible
to defend the cause which he has espoused.
I may venture to add a still better authority, in order to
confirm these reasonings. An inspired apostle has directed
Christians to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is
good. How does he comply with the spirit of this direction,
who never examines any views that differ from his own, but
settles down with the full conviction that he is right, and that
LETT. V.] TJSE OF GERMAN BOOKS. 187
all who differ from him are wrong? As no man now is in-
spired, and no man therefore is free from some error, does it
not become those who are to be “set for the défence of the
truth,” to examine as far as it may be in their power the
dissentient views of others, who have called themselves
Christians, and who lay claim to an extensive understanding
of the word of God? Such an examination will enlarge
their views, and render them more able to oppose error and
to defend truth. -
Such are my reasons for pursuing the study of German
writers, and for commending the study of them to others.
Truth has nothing to fear from examination. If the senti-
ments that I espouse will not stand the test of investigation,
then I will abandon them. I never shall willingly embrace
any sentiments, except on such a condition. But in respect
to the study of the more liberal (so called) German writers,
I fear no injury from it, in the end, to the sentiments denom-
inated evangelical. Exegesis has come, by discussion among
them, to a solid and permanent science. That the scriptural
writers taught substantially what we believe to be orthodoxy,
is now conceded by their most able expositors.
There is another point of view, in which the subject may
be regarded. The person who reads their works, will see
what the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do in respect to
the Book of God, and where it will carry the men who en-
tertain it. It is indeed a most affecting and awful lesson.
But the exhibition of it has merely begun among us. The
progress of the sentiments which you defend, fully illustrates
the nature of its advancements. A short time since, almost all
the Unitarians of New England were simply Arians. Now,
there are scarcely any of the younger preachers, who have
not outstripped you and become simple Humanitarians.
Such was the case in Germany. The divinity of Christ was
early assailed; inspiration was next doubted and impugned;
and this is already begun here. Natural religion next comes
in order; and the simple question between the parties here
188 ULTIMATUM OF UNITARIANISM. [LETT. V.
must soon be, whether natural or revealed religion is our
guide and our bope.
For myself, it is my real conviction that the sooner mat-
ters come to this issue the better. The parties will then un-
derstand each other; and (what is more) the public will then
understand the subject of dispute. I cannot think that they
do at present. It is but very recently, that explicit declara-
tions have been made in print, by you and your friends.
And though with such views as I possess, I cannot help feel-
ing the most sincere regret that such sentiments should be
propagated, yet I can never do otherwise than applaud that
ingenuousness, which openly avows sentiments that are more
privately inculcated. I shall be ready to confess my appre-
hensions are quite erroneous, if the lapse of a few years
more does not produce the undisguised avowal of the Ger-
man divinity, in all its latitude.” I anticipate this, because
I believe that the laws of exegesis, when thoroughly under-
stood and applied without any party bias, will necessarily
lead men to believe that the apostles inculcated, for substance,
those doctrines which are now called Orthodoac. And as
there probably will be not a few, who will reject these doc-
trines, my apprehension is, that to take the German ground
will be deemed both ingenuous and expedient.
Believing however as I now do, while my convictions re-
main, I must act agreeably to them. I hope I shall never
be guilty of exercising an exclusive or persecuting spirit.
But while my present views last, I cannot look with indif-
ference on the great contest, which is pending in this part
of our country. I must regard the opinions which you
have avowed in your sermon, to be fundamentally subversive
of what appear to me to be the peculiarities of the Christian
system. If the doctrine of Christ's divinity and humanity be
not true, nor the doctrine of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ,
and of pardon by it; if human nature be not of itself entirely
* See POSTSCRIPT, at the end of this Letter.
LETT. v.] ULTIMATUM OF UNITARIANISM. 189
destitute of holiness that may fit men for heaven, and does
not need special regenerating and sanctifying grace; then I
know not what there is in the Christian system that very
much concerns our duty or our interest, which is not taught
by the principles of natural religion; nor what there is, for
which it is our duty to contend. The great question at pre-
sent, between you and me, is: What does the Bible teach in
relation to the subjects proposed? For our answer to this
question, you and I stand accountable to the Judge of quick
and dead; and as ministers of his gospel, and interpreters of
his word, we are placed under an awful responsibility. If
either of us violate the reason which God has given us, in
our inquiries; or are led by partial views, by passion, by
prejudice, by thirst for popularity with our friends, or a fear
of reproach from those whom we are obliged to consider as
opponents; Christ will require from us an account of our
conduct. When I think on this, and look back and ask my-
self, whether I have conducted this whole dispute with a
view to my account, and in the fear of God; I cannot but
feel solicitude, lest through the deceitfulness of the human
heart, something may have escaped me which may prove
prejudicial, in some way or other, to the promotion of real
truth. If you see this, my dear Sir, tell me where and what
it is. We have no real interest, but to know, believe, and
obey the truth. And supposing the truth to be what it now
appears to my mind to be, I cannot believe otherwise than
that you are endeavouring to inculcate principles radically
subversive of the gospel of Christ. Will you do me the jus-
tice to believe, that I may have honestly formed such an
opinion, without taking my faith from creeds, or grounding it
on tradition, and without the spirit that would establish an
Inquisition, or lord it over the consciences of men, or treat
you with disrespect 2
In a word; with those who have the convictions that I
possess of the nature and importance of the gospel system, it
can never admit of a question, whether they are to make all the
190 ARE TEIE ORTEIOD OX LETT. V.]
opposition in their power, (provided it be done in the spirit of
Christian candour and benevolence), to the prevalence of
sentiments like yours. I cannot but view the question be-
tween us as amounting to this : Whether we shall retain
Christianity, or reject all but the name 2 If I am wrong,
may the Lord forgive me, and grant me better views. If you
are wrong, my heart’s desire and prayer to God is, that the
same blessing may be bestowed on you.
Allowing that I, and those with whom I act, are sincere
in our belief, you yourself would say, that we should be just-
ly chargeable with the greatest inconsistency, did we not feel
strong desires to resist the innovations that are attempted
upon many important doctrines of our theology. Permit me
to add, that real charity may sometimes attribute strong feel-
ings, and a deep interest on this subject, to ardent benevo-
lence towards those whom we think to be in a dangerous con-
dition, rather than to party zeal, blind credulity, and igno-
rance, or an assuming and injurious spirit.
And now, to bring these already protracted letters to a
close, you will permit me respectfully and seriously to solicit,
that you would look back and review the Sermon which has
occasioned these remarks. Have you represented the senti-
ments of the great body of Christians in this country correct-
ly? Have you produced the arguments on which they rely?
Have you treated them with respect, with gentleness, with
tenderness? Has your simple aim been to reason with them,
to convince them, and not to hold them up in such an atti-
tude as to excite disgust, or scorn and derision ? Whatever
your aim may have been, the fact is, that you have awaken-
ed, in all those who differ from you, a deep sensation of an
intentional injury on your part to their feelings, of contumely,
and of misrepresentation of their views. Look then with a
Christian eye on the unhappy and distracted state of the
churches in this land, the glory of all lands. When will our
contentions cease ? When shall we bring a united offering
to our common Lord, if men, like you, who stand in eminent
LETT. V.] FAIRLY TREATED 2 191
and responsible stations, treat those whom they profess to
own as Christian brethren in such a manner, and strive to
degrade and render them contemptible?
My dear Sir, I do think these are things, which, when you
enter your closet to lift up your soul to God, you are bound
by Sacred obligations to consider. I do not bring these as
charges against you, in order to wound your feelings, I speak
of the impressions which your Discourse, (universally so far
as I know), has excited in the bosoms of those who espouse
the sentiments which you condemn. If their impressions are
without reason, the wrong may indeed fall upon them. But
in reviewing the subjects that have already come under my
notice, there appears more reason for those impressions, than
a lover of Christian meekness and benevolence can approve.
When the hours of excitement and the stimulus of party feel-
ing are gone by, you and I shall stand at the bar of that
divine Saviour, who searches the hearts and tries the reins
of men. There we shall certainly know, whether it will be
our condemnation that we have loved him and honoured him
more than he can claim. There we shall know, whether we
need his atoning blood; whether we are permitted to treat
with contumely those who place their hopes of salvation in
it, and to declare to them that the God, whom the great body
of the faithful in every age have worshipped, is a malignant
and detestable being. My dear Sir, this is indeed no trifling
matter. We are immortal beings. We must live forever ;
and our eternal destiny is in the hands of that Redeemer,
about whose dignity and glory we are contending.
When I think on this, I cannot but feel, that the question
between us is of deep and radical interest, as it respects our
eternal salvation. If the God whom I am bound to adore,
has not only revealed himself in the book of nature, but has
clearly disclosed his glory in the gospel of Christ, and I mis-
take after all a revelation so clear; or induced by party feel-
ing, or erroneous philosophy, reject the testimony which he
has given ; the mistake must be tremendous in its conse-
192 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
quences; the rejection will justly incur the divine displeas-
sure. With all this however fully before me, I do not hesi-
tate; I cannot doubt respecting it. When I behold the glory
of the Saviour, as revealed in the gospel, I am constrained
to cry out with the believing apostle : My Lord and my God!
And when my departing spirit shall quit these mortal scenes,
and wing its way to the world unknown, with my latest
breath I desire to pray, as the expiring martyr did : LORD
JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT!
POSTSCRIPT.
In republishing this little volume, after so many years have
elapsed, it is not without some hesitation, that I have admitted .
into this edition the preceding account of the state of theology
in Germany, which was drawn up about the year 1820 when
these Letters were first published. It is no desire that I have, to
show that my anticipations at that period have been fully real-
ized, which has induced me again to repeat this part of my origi-
nal publication. The simple account of the matter is, that I
have permitted the sketch in question to remain in this edition,
in order that it may assist the reader in forming a judgment, at
the present time, as to what fruits he is to expect from such be-
ginnings as those in Germany, and to admonish him to take good
heed that he listen very attentively to the monition contained in the
old proverb: Obsta principiis. The fruits, in our own country, of
beginnings like to those in Germany during the years 1770–1800,
are now plain and evident to all attentive observers. Had Dr.
Channing lived until the present time, it is difficult to say what
position he would have taken. But we know what position many
of his friends and followers have taken. Mr. Norton's attack on
the Old Testament comes nothing short of Ultra-neology. Sub-
stantially the same is true of Prof. Palfrey's Lectures on the Penta-
teuch. Unitarian Periodicals are filled with the like sentiments.
Dr. Noyes, in translations of the Old Testament, has inserted
notices respecting the several books translated, which are of the
like tenor ; and it is generally understood, that in the Theologi-
cal School at Cambridge, with which he is connected, there is,
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 193
at least in their own circle, an open and explicit renunciation of
the divine inspiration and authority of the Old Testament Scrip-
tures. Burt above all, the Rev. Theodore Parker, in his book Of
Religion, and other publications, has fully and operly taken the
ultimate ground to which the principles in question naturally
and even necessarily lead, in the mind of a bold and consistent
man. I do honour to his frankness and openness, in being will—
ing to appear what in reality he is, a doubter not only of all in-
spiration, but of all that is miraculous or supernatural. He re-
gards reason and the moral sense in man, as his highest source
of revelation ; and by these all else is to be tried and adjudged.
His reason bids him to reject all miracles; to regard the Old
Testament and the New as full of errors, contradictions, and ab–
surdities; to regard Christ himself only as an unusually able
and excellent man, and teacher of morality, i.e. unusual for that
period; while he was in fact not only peccable, but has even
made some mistakes, (for which Mr. Parker undertakes to apolo-
gize). His apostles and followers, moreover, were not only fal–
lible men, but they have shown, in their writings, not a little of
superstition, as well as a great many mistakes. In a word, (as
the phrase is), he has gone for the whole. The humble Chris-
tian, who is accustomed to look to his God and Saviour and Bi-
ble with reverential awe, is startled at this; and no wonder.
But after all, I must think better of such a frank and open avowal
of sentiment, than of any concealed course of conduct; and I can-
not but deem it an hononrable trait of character in Mr. Parker.
In my view, he has greatly the advantage, in respect to consis-
tency and frankness and courage, over those Unitarians who are
at variance with him, and who still cherish principles that must,
at least if logic has any part to act, inevitably end in bringing
them to the same views as those of Mr. Parker. He is willing
to take the responsibility of his real sentiments, and to come be-
fore the public on this ground;" they decline the hazard of do-
* On reading this to a friend, whose locality enables him better to
know Mr. Parker's pastoral development than myself, he suggested that
it is now generally understood, that Mr. Parker is constantly in the habit
of using orthodox terms in his prayers and preaching, even to such a de-
gree that many of his undistinguishing hearers deny his heterodoxy. If
this be so, I must recall all that I have said above, about his straightfor-
wardness and explicitness. But I cannot help thinking that there is
some mistake about this matter, and that he would not degrade himself
by practising any imposition of this nature.
17
194 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
ing this, and feel that it is risking too much for themselves and
their cause, to be so openly explicit. They have even gone so
far as virtually to excommunicate Mr. Parker, and some of them
actually begin to call him an infidel. Some Creed, then, they
would seem secretly to have, by which Mr. Parker is actually
tried, if not actually amenable to it, and in their view condemned.
I would hope, therefore, that the orthodox will no longer be re-
proached for having a Creed, or for adhering to it. And what
now is Mr. Parker's heresy 2 It is not for me to enter into the dis-
pute between him with his adherents, and those who begin to
call themselves evangelical (! ?) Unitarians. “Inter TALEs certan-
tes, quis dijudicabit 3’ Geneva and Boston show us, (after all the
strong professions of Unitarians in favour of unlimited liberty of
religious opinion, and after loudly and often asserting the crimi-
mality of making any man responsible for his religious views),
that only an opportunity for the safe exercise of power is want-
ing, to convert the mass of liberal Christians into propagandists
of their party views, by appeals to force, i. e. to the power of the
magistracy, or to the more dreaded power of virtual excommu-
nication. These are not the first lessons of this kind which are
recorded on the pages of faithful history. They probably are not
the last, which even the present generation will be called to
learn. It lies upon the very face of all this matter, at least such is
my serious apprehension, that nothing but power is wanting,
among some of the leading zealous Unitarians, to exclude the
orthodox not only from Cambridge University, (which has already
so long and so effectually been done), but to exclude them from
all active and influential participation in affairs of church, state,
civil office, and education, so far as the government has the con-
trol of any of these matters. -
There are men, indeed, and I would hope that they are not few,
in the Unitarian party, who would not intentionally do such
things. But I am compelled to believe, that the leaders of the
dominant party would at once go full length and breadth in all
matters over which they had control, if they did not fear a reac-
tion. In the mean time, the Trinitarians are, as yet, by far the
greater majority of the State; and if such battles are to be
fought, I am greatly mistaken if they may not be relied on as
ready to take their place, in the ranks of those who are obliged
to do battle in their own defence. That this latter party (if I
must so name them) are on the increase, is plain enough, so far
as I can discern, to every man whose eyes are really open.
That Unitarianism, divided against itself, and contending with
LETT. V.] FOSTSCRIPT. 195
more asperity in this felo de se contest than with Trinitarians, is
likely to be rather on the wane, is somewhat probable. I think
the fact will scarcely be denied.
The young people of Boston and its vicinity in general, evi-
dently have less zeal about supporting and propagating Unitarian
sentiments than their fathers had. If any one should reply and
say, that this is because they have less zeal for religion in any
shape than their fathers had ; I do not feel authorized to deny
the truth of this allegation. I must also say, that in my appre-
Jhension, this is one of the genuine fruits of Unitarianism. A re-
ligion, the prominent feature of which is NOT TO BELIEVE, can
never deeply interest any community, for any great length of
time. The human soul, made sooner or later deeply to feel its
sins, and wants, and woes, pants for something more than a
not believing religion to rest upon, and will have it if it be at-
tainable. ~ - &
In Germany, since the first edition of these Letters was pub-
lished, the work of boasted philosophy and reason has been
going on, until it seems at last to have reached its me plus wiltra.
First came Semler and Eichhorn’s accommodation scheme.
Next followed Paulus and others with the plan of explaining
everything by mere natural causes, allowing at the same time a
spice of superstition and ignorance in the writers of the Scrip-
tures. Then came De Wette and his friends, with honest maxims
of interpretation, but renouncing all idea of inspiration in the Bi-
ble, and maintaining that it abounds in mistakes and errors. Next
came Strauss, with his scheme of mere moral romance. The Jesus
of the Gospels is altogether a personage of romance, an exhibition
and symbol of singular piety and virtue, as conceived of by the
mind of the romancers. The numberless discrepancies and errors
of the writers of the New Testament show, as this party aver,
that the book is no authentic account either of facts or of doc-
trines. Last of all comes Bruno Bauer, with the downright
charge of fraud and imposition on the part of the evangelists and
apostles. What step lies beyond this, it is difficult to see.
Philosophy, however, has rather outstripped even Bauer him-
self. God, (in the view of what is now called the philosophy by
way of eminence), is not a personal conscious being. He is only
the unknown, unthinking, unfeeling anima mundi, and is indebted
for his personality and his consciousness to men. Not only is it
true that “we are God and God is we,” but we are altogether the
most conspicuous and important part of the Godhead, inasmuch
as he has not consciousness at all without us. And as to sin–
*
196 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
how can God sin against himself? The decantated maxim of
the party is: “If the world were not world, God would not be
God.” º
Thus ends (shall I say ?) this recent lesson. I cannot call it the
first lesson, nor the only one. But is it at an end ? For us poor
starvelings of this western world, as to the richer feasts of phi-
losophy, it might seem that this is as far as men can go. But no.
The German mind is capable of still further advances; and I
predict that ten years will see Hegelism melting away, and the
market supplied with ware of a new pattern.
But enough. A false prophet I was not, as it seems from the
present state of facts, when I penned those remarks in my Letters,
twenty-six years ago, to which the present postscript has relation.
But I take to myself no great credit for sagacity, in having writ-
ten them. The truth is, that these things are everywhere so
connected on the pages of ecclesiastical history, that one must
be a dull reader not to know, that certain causes will produce
certain effects, in respect to a great variety of matters. Even
more than I predicted has taken place; and more is yet to come.
The vantage ground which Mr. Parker has, in respect to his
supposed frankness and sincerity, bids fair, perhaps, to strengthen
him from the ranks of his more timid and shrinking brethren.
Beyond Mr. Parker's position, we in this country, as I am in-
clined to think, cannot well go. It needs a German mind and
education to do this. But when the mass of the Unitarian party
shall be led to occupy his ground, (which can hardly fail to take
place), we shall then know where we are; and if we must take
the field of contest, we shall know at least what fashion of ar-
mour we are to cope with, who our opponents are, and what
kind of defensive or assailing weapons may be expedient on our
part.
Since completing my preparations for the present edition of
these Letters, originally addressed to Dr. Channing, a friend has
put into my hands a new work, which, as he informs me, is
very popular among the Unitarians, and is circulated, even in
remoter parts of our country, with no little zeal and assiduity.
From a very natural curiosity, and from the interest which I feel
in the subject, I have run my eye through the pages of this work;
and it might argue some want of comity in me, if I should pass
it without at least a brief notice.
I must confess, that when my eye met, on the title page, the
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 197
name of the author, which openly proclaimed that a female had
ventured into the thorny path of theological controversy, I was
filled with a variety of conflicting emotions. An extraordinary
woman, I thought, she must be, in some respect or other, thus
to venture, clad in masculine armour, upon tilt and tournament,
on a field where none but those trained to the use of arms are
wont to appear. It was the first time, within the compass of
my reading, that I had ever met with such an occurrence. If
the author of Ecclesiastes had lived until the present time, would
he riot have had occasion to review his now ancient (if not an-
tiquated) adage: There is nothing new under the sun ?
But it is one thing to wonder that a lady-combatant should
enter the lists, and another thing to meet her in contest, and
disarm her, or convince her that retreat is her safest course.
For myself, I have always been accustomed to think, that a man
could not contend with a woman, at any rate before the public
eye, without coming off second best, let his cause be ever so good
in itself. There is such a general sympathy for a female under
such circumstances, that if her antagonist should get the victory
in combat, he must do it at the expense, at least in part, of his
good name as to chivalry and courtesy. And who would like to
be reckoned among those that deserve a censure of this sort P
And yet, (for I must speak of serious matters in a graver man-
mer), when ladies think it meet to take upon them the costume
and the armour of the other sex, and present themselves on the
arena for combat, I am not sure that it is the duty of every man
to give up what he deems a good cause, rather than to tarnish
the lustre of his chivalry a little. If I ken Mrs. Dana aright, she
would deem it quite a piece of neglect, on my part, not to
meet her on the new ground that she has taken, just as I would
meet one who had been trained for combat. She would be far
from taking it amiss, if I should feel that there is as much need
of putting forth the best of my strength, in order to maintain
my ground, as there would be in case the attack had been made
by more experienced polemics.
I am heartily sorry, that the heroine before us is undergoing
such a martyrdom as she everywhere complains of “The days
of proscription,” says she, “of slander, insult, and neglect, have
by no means passed away. Cold greetings, averted looks, long
and intimate friendships sundered in a moment, tell a mournful
tale in respect to the toleration really exercised in this country,
so proud of its civil and religious liberty, towards those who
have conscientiously changed their opinions;” Introd. p. iii.
17%
198 PostsCRIPT. [LETT. v.
She then goes on to speak of “injurious suspicions,” of “direct
charges which would almost break the heart of the sufferer,
if he did not feel himself above their reach,” and the like.
This last circumstance is well thrown in ; for that she feels
herself above the reach of all her Trinitarian friends, lies upon
the face of her whole book, from beginning to end, and is in-
deed one of its most prominent characteristics. That a lady
should be subjected to “proscription, slander, insult, and meg-
lect,” was indeed, at first view, somewhat adapted to excite com-
miseration in every breast not hardened against the emotions of
chivalry and courtesy. But while my commiseration was be-
ginning to be somewhat excited by reading such an account of
persecutors’ deeds, and the breeze of compassion began to
spring up and waft along my little barque which had spread
sail to catch its influence, I was taken, as the seamen say, “all
aback,” after making but a short run. The lady has found for
herself, without the aid of sympathizers, an adequate remedy,
as it would seem, for all her woes. In the very next paragraph
she tells us the secret of it: “When I look around me, and ob-
serve how the great majority of mankind are blindly following
the lead of others, how few there are who think for themselves,
how few are willing to test their religious opinions by compar-
ing them with other systems of faith, by bringing them all “to
the law and to the testimony” of God's inspired word . . . when
these things meet my view, though I may be distressed at the
exhibition of intolerance, I ought not, perhaps, to be surprised
at the spirit which is manifested.” p. iv.
It is indeed a most comforting sensation, to feel one's self to
be “faithful ſound among the faithless.” The great majority are
“blindly [the Italics are my own] following the lead of others "
Whom then are those others following, who lead the majority ?
We cannot escape the conclusion, that they must be “blind
leaders of the blind.” At any rate Mrs. D. would ſain put them
both in the ditch, if they should fail to get there by virtue of
their own wanderings. -
The modesty and delicacy of these imputations on the great
mass of Christians in our country, from a young woman who
makes her appearance in the costume of the other sex, is not
for me to descant upon. These are matters to be felt, rather
than talked about. But however this may be, the gale of com-
passion that indicated a favourable approach to the harbour of
sympathy, was dissipated by this adverse blast; and I soon
brought myself to a state of great composure, in regard to the
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 199
martyrdom of this singularly independent woman, who, if we
are to credit her own account, is almost the only one in all the
ranks of such as have professed to be orthodox, that dares to
venture on a course of free and independent thought and opinion.
The whole work is somewhat strongly marked with the char-
acteristics developed in the Introduction. Never did lady-knight
before meet with so many and such ungallant and unmerciful
adversaries. However, not at all daunted, in right good earnest
she does them battle. Still, there are times, when, as it would
seem, she rather overrates the bloodthirstiness of her opponents;
for when, as I am inclined to suppose, they mean at most only
to commit some petty offence, such as Pope has held up to long
remembrance in his Rape of the Lock, she seems to feel, that in
the true Turkish style they mean to cut off the head rather than
the lock. -
All this, which is spread over the book in great profusion, is
quite intelligible. This lady is the only candid and independent
investigator and thinker, in all the circle where she formerly
moved. Nor is this all. Her sympathies, her convictions, her
wrongs, her prospects, her hopes, her comforts—these united
form the central modus about which all the smaller planets
move—or, as she thinks, ought to move. The best opinion I
have been able to form of this whole affair is, that it began, and
has thus far continued—I do not say, will end—in sentimentality.
A spirit, kindred to that of music and song, is its substratum;
and the same taste which leads to devotion in a high degree to
these, leads on to the exquisite and the sentimental, on every oc-
casion where these can be displayed.
With all becoming deference to the assurances of this lady,
that she never consulted Unitarians, or read any of their books,
before she was already a convert to their doctrines, I have still
Some difficulties. How comes she, all at once, to have travelled
over such a widely extended field of reading, the moment she
begins to correspond with her friends? Her quotations and
references would seem to betray years of hard study, pursued
in all directions. For myself, I have been obliged to plod my
way slowly along, and even to reach a “viginti annorum lucu-
brationes,” before I could venture on reference to such a widely
extended circle of reading. I can form no conception, there-
fore, of a young woman, more attentive, if report speaks truly,
to accomplishments than to grave studies, traversing such a field
in a few weeks or months, with more than Jack the Giant-killer's
speed. It is a phenomenon. But it is not an incomprehensible
200 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
one. ‘ Others have laboured, and she has entered into their la-
bours.”
“But what of all this P’ I hear her and her friends exclaim.
What is this to the purpose of refuting her book? Nothing at
all I confess, as to one meaning which this question may have ;
but as to another meaning that some may give it, it is not wan-
dering far from the main point. I might reply, with some show
of reason, that all this avails just as much to the refutation of
her book, as her complaints of persecution and parade of senti-
mentality contribute to the making of it, and to the commend-
ing of it to the notice of sentimental ladies, and to the exquisites
of the other sex. She has evidently counted much on this; and
So, as it strikes me, have her new friends reckoned, who have
encouraged her to publish it. And in fact, I am myself doubt-
ful, whether this will not prove to be the most taking feature of
the book. If so, it is not amiss to submit this feature fairly to
inspection. This is the sum and substance of what I have to
say, in respect to the point now before us.
For the rest, I have little indeed to say of the book in general.
I have gone through the whole of it, Appendix and all, without
finding one new idea, or one trace of not being led, (aſter all the
professions of independent thinking), by others who had travelled
the same road before. How could it be otherwise P. Here is a
lady, whose life seems to have been mainly devoted to other
very different things, who enters the field, of metaphysical, phi-
lological, theological, scriptural, and patristical controversy, about
the doctrine of the Trinity. What! Has she then been diving
into all these depths, or ascending these lofty heights? Believe
it who may ; but I find not a trace of anything like argument
in her book, which has not been said many and many a time
before; and equally often, as I believe, refuted. It would be
merely an agere actum to undertake a formal examination of her
work. I could wish to say no more than I have already said in
the preceding pages, on scarcely a single text or topic. She
professes to be quite open to future conviction of error, if any
one will adduce good arguments for this purpose. She doubt-
less means—good in her own estimation. I believe she may
safely challenge the whole of “the lords of the creation’’ in
mass, to produce such arguments. As to any champion who
enters the lists with her, I venture to predict that he will surely
come off without his guerdon.
It were easy to point out a goodly number of slips and errors
in various statements, notwithstanding all the aid her new friends
LETT. V.] IPOSTSCRIPT. 201
have given her, (and this I trust is not a little), if the game were
worth the hunting. I cannot think that it is. But lest she
should complain of a disposition to bear hard upon her, to per-
secute, and to put her down more by sneering than by argu-
ment; and lest she should allege, that my assertions respecting
this matter are mere random shots, intended mainly for effect,
when in truth I was not able to point out anything of this na-
ture in her work; I am compelled to give some specimens. And
they are but mere specimens of a somewhat plentiful crop.
Some actual or imaginary correspondent of our author had,
it seems, quoted 1 Tim. 3:16, (“God manifest in the flesh”)
against her views. In reply she says: “You are perhaps aware
. . . that Griesbach, whose authority is universally acknowledged
by Trinitarians as well as others, has decided that the word
God, in this passage, is not to be found in the best ancient man-
uscripts. . . . He expresses it: Great is the mystery of godliness;
He who was manifest in the flesh, etc.” She then goes on to
cite from Sir Isaac Newton's famous (famous among Unitarians)
History of two Corruptions of the Scriptures; the amount of
which is, an assertion that “all the churches for the first four or
five hundred years, and all the ancient versions, and all the
Greek and Latin writers, read: Which was manifested in the
flesh, etc.” *
I say nothing of the singular appeal to Griesbach, as an aw-
thority deciding that the word God, in the passage in question,
is not to be found in the best ancient Mss. A simple matter of
fact, like the one before us, viz. whether a Ms. reads O2 or 62
(he who, or God), is one on which others can decide as well as
Griesbach ; and Trinitarians are far enough from attributing to
‘him such an authority in these matters, as Mrs. D. supposes.
Then again the statement of Newton is almost quot voces tot er-
rores. Instead of all antiquity agreeing to read which (§), but a
single Ms. (the Cod. Claronmont.) is even supposed to exhibit it;
and it is nearly certain that this supposition has no good ground.
As to the ancient versions, such as the Itala, the Vulgate, the Pe-
shito Syriac, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, Sahidic, and Ara-
bic of Erpenius, only the Latin versions (which read quod) are
certain as to the reading; all the rest, on thorough examination,
turn out to be altogether doubtful witnesses. In the Latin fa-
thers, in accordance with the Vulgate, we find quod (which); but
in the genuine Greek fathers, not one can be found which ex-
hibits it. So much for Sir Isaac's statement.
Then, as to Griesbach’s “àg instead of Osóg,” he can appeal
202 1POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
$
only to Codd. A. C. F. G. 17. 73. Of these, the first, in conse-
quence of the faded ink, cannot be decided upon with any cer-
tainty. In respect to C., i. e. the Codex Ephremi, Tischendorf,
in his recent republication of it, states as a matter beyond all
doubt, that 63 now stands in the Codex, i. e. Osóg, God. But
he seems to think, that the line across the 6, and the line above,
are from a later hand. Conjectural this must of course be.
These are clear and certain marks, that the reading God now
stands in the Ms. All the evidences of a different reading are
derived solely from the alleged paleness of the ink in these
marks. Weber, Woide, and Parquoi (custos of the Royal Libra-
ry), all maintain the originality of 62 in the case in question. It
seems to be incumbent on those who deny this, to show, in some
way, how or why these alleged additions were made to the origi-
nal copy. The mere colour of the ink cannot decide a point of
this nature.
F. and G. are Mss. of the ninth or tenth centuries; 17.
and 73. of the eleventh and twelfth. As to Versions, not one
of all the ancient ones can be appealed to with any certainty to
confirm Griesbach’s reading. And as to the fathers, qui (Ög) oc-
curs once or twice in the Latin fathers, but never in any Greek
one, in a direct quotation. Griesbach and Lachmann, moreover,
are the only critical editors of any note, that have admitted this
reading into the text.
As to the reading 03 (6869, God), some time ago 171 Mss. of
the Pauline epistles, among which are some of the oldest, were
known to exhibit it. The number has recently been much in-
creased. The Philoxenian Syriac, the Arabic Polyg., the Sla-
vonic, and Georgian versions, all exhibit it. The Greek fathers,
Ignatius, Hippolytus, Dionysius Alex, Athanasius, Chrysostom,
Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Euthalius,
(most of them certainly, all of them probably), exhibit it. The
evidence in favour of it is altogether predominant, and nearly
overwhelming. -
So much for Newton's Corruptions of Scripture; and so much
for what can be said by one, in a state of all but entire ignorance
with regard to the true position of such a critical matter at the
present period. But then—Newton had given an opinion that
helped a little to remove obstacles in the way of our author's
opinion ; and the help of such a great name was very grateful.
But if Sir Isaac had done nothing beyond writing his Two Cor-
ruptions and his work on Prophecy, to emblazon his name, it
would have needed, by this time, a larger magnifying glass than
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 203
º:
he invented, to find out in what part of the firmament he was.
Voltaire says, that he wrote his work on Prophecy to avenge the
world for having written his Principia. “Non omnia possu-
mus omnes.”
In a tirade against the spirit of Calvinism, and the Synod of
Dort, (p. 165 seq.), Mrs. D. says, that “the spirit of persecution
sent Benevelt to the scaffold.” I suppose she means the famous
Olden Barneveldt. If so, is the statement correct? I had ever
supposed that Prince Maurice persecuted and finally beheaded
Barneveldt, altogether on grounds of political jealousy and envy,
alleging against him an attempt to deliver the country to the
Spaniards. The most that could be said seems to be, that he
accused Barneveldt, among other things, of favouring the Armi-
nian party ; but all this was a mere feint, in order to render him
odious to the high orthodox party. However, in our author's
opinion, this all goes to making out a charge against ‘Orlhodoxy,’
and helps to swell the catalogue of its enormities.
These may serve as specimens of what those can do, who
meddle with matters, even of fact, that they do not understand.
As a specimen of criticism which our author repeats the thou-
sandth time, aſter Socinus and others, the remarks on John 8:
58 may answer our present purpose. Jesus says to the Jews:
w > w t * > *
Trgly A$900 u ysváo 9 cat, Šyó eiut, i. e. before Abraham was, I am.
Our fair critic stoutly maintains, that it should be translated:
“Before Abraham was, I am he j’’ and she belabours in earnest
“king James' translators” for not so translating here, when else-
where they had rendered Šytó siva by I am he. And what if they
had so done? Why then the sense of the passage would have
been, according to Wakefield and our critic: “My mission was
settled and certain before the birth of Abraham.” But then, in
the first place, what is there that was not equally settled and
certain at the same period, in the view of the omniscient God?
Secondly, what was the point in dispute between Jesus and the
Jews?, Was it in respect to the time when his mission was de-
creed 2 Not a word of this in the narrative of John. What
then P Why the Jews had just said to Jesus: “Thou art not
yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham P' Jesus re-
plies: “Before Abraham was, I am.” In other words: I exist,
I did exist before Abraham. Such is the meaning of the Pre-
sent tense, siui, in the case before us; and such a meaning the
Present tense often has ; see in John 14: 9. 15:27. Jer. 1: 5. Ps.
90: 2, and Winer's N. Test. Grammar, $42. 2. c. Thirdly, the
antithesis between Abraham was and I am, renders it impossible
204 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
:*
to supply he after am, without losing the whole point and aim of
the assertion. To supply it, and interpret it as our critic, fol-
lowing the suit of Socinus and Wakefield, does, necessarily brings
us to this: ‘Before Abraham’s mission was decreed, mine was
decreed P which surely needs no further comment. De Wette,
who is the Rev. Theodore Parker's favourite leader, and who,
whatever else he may be, is a master critic of language, trans-
lates and comments thus: “I am ; not I am it or he.... That
Jesus ascribes preexistence to himself is certain; see John 1: 1. 6:
62. 17: 5. . . . Not in a nominal sense, as the Socinians and Gro-
tius understand it, so that merely the foreordination of Christ as
the Messiah was the meaning of the phrase.” Very justly might
this well skilled critic say thus. The monstrosity of such an ex-
egesis as Wakefield's, (I cannot say Mrs. D's.), stands out in high
relief to the eye of every scholar who has gone beyond the ru-
diments of Greek.
But I do not mean to review Mrs. D.'s book, and therefore
must withhold my hand. I have only two or three remarks to
make, and then I shall dismiss the matter.
Mrs. D. has one Letter inscribed: An Overflow of Feeling;
another, Mental Suffering ; and so, in one way and another, we
are continually meeting with her sentimentalities. Her new
friends and herself, it would seem, are overflowing with the
milk of human kindness. The arms of their charity are stretch-
ed out so wide, that Arians, Socinians, Arminians, Universalists,
and the like, may all find a place, and a somewhat warm em-
brace therein. But how is it with the Orthodox, the Calvinists,
the bigots, the predestimarians, and the like P Does this over-
flow of charity, and good will, and gentle feeling, bring them
within its reach and influence 2 Let us see: “I regard it [Cal-
vinism] as I would some venomous serpent, from whose fangs
I have narrowly escaped. Too long has it been coiling itself
around my struggling spirit. That its poisonous fangs have not
reached my vitals, I owe to that wonderful Providence ºf God
which has protected me from harm, and at length, provided a
way of escape. He has given me strength to struggle on, till,
at length, I have thrown the monster from me. I bless God for
my escape.”—p. 131. -
The musical world may perhaps reap some advantage from
this ; for they may naturally expect, that the next edition of the
Harp will contain an additional and highly spirited Te Deum
laudamus, inspired and called forth by such an important res-
cue. More gentle seem to have been her struggles, against the
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 205
captivating addresses of Unitarianism. What surprises one most
is, that the “venomous Calvinism” did not sooner take the hint,
from the repulsive struggles of the lady against him, and quit
urging a suit which he could not fail to see was desperate. Less
surprised we are, that Unitarianism, with his well-dressed per-
son, and bland looks, and genteel demeanor, should win his
way to the lady's heart, and find her “nothing loath.”
In another place (p. 133), she says, that “God, I thank thee
that I am not as other men are P’ is the “legitimate result of Cal-
vinism;” that “all rigid Calvinists are exceedingly exclusive in
their creed, if not in their natural feelings;” and that she “ has
endured the tyranny of this faith too long not to dislike it now.”
Shortly after she breaks forth into rapture: “I thank God that
I am free.” [This looks, however, a little like thanking God that
she is not as other men, i.e. the poor Calvinists, are, viz. slaves].
But again: “I breathe the air of religious liberty, and it revives
my soul. I raise my unshackled hands in gratitude to Heaven,
and sing aloud for joy.” So And yet it is generally believed,
that she had been wont to sing somewhat in former days, and
even aloud, during the period when the giant Calvinism held
her inamured in his iron castle. But then, the present song, as
we must understand the matter, is still louder. And why not?
“My eyes,” exclaims she, “are now opened to behold the truth,
beauty, and symmetry of another faith.” It may be so, I will
not deny; but then, all is not gold which glistens to our view;
and I have sometimes heard of ‘optics even so sharp, as to see
what is not to be seen.’ -
How is it now, that this same tender-hearted lady, who recoils
from the ‘ venomous serpent,’ and pronounces all to be slaves,
who sympathize in sentiment with Calvin, zealously rebukes
Calvin for merely saying that he detests the sentiments of those,
who maintain that our free-will is such, in our natural condition,
that we may prepare ourselves to receive the grace of God? p.
J18. Pres. Edwards comes in, too, for a full share of her denun-
ciations. *.
But enough of this. It is all quite tolerable, compared with
this lady's assertion in other places, that Unitarianism is unjustly
charged with denying the atonement, regeneration, and the Holy
Spirit, p. 270. On p. 71 seq., she has a long extract from Dr.
Dewey (of N. York), in which he asserts, that Unitarians believe
“in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in the atonement, as a
sacrifice, a propitiation ; in human depravity; in regeneration; in
the doctrine of election ; and in a future state of rewards and
18
206 POSTSCRIPT. ELETT. V.
punishments.” On the part of such a man as Dr. Dewey, I can
call this nothing, but gross deception. He knows well, although
this lady-champion does not, that there is not a single one of
these doctrines, according to the usual sense attached to them
by all theologians of any name, which Unitarians admit, and .
which indeed they do not violently oppose. The artifice of Dr.
Dewey consists in employing an entire new set of definitions.
He believes in such a name, provided that name is defined agree-
ably to his notion of things. It is exactly a case of the same
nature as would have been presented by a Philistine votary of
the god of Ekron, who went up to Jerusalem, and offered him-
self as a worshipper in the temple of Jehovah. The Jews re-
pelled him, because he was an idolater. He claimed fellowship,
however, as standing on the same ground with them. They
believed in one God ; so did he. There was no other difference
between them, than that of the definition of words; and who
could be so senseless as to engage in the idle task of logomachy 2
Were the Jews now to be taken in with such hypocritical and
delusive pretences as these ? ‘No’—they would have said,
“you believe indeed in one god ; but he is the god of Ekron,
and a mere block of wood. The God in whom we believe is a .
Spirit, and the Maker of heaven and earth.” Just such a differ-
ence there is between Dr. Dewey's orthodoxly named doctrines,
and the real matter of his belief compared with that of the Or-
thodox. His are a body without a soul—the cold and lifeless
statüe at Ekron, compared with the living and eternal Creator.
The worst of the case is, that he knows this to be so, and yet
holds out these lures before the public. And the Orthodox,
forsooth, are bigots and logomachists, because they will not allow
him the latitude of defining as he pleases, until he defines away
every distinctive attribute which marks the doctrines in question.
It is an unworthy—a degrading artifice, to practise, thus upon
the credulity or the ignorance of his uninstructed hearers or
readers. It merits, (what it will be certain sooner or later to
receive), the scorn of every upright and honest mind.
With the lady I would deal more gently. She is plainly an
offender from want of adequate knowledge. Less confidence
would indeed become her in such a condition ; but she does not .
appear to be embarrassed by any troubles arising from diffi-
dence. ge
Mrs. Dana, who has laid before the world so circumstantial
and protracted an account of her trials and sufferings from big-
ots and bigotry, does not quit the stage without letting us know
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 207.
the issue of all this discipline. “Thanks be unto God,” says she,
“I am enjoying a new life. While my friends are mourning
over me, I am rejoicing with a calm and holy joy, which has
spread itself to the inmost recesses of my soul.” And a little
further on she assures us, that “her heaven has already begun, in
the way of anticipation.’
Now all this is quite sentimental. The book begins, continues,
and ends, in a strain of entire consistency, so far as this matter
is concerned.
But I am exceeding the bounds allotted me; and long since
have doubtless lost all credit with this writer and her friends,
for courtesy and kind feeling toward a new and young adven-
turer on the field of theology. I shall not improbably be ranked
among denouncing bigots; rior is it at all unlikely, that I shall
be accused as wanting even in the humane toward the gentler
part of the creation, both by Mrs. D. and her new friends. I
am very sorry to lie under such an imputation; but I really do
not know how to help it. If the young adventurer had no such
feeling of modesty and diffidence as would make her refrain
from so bold an attack on all Trinitarians, I cannot feel myself
altogether guilty of a belise, because I defend a sacred enclosure
against what I look upon in the light of a profanation. Comity
itself must needs have some bounds. Truth must not be sacri-
ficed to mere urbanity. I say this calmly and deliberately, in
view of all the outcry that can be made among sentimentalists
and exquisites. There are more serious duties to be done by a
Christian minister, than to listen to any voice of persuasion that
doctrines respecting the Godhead may be compromised by any
of the usages of etiquette. I have no other apology, therefore,
to make to Mrs. D. or to her new friends, than that I think
the truths assailed to be too sacred to be passed by in silence.
To her and her advisers in the matter of this publication, if
they will tolerate it in this land of freedom, I would even ven-
ture to suggest for their consideration, the sentiment of one of
the shrewdest observers of human nature which the heathem
world ever produced—JWe sutor witra crepidam. If this advice
should be spurned, I would with all diffidence recommend a
careful examination of 1 Tim. 2: 12.
I have done with Mrs. D. and her book. But the subjects
presented, and the attitude in which some of them are placed,
as well as the reasoning grounded upon this, seem to call for
a few remarks. I engage that they shall be brief.
Dr. Channing maintains, with much earnestness, the separate
208 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
personality and inferiority of the Son of God. But if he has any-
where declared himself explicitly, in respect to the actual rank
which Christ holds and the constitution of his person, I have
not yet met with the passage. Whether he was Arian or So-
cinian, in his speculative views, I must confess myself unable
satisfactorily to determine. Many things which he says of Christ
look much like high Arianism, and he seems to lean to the
views of Dr. Samuel Clarke. But whether he actually regarded
Christ as created before the world was made, specially whether
he did this in the latter part of his life, is not known to me. On
the other hand, Socinus and his contemporaries and fellow la-
bourers often speak in exalted terms of the Saviour, and hesi-
tate not to declare that worship is due to him; but still only a
secondary worship, Sueh as we may pay to a most exalted char-
acter after an apotheosis. If Mrs. D., in sketching her own
views, has also given a faithful portrait of the opinions of her
confidential advisers, then are they more explicit than Dr. Chan-
ning. No names are too high for Christ. He is Lord of all and
God over all, and the object of worship and praise; yet all in
subordination to one, who, with the same names, is the only and
absolute Supreme, and is alone entitled to our highest spiritual
homage and worship. She does not even once appear to feel
the immeasurable distance there is, between these high Arian
notions and the simple Humanitarianism of Priestley, and of a
large portion of the Unitarians in England and this country.
That Christ was a mere man, when once assumed, leads natu-
rally enough to the inquiry: Whether he was the Son of Mary
by a miraculous birth, or the Son of Joseph and Mary according
to the ordinary course of things. Those who distrust and im-
pugn all miraculous events, of course deny his miraculous birth,
and attribute his paternity to Joseph. Of this party, if I rightly
understand the matter, there are not a few, among Unitarians of
the present day.
To Dr. Channing's admirers and friends in respect to reli-
gious sentiment, as well as to all gradations of Humanitarians, I
ask liberty here to put a few questions.
The doctrine of the Trinity is rejected and spurned at mainly
for two reasons. ‘First, three cannot be one, nor one three, be-
cause it is impossible in the nature of things, inasmuch as the
proposition presents us with a downright contradiction. Se-
condly, admitting the possibility of a threefold distinction in the
Godhead, the whole matter respecting Christ is covered with
impenetrable darkness and wrapped in mystery. The Bible ex-
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 209
hibits Christ as a man, really and truly a man; and to say, that
God and man are united in one person, is affirming a thing both
mysterious and impossible. The unity of God, moreover, is
virtually denied by such a supposition. .
Many aspects of these allegations have already been examined.
I touch here only on what needs, perhaps, a fuller development.
I have often thought it very strange, that Unitarians of the
Järian cast, who complain everywhere of Trinitarians for intro-
ducing so much of the mysterious and wnintelligible into their
creed, never seem once to entertain the suspicion that they are
fully exposed to the same charge, even in a still higher degree.
If there is any one thing that lies on the very face of all the N.
Testament, Gospels and Epistles and Apocalypse, it is that
Christ was really and truly man. If the reader has a moment's
doubt, I must refer him to pp. 54, 153 above. Indeed this is
what all Unitarians of the present day are in the constant habit
of affirming, particularly when they wish to expose, what they
name the absurdity of Trinitarians, in maintaining that he is
truly God. * -
Let us take them now at their own word. Christ was a man.
But what is a man? A human body and a human soul consti-
tute the being to whom we give this appellation. Let Dr. C.,
then, and all his friends and followers, choose between the horns
of the dilemma, on which their assertions place them. ‘Christ
existed before the world was;’ for so of course the Arians must
speak. ‘He created the world; he is the object of worship and
homage, next to the Father.’ Very well. But then, when “the
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us,” how did he unite
with the person of Jesus, so as constitute a being truly man?
The old Arian theory was, that he became the soul of the man
Jesus. For argument's sake I will concede this, at present.
But then I must be allowed of course to make some inquiries
here. If the Logos became the soul of Jesus, then in what re-
spect was Jesus really and truly a man? A man is made up of
a material body and a reasonable human soul. I have always
been accustomed to suppose, moreover, that the soul is, in a
high and altogether prečminent sense, the very essence of man
or human nature. The body is only the costume; the soul is
the person. To talk then of Christ's being a man, and on this
ground to deny that he can have a divine nature, and yet to re-
present him as having no human soul, but only as being inhabi-
ted by the Logos—is this steering clear of myslery and even ab-
surdity?
18%
{210 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. v.
Such is one horn of the dilemma. The other is equally promi-
nent and sharp. A composite person, God and man, is said by
Unitarians to be an absurdity. But if so, how is this at all re-
moved by uniting in the person of Jesus the Logos-nature and
the fleshly nature? I say fleshly, for I cannot of course speak of
human nature, when a human soul is denied to Jesus. Here
then Arianism itself brings forward and commends to our faith,
a Saviour who is neither human nor divine, neither of the an-
gelic order nor of that of the sons of men. What else is this,
but to bid us believe in two natures and one person? Yea, we are
called on to admit, that there are two created natures united in
one and the same person. This is the other horn of the di-
lemma.
For my own part, I can much easier believe it to be possible
and probable, that the Godhead should, in some mysterious way,
unite man who is formed in its own image with itself, than be-
lieve that two distinct created beings should form one person.
For there, the mind finds some relief from the consideration, that
“all things are possible with God.”
And how is Arianism to rid itself of this dilemma P In no
way whatever, unless it can invent a method of entirely explain-
ing away, either the human nature, or the higher nature of the
Logos. - 4.
What does it signify, now, for combatants to rush into this
contest about the person of Christ, without once stopping to ask,
into what difficulties their own sentiments lead them? Truly,
among all the theories about the person of Christ, which have
troubled the church, I think none is more forbidding, more mys-
terious, more entirely destitute of any tolerable support from
reason or Scripture, than Arianism.
The Humanitarians get rid of the difficulties of two natures in
one person. But other difficulties occur. What becomes of the
evangelical narrations, which aver that Jesus was born of a vir-
gin 2 If admitted, then there is at least something of mystery
about the matter. An extraordinary man of course he must be.
If his miraculous birth is denied, then of course the Gospels are
put on the same shelf with Robinson Crusoe and the Tales of my
Landlord. Mr. Parker’s positions, in the book Of Religion, are
of course virtually adopted. But is there no difficulty and no
myslery here 2 This same Christ is said to have been “in the
beginning with God;" it is said of him, that he “was God;”
that “he made all things;” that “the worlds were created by
him;” that he “existed before Abraham;” that he “came out
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 211
from the Father, and was about to return to the place from whence
he came :" that he “had glory with the Father before the world
was ;”—and yet he is declared by Humanitarians to be merely
and only a man. Is there no difficulty and no mystery here?
Nay, I may urge this matter still further. Is there any alterna-
tive for a truly frank and honest mind here, but that of rejecting
the authority of the New Testament, or of giving up the doctrine
of simple humanity ? All attempts to do away.the plain, direct,
and simple assertions of these and the like passages, are, and
must forever be, unavailing with a straightforward and thoroughly
upright mind. The only consistent course in respect to the mat-
ter is, to deny the authority of the New Testament writings.
The often asserted impossibility of a union of two natures in one
person, may gather credit, but riot strength, by its repetition. It
does not strike my mind as an impossibility. Are we not our-
selves examples of two natures in one person 2 Even of two natures
the opposite of each other—matter and spirit. But does this
hinder our being one person 2 Yea, I might (with Paul and the
ancients) appeal to the well known trichotomy, or division into
three natures, “body, soul, and spirit.” That is, we are made
up of a material body, of animal and sensitive life, and of an im-
mortal spirit. Here then are three in one. Why now do not the
wonder-haters stand aghast at this, and deny the possibility of it?
Because they are aware that the common sense and feelings of
men could not be made to side with them in so doing. But
when we assert our belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as
united in one God, they accuse us of mysticism, of credulity, and
even of downright absurdity. In vain do we declare, that we do
not take the word person in its common sense as applied to men;
in vain do we assert our belief in the writy of God, even the mu-
tnerical unity and sameness of substance ; in vain do we say, that
we make no pretences of being able to define or describe the
exact nature of the distinctions in the Godhead; in vain do we
declare, that whatever those distinctions are, they do not and
cannot interfere with unity. We are still met with the old ob-
jection endlessly repeated: “Three are not one, and one is not
three.” Self-evident, we readily conſess this proposition to be,
when understood as having relation to the same thing in the
same respect. But do we ever assert that three persons are one per-
son ? Never. We merely affirm that the Godhead, which is one
Godhead, consists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Is this a
contradiction or absurdity ? It has not yet been shown to be
Such. I think it cannot be. When our opponents shall prove it
212 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
to be an absurdity, that three natures should constitute one hu-
man person, we will review our positions.
Let me not be understood to say, or hint, that the distinctions
in the Godhead are on a par with these, as to the manner of them.
This cannot be so, from the very nature of an uncreated Being.
But the possibility of a union in one Godhead, of distinctions
which in some respects may be separately considered, is not a
thing than can be disproved. Reason knows nothing of this
matter, indeed. Philosophy like that of Schelling and Hegel
has failed to demonstrate such a union. . It rests on the credit
of revelation. He who denies this, may deny that. But to show
that the Scriptures have made no such revelation, when inter-
preted in a fair and impartial manner, I must believe to be ut-
terly impossible.
Of what use is it, now, to assume positions in respect to the
doctrine of the Trinity, which no enlightened Trinitarian holds,
and then to reject this doctrine because of the absurdity of those
positions P. Yet I cannot take up a Unitarian book on this sub-
ject, where this is not virtually done.
One word more, on the perpetually decantated unity of the
Godhead. All Unitarians profess an unusual attachment to this
article of their Creed, and they seem to consider the whole mat-
ter as So plain and simple, that it scarcely needs the slightest ef-
fort to comprehend it. But is this really so P. The matter is
sufficiently important to seek for an explicit and intelligible an-
Swer to this question. -
When they say, then, that God is one, do they mean to assert
that his essence, or the constituent elements of his being, is of one
simple homogeneous substance P In other words, do they mean
that his ontological essence consists of only one element? I
take it for granted that no intelligent man among them will con-
tend for this; first, because we know nothing at all what that is
which constitutes such essence ; and secondly, because, even if
we possessed some knowledge of this nature, no one could de-
termine such a question as that before us, without having made
an analysis of the element or elements in question. It is almost
presumption even to speak of such a thing.
Then, moreover, all the objects with which we are acquainted,
present unities, without these objects being made up of simple
homogeneous elements. A tree is one, a plant is one, a moun-
tain is one, a country is one, a man is one, and so of the rest,
without any simplicity and homogeneousness of constituent
parts. The whily, in all these cases, consists in something en-
LETT. v.] POSTSCRIPT. 213
tirely distinct from the constituent ontological elements; for
these are mixed and diverse. The onemess of the Godhead does
not, cannot (as viewed by us) consist of mere simplicity and
identity of constituent essential elements; for in predicating
wnity we do not fix our minds at all on considerations of this
Inature.
In what then does this unity positively and absolutely consist?
A positive definition of it, i. e. an affirmative definition, I be-
lieve no Unitarian can well give, however familiar he may be
with the use of this terminology. We may say negatively, that
there is but one God, or there is one God and no more, and the
like ; yet all of this makes no approach to an affirmative defini-
tion. Unity, moreover, cannot consist in sameness or uovovolo,
(I can find no adequate English word) of attribute; for the God-
head has many attributes. It cannot consist in oneness of ac-
tion ; for there is a great variety of this, e. g. creating, sustain-
ing, governing, rewarding, punishing, etc.
If now we push this inquiry to its utmost bounds, we shall be
obliged, at last, to fall back upon our own consciousness of one-
mess or identity of soul, in all the various stages of our existence.
Our consciousness of identity is our highest evidence of oneness
in our souls, or in our persons, (persons in the metaphysical
sense). What we are conscious of in ourselves, as constituting
our essential I or Egoismus, we apply to the Godhead, when we
assert its unity. We mean that there is the same identical
Spirit or Mind, which thinks and acts at all times and in all
places. Whatever may be the essential or ontological constitu-
ents or elements of this Spirit or Mind, they have been, are, and
will continue to be, identically the same, and of course the same
Mind or Agent will continue to exist. In such a sense we af.
firm that God is one. We tacitly refer, in such an assertion, to
our own consciousness of oneness and identity in our spirits.
Now what is there in all this, which renders it impossible or
absurd, that there should be distinctions in the Godhead 2 We
say that it is “the same in substance;” that there are not two
or more wills, two or more consciousnesses, etc.; not two or
more distinct sets (so to speak) of essential attributes; and the
like. But how does all this prove, that in the Godhead there
are no distinctions, which, by the manner of their development,
have given rise to the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I,
Thou, He ; and the like P Imperfection of language obliges us
to express these distinctions in such a way. Who can venture
to assert, that there are not modifications of the divine Being
214 POSTSCRIPT. [LETT. V.
which give rise to all this, and which do not at all interfere with
its essential Unity? It would be even metaphysically and phi-
losophically presumptuous, to say that there are not, and cannot
be, such distinctions or modifications. I readily grant that we
cannot prove them by the aid of mere natural theology. But I
am equally certain, that we cannot disprove them. The whole
matter must be referred to revelation. And if such a fact or
doctrine is revealed, no man can show that it is stamped with
any absurdity or contradiction of the divine Unity. Of course
he cannot show, that we are bound to reject such a doctrine on
this ground.
Why then should a triumphant air be so often assumed by
Unitarian writers, as if they were the only men in the world suf-
ficiently rational to vindicate the divine Unity ? Why should
they so often claim to be the only advocates of a consistent and
rational view of the nature of the Godhead 2 I'deny the justice
of such claims: I deny the right to charge us with believing in
three Gods, or with maintaining what is in itself absurd or im-
possible. It is easy, I well know, to talk largely and loudly of
the divine unity. But it is not so easy to define what one really
means by it. It is still harder to show, that unity is at all in-
compatible with the distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
when these are understood in the scriptural sense.
I scarcely need to suggest, that probably neither Mrs. D., nor
thousands of others who have the words one God so constantly
in their mouths, ever bestowed one serious hour of reflection on
the inquiry: What idea does this language exactly convey P
And when we get to the me plus wllra of our inquiries, we find
nothing that can show us in any degree, that the doctrine of the
Trinity involves either an impossibility or an absurdity.
We say respecting ourselves, that the understanding perceives
and comprehends, that the will decides, that reason ponders and
compares and deduces, and the like. That is, we often assign
distinct and diverse attributes to the soul or mind, and speak of
them as distinct agents, doing different things and active in a
variety of ways. But in the language of sound and well ar-
ranged philosophy we also say: The soul comprehends, decides,
ponders, compares, concludes, and the like. Will any one ven-
ture to call the propriety of either of these methods of expression in
question ? I trust not. If this be allowed, on all hands, is there not
something to be learned from it, in respect to the subject before
us? Why may we not say, that the Father does this, the Son does
that, and the Holy Spirit does another and different thing, and
LETT. V.] POSTSCRIPT. 215
yet say, with perfect truth, and correctness that God does each
of these things? Some of the ancients held man to be a micro-
cosm, that is a compressed similitude or resemblance of the
whole world. Without appealing to this, we have better au-
thority for saying, that “Man was made in the image of God.”
Our mind or spirit performs acts so diverse, and is constitution-
ally and essentially so fitted to perform such acts, that we name
its several faculties as agents in and by themselves, when we
speak of those acts which are appropriate to each ; and yet we
do not once think of doing any violence by all this to the doc-
trine of our own unity. Why now can it not be true of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, that there is a foundation in the essential
nature of the Godhead, for the diversity of acts attributed to
each of them, while one and the same God is “in all, and over
all, and through all ” I do not say—I must not be understood
as meaning to aver, that any comparison drawn from created
beings is fully adequate to explain the nature of an uncreated
and eternal Being. The thing is impossible. But I may say,
that since man is made in the image of God, we may help to
remove difficulties that lie in our way in regard to our conceptions
of the Trinity, by inviting attention to a like mystery in respect to
ourselves. I may call, moreover, on all sober and reasoning Uni-
tarians to consider, whether there is anything more absurd or
contradictory, in saying that the Father does this, and the Son
that, and the Spirit another thing, and also in saying that God
does each of these things, than there is in saying, that the un-
derstanding does this, and the will that, and reason another
thing, and yet that the soul does each and all of these. Is there
a sound thinker in the land, who will venture to say, that this
language in respect to the soul is not every day employed, and
employed without any apprehension of creating difficulties in
respect to the unity of the soul ? Why should the like use of
language, then, in regard to the Godhead, be viewed in such a
light as to name it absurd and irrational P Truly the assertion
of Unitarians, that Trinity is incompatible with Unity, and that
distinctions in the Godhead are based upon impossibility and
absurdity, are far—in my judgment very far—from having any
solid foundation. -
TWO DISCOURSES
.ON
T H E AT ONE MENT,
19
[TIIE two following Sermons on the Atonement were delivered in the
Chapel of the Theol. Scminary in Andover, in the year 1824, when there
seemed to be a special call for a discussion of the subject of which they
treat. They were printed soon after delivery, by request of the Students
and others; and they have, since that period, becn several times reprint-
ed, partly in large editions. For some time past there have been nome
for sale. The frequency of the inquiry for them, and the importance of
the subject, are my apology for reprinting them at present, if an apolo-
gy be necessary. My views in respect to the subject of the Sermons
have not changed since that period, excepting that they have become
more vivid and intensive. If there be a central point in the system of
Christianity, around which all the rest of the system moves, I am satis-
ficd that it is the doctrine of ATONEMENT, or (in other words) the VICA-
RIOUS SUFFERINGS AND DEATII of CIIRIST, in order that sinners may
be pardoned and redeemed. The design of the two following discourses
is to remove the leading objections to this doctrine, and to establish it
on a scriptural basis. It would be easicr; in some respects, to write a
book on such a subject, than to compress what one has to say, within the
limits of two short discourses. But then brevity has its advantages, in
Some cases; and I must leave more ſample discussion to professed The-
ologians, whose proper business it is. Of course, no intelligent person
can regard the discourses which follow, as anything more than a mere
outline of the all-important subject under consideration-M, S.]
May, 1846,
T) IS C. O U R S E I.
ISAIALI LIII. 5, 6.
HE WAS wound ED FoR our TRANSGREssions; IIE w As BRUISED Fort
OUR INIQUITIES ; TIII, CIIAs.T1s.IEMENT of our PLACE Yv As Upon
HIM ; AND BY IIIs STRIPES ARE wr. IIEALED. ALL wr, LIKE SITE EP
HAVE GONE ASTRAY ; wr, IIAve. TURNED EveRY on E To IIIs own
WAY ; AND THE LoRD HATII LAID on IIIM THE INIQUITY of Us ALL.
THE sentiment of this passage may perhaps be made more
perspicuous, by a translation of it somewhat nearer to the
spirit of the original.
“He was wounded on account of our transgressions; he
was smitten on account of our iniquities; the chastisement
by which our peace is procured was laid on him ; and by his
wounds are we healed. All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have wandered each one in the path that he chose ; and
Jehovah hath laid on him the punishment due to us all.”
This passage, no less than the august personage to whom
it relates, has been to the Jews of ancient and modern times
a stumbling block, and to many of the Gentiles foolishness.
Very soon after Christians, when disputing with the Jews
about Christ crucified, began to make their appeal to it, as
proof that a suffering and atoning Saviour, Jesus of Naza-
reth, was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews set
themselves to find out some other person, or some class of
men, concerning whom the prophet might be regarded as
here speaking. Some of them have maintained, that the
prophet had reference to their nation at large; some that he
had respect to Uzziah, Hezekiah, or Josiah; while others
suppose, that Isaiah, Jeremiah, or some one of the prophets,
was the subject of his description. Nor have commentators
220 TETE ATONEMENT. [DISC. I.
and critics among Christians been wanting, who have advo-
cated the opinions thus proposed by the Jews. Of late, the
prevailing sentiment among the so-called neological class of
critics is, that the prophetic order of men among the He-
brews, rather than any particular individual of it, is referred
to by Isaiah. As the prophets, in ancient times, were often
subjected to sufferings and death, by the persecuting spirit
which reigned among their contemporaries; so they are Sup-
posed to be represented, in our text and context, as bearing
the sins of the nation, and making atonement for them.
It is not my present design to enter into a particular ex-
amination of these discrepant and very unsatisfactory inter-
pretations. To the Jew I would say: In what other part of
the Old Testament are the sufferings of any mere king or
prophet ever represented as expiatory? The Mosaic law has
prescribed expiatory sacrifices; and has prescribed all that
were to be offered under the ancient dispensation. What
part of this law speaks of expiation by the sufferings and
death of any mere king or prophet? Or if the Jewish na-
tion at large be the subject of the prophet's description,
where is this nation, when persecuted and suffering, repre-
sented as an expiatory sacrifice? And for whom did they
make expiation ? On the contrary, are they not always rep-
resented as bearing the punishment due to their own trans-
gressions, and not as bearing that due to others? ,
To the commentator bearing the name of Christian, and
disposed to follow these wanderings of unbelief and offence
at the cross of Christ in which the Jews have so long indul-
ged, I have only one brief remark to make; which is, that
evangelists and apostles have told us, who is the subject of
the prophet's description in our text and context. When the
treasurer of the Ethiopian queen had been up to worship at
Jerusalem, and was returning home, by an express direction
from the Spirit of God Philip the evangelist met him. As
Philip drew near, he heard the Ethiopian reading a portion
of our chapter: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
and like a lamb before his shearers, so he opened not his
DISC. I.] | THE ATONEMENT. 221
mouth. In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away;
and who shall declare his generation ? for his life is taken
from the earth. And the eunuch said to Philip : Of whom
speaketh the prophet this 2 Of himself, or of some other
man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the
same Scripture, and preached unto him JESUS.” Acts 8:
26—35. ' ,
Peter has also applied a part of our chapter to the same dis-
tinguished Sufferer. “Christ suffered for us . . . his own self
bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . . by whose stripes
we are healed; for ye were as sheep going astray.” 1 Pet.
2: 21–25. The two last phrases are quotations from our
text itself, and are certainly applied by the apostle directly
to the Saviour. - - -
I add only, that Jesus himself cites a part of the chapter
from which our text is taken, as containing a description of
his own sufferings: “I say unto you, that what is written
must be accomplished in me : And he was reckoned among
the transgressors.” Luke 22:37, comp. Is. 53:12.
I feel no concern further to vindicate the application of the
text to the person of the Messiah. The matter resolves it-
self into the simple question, whether the interpretation of
evangelists and apostles is to be admitted, and believed to be
correct; or whether our own conjecture or philosophical ra-
tiocination is to be the ultimate authority, to which we must
make our appeal. - -
From the language of our text, as applied to Christ, I de-
duce the proposition, that HE SUFFERED As OUR SUBSTITUTE ;
or, that HIS SUFFERINGS AND DEATEI WERE AN EXPIATORY
OFFERING, ON ACCOUNT OF WHICEI OUR SINS ARE PARD ON-
ED, AND WE ARE RESTORED TO THE DIVINE FAVOUR.
My present object is to discuss the doctrine of the atone-
ment made by Christ, which this proposition brings to our
view ; and in doing this, I design,
I. To make some explanations necessary to a right under-
standing of the subject. e
II. To prove the doctrine.
#19
222 TTEIE ATON EMENT. [DISC. I.
III. To answer some objections alleged against it.
According to the method proposed, I am, first, to make
Some explanations necessary to a right understanding of our
Subject. -
In order to avoid all misapprehension of the design which
I have in view, let me observe at the commencement of this
discourse, that it is not my object to treat of the obedience of
Christ, considered as having an influence upon our redemp-
tion, or in procuring salvation for us. I speak of obedience
here, in the sense which many of the older divines mean to
express, when they employ the phrase active obedience of
Christ, in order to distinguish his positive fulfilment of the
divine law from what they name his passive obedience, by
which they mean his humiliation and sufferings. To pursue
the inquiry, in what sense, or to what degree, the active obe-
dience of Christ contributes to our redemption, would carry
me too far from the specific object which I now have in view.
I shall therefore dismiss this topic with simply remarking,
that while the sufferings and death of Christ are everywhere
represented as the special procuring cause of our redemp-
tion, yet his obedience is also represented as a concurring
cause or ground of our salvation. The Saviour’s entire obe-
dience or sinless perfection was essential to his character as
a Substitute for sinners; for if he himself had sinned, instead
of presenting an acceptable sacrifice for others, himself would
have needed an expiatory offering. That all which he did
and said, during his incarnate condition, had some bearing
on the great work which he came to accomplish, and did in
Some way contribute to it, cannot reasonably be doubted.
But his expiatory sacrifice appears to be the great point, on
which rests in a peculiar manner the hope of our restoration
to the divine favour.
To proceed with the explanation proposed under the pre-
sent head; when I say Christ in his sufferings was our sub-
STITUTE, or, by them he made an ExPIATORY OFFERING for
ws, I mean that GOD DID APPoſNT AND ACCEPT THE SUF-
FERINGS OF CHRIST, INSTEAD OF INFLICTING THE PUN-
DISG. I.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 223
ISHMENT DUE TO US AS SINNERS AGAINST HIS LAW ; and
that in consequence of this appointment and of these suffer-
Žngs, he does forgive our sins and receive us to his favour.
A substitute is something put in lieu of another thing, and
accepted instead of it. An offering is something presented
to God... An offering which is acceptable to him, is one
made by his appointment. An expiatory offering, under the
Jewish law, was a slain beast, presented to God by his ap-
pointment, and by a person who had been guilty of some
offence and incurred some penalty; in consequence of which
presentation, the penalty for his offence, threatened by the
law of Moses, was remitted, or the offender was pardoned.
To say then that Christ made an expiatory offering for us,
according to my apprehension of the meaning of scriptural
language, implies that his sufferings and death were, by de-
vine appointment, accepted instead of the punishment due to
ws as sinners, and that God, in consequence of the offering
nade by Christ, pardons our offences and restores ws to his
favour. This also is just what I mean, when I say that
Christ in his sufferings and death was our SUBSTITUTE.
I do not feel at all disposed to find any fault with other
language, which Christians may choose to employ, in order
to designate the idea that I have now expressed, provided
they define the sense in which they employ it, and do not
leave it open to misconstruction. So doing they may say:
“Christ made satisfaction for our sins;” or, “his death was
a full equivalent for the demands of the law;” or, “our pun-
ishment—our guilt—was transferred to him;” for certainly
our text employs phraseology equally strong, and of the
same natuſé with this. I may also say: “Christ made
atonement—Christ atoned—for our sins; his sufferings were
vicarious—were in lieu of ours; he bore the punishment due
to us.” I may use other and different expressions of the
same nature, to designate my ideas relative to the subject
before us; but whatever phraseology of this kind I might
employ, or whatever I may employ in this discourse, my
meaning would and will be one and the same, viz. Christ
224 THE ATONEMENT. [DISC. I.
was our EXPIATORY OFFERING, our SUBSTITUTE, in the
sense already explained. . .
So far as I am able to understand the language which
Christians in general, who receive the doctrine of the atone-
ment, have employed in respect to this subject, it is designed
to convey the idea that I have just conveyed. I am aware
that one may occasionally meet with expressions in some
writers, relative to the sufferings of Christ, that seem to im-
ply something more than what I have expressed, or some-
thing different from it. But most divines, who have clearly
explained themselves, appear to me substantially to agree
with the view which I have given of substitution or expiato-
ry offering. If this be the fact, is it not idle to waste time
and pains, in contending about certain modes of eacpression,
which some may choose to employ, but which others think it
better to avoid because they are liable to misconstruction,
when, after all, there is a substantial agreement in regard to
the idea to be designated Ž In reality, can such contention
amount to anything more than a strife about words? A
strife unworthy of sober and earnest inquirers after truth;
and one which never can serve any purpose, but to alienate
from each other and divide those, who love the Saviour, and
trust for acceptance with God solely in his atoning blood.
To pursue still farther the explanation of the leading terms
employed to designate the doctrine which I am to establish;
a substitute may be, and where it is voluntarily accepted on
the part of him to whom any debt or reparation is due, must
be, an equivalent of some kind or other, a satisfaction in some
sense, for such debt or penalty due. But it may be equiva-
lent or satisfactory, without being the same eitheſºin kind or
quantity as that in the place of which it comes. For plainly
an equivalent is of two sorts. The first has respect to kind
and quantity, and requires equality or Sameness in regard to
both. The second is where the substitute answers the same
end, as that would have done in the place of which it is put,
or a higher end of the same nature. The first species of
substitution or equivalency belongs to various transactions of
DISC. I.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 225
business among men; such as borrowing and lending, ex-
change of various species of property, and other things of the
like nature. Equivalency of the second kind has respect to
transactions of a civil or penal mature, and to the intercourse
of rational beings with each other, as subjects of social or
other laws. For example, banishment is often substituted
by civil governments instead of inflicting the penalty of death;
fines, instead of imprisonment or other corporeal punishment.
So among men in their daily intercourse, confession of a
fault, joined with a request of forgiveness, is accepted as a
Satisfaction for an injury done, or an insult offered; and is
regarded as an equivalent for it. In all cases of this nature,
which are exceedingly numerous and diversified, both in re-
gard to the intercourse of men with each other, and in re-
spect to civil rulers and their subjects, the equivalent or sat-
isfaction is not usually the same in kind or quantity as that
for which it is substituted. Indeed, in all transactions which
have respect to a penalty for any injury done, or any viola-
tion of law, where substitution is admitted with regard to the
offender, the first kind of equivalency, or that which consists
in the same quality and quantity, is out of the question. .
The letter of a penal law demands that the offender himself,
and no other, should suffer. But the object of the penalty—
the ultimate and highest object of attaching it to a law—may
be attained, perhaps, in some other way, and by substitution;
even in a more effectual manner, in Some cases, than by a
literal infliction of the punishment threatened. On the sup-
position that it can be so attained, then if a substitute be ad-
mitted instead of literally inflicting the penalty, satisfaction
may be truly said to be made, or an equivalent rendered, ac-
cording to the common usage and understanding of all men,
in respect to subjects of this nature. Indeed the term equiva-
lent has come, in general usage, most commonly to imply, that
the substitute not only may, but actually does, differ in Some
respects from that for which it is substituted.
If Christ died then as a substitute for sinners, it is not at
all necessary to suppose, that his sufferings were the same
226 TEIB. ATONEMENT. [DISC. I.
either in quality or quantity, as would have been endured by
those in whose room he suffered, in case the penalty of the
law had been executed upon them. In fact such a supposi-
tion is replete with difficulties of a kind not easily to be re-
moved. The worm that never dies—the cup of wrath with-
out mixture which is drunk by sinners in the world of wo—
are there not strong reasons for believing that this is the sting
of a guilty conscience—self-condemnation and reproach for
having violated the just and holy laws of God? This sting
the holy and spotless Saviour never felt ; this was an agony
to which his bosom of perfect purity must have been a stran-
ger. However high then his sufferings mounted, they could
not have been the same in kind, as those of the wicked in the
world of misery.
Nor can we well conceive how they could have been the
same in quantity, as they deserved whom he redeems. He
suffered but a few hours; or, if you include his whole period
of humiliation, but a few years. In his divine nature, con-
sidered as the immutable God, we cannot conceive of his hav-
ing suffered; and indeed the Scriptures always represent
him as having assumed the human nature, in order that he
might suffer. Phil. 2: 6–8. Heb. 2:9. Great as his suffer-
ings were, yet they were not like those of the damned, suf-
ferings of absolute and hopeless despair. He could look be-
yond them, when hanging on the cross. He did. He could
see the glory and prosperity of his kingdom as the certain
result of them. He had a resurrection from the tomb in full
view ; he anticipated his ascension to the throne of majesty
on high, in order to become “head over all things to the
Church,” and the object of heavenly worship—in order to
participate in “the glory which he had with the Father be-
fore the world was.” However great then his sufferings
were, we can hardly conceive of their having been equal in
quantity (so to speak) to those which were due to sinners,
for whom he suffered. -
When I say then that Christ in his sufferings was our
substitute, I do not mean that those sufferings were an equiv-
DISC. I.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 227
alent of the first kind, as above described, for the penalty remit-
ted; or, in other words, that he did actually suffer torments
the same in kind and quantity as were due to sinners. But
still, it seems to me to be impossible for us to ascertain how
great his sufferings really were. The peculiar constitution
and the unspeakable dignity of the Saviour's person ; the
spotless innocence of his character; the agony in the garden
which forced his whole frame to sweat as it were great drops
of blood; his complaint on the cross that his God had for-
saken him; the fact that he expired sooner than those who
suffered with him; the commotion of the natural world at
the woes which he endured ; the heavens shrouded with dark-
mess; the luminary of the skies extinguished; the vail of the
most holy place rent, by which Jehovah's awful presence
had been hitherto concealed; the rocks and tombs bursting
asunder, and the mouldering dust of the Saints becoming re-
animated with life—all, all concur to show that the scene of
suffering was such as the world had never witnessed; and
that probable it is not in the power of language to express,
nor of our minds to conceive, the extent of the agony which
Jesus endured.
That he endured all this as our substitute, or on our ac-
count, is what I expect hereafter to prove. At present I
would merely ask: Since he did not suffer on account of
any guilt of his own, on what ground can they reconcile
his sufferings with the justice of God, who hold that he was
not a substitute for sinners?
Let me dwell a moment longer on the subject of the
Saviour's agony, and observe, that unless the sufferings of
Christ be regarded as exceedingly great, and in many re-
spects of a nature altogether peculiar, his demeanor under
them is quite irreconcileable with the undaunted constancy and
patience and firmness, which he at all other times exhibited.
When did he ever before shrink from suffering P. When
was he ever before appalled by danger ? Never. Yet now,
in what an agony do we behold him in the garden, at the
prospect of crucifixion! What sinking of soul, what unutter-
228 TEIE ATONEMENT. |DISC. I.
able horror, does he exhibit on the cross | Thousands of
other sufferers have met death, in all its most dreadful forms,
with far more composure, even when unsupported by the
the consolations and hopes of religion. Thousands of mar-
tyrs, feeble, emaciated, thousands even of the more delicate
sex, have been stretched on the rack, or cast into the flames
—punishments more dreadful than simple crucifixion—while
with a dauntless, nay with a triumphant spirit, they rejoiced
in the midst of torments. But here is a sufferer, the only
one on earth who ever had a spotless character, filled too with
exalted and certain hopes of ultimate triumph and glory, first
shrinking with horror from the cup of suffering which he was
to drink, and then uttering language indicative of the highest
possible agitation and distress upon the cross.
All this, now, presents a difficulty which cannot be solved,
on the ground that his death was in any respect like that of .
a common man. If it indeed were such, must he not be re-
garded by every one who contemplates his demeanor on the
cross, as wanting in calmness and fortitude of soul, when he
was so appalled and agitated with sufferings which others
have triumphantly endured? Are we not constrained then
to regard him as suffering in a degree unparalleled, indescrib-
able, in short not capable of being adequately conceived of
by us?
What this degree was, the Scriptures have not explicitly
declared; nor indeed was such a declaration necessary.
Enough, that in his suffering the awful displeasure of God
against sin has been manifested in a most impressive manner.
Enough, if God has judged that his sufferings, as our substi-
tute, were carried to such a height as was by infinite wisdom
deemed necessary, in order to promote the best designs of
the divine government.
To pursue my explanation; although I cannot consider an
equivalent of the first kind as being rendered by the death of
Christ, yet I fully believe that one of the second kind was
rendered. The object of the penalty affixed to the divine
law is not revenge. “God takes no pleasure in the death of
DISC. I.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 229.
him that dieth.” The object of all penalty, under every wise
and benevolent government, is to put restraint upon offences,
to exhibit striking testimony or warning against them, and
thus to secure the interests of virtue and obedience.
If now virtue be in the best manner promoted, and sin re-
strained, by the death of Christ and the consequences that
necessarily flow from it, then the great object of the divine
law and its penalties is promoted in the most effectual man-
ner. Such I suppose to be the fact; but this is not the
proper place to establish it. I only state so much, therefore,
as is necessary to elucidate the meaning which I assign to
the language that I have employed. Indeed, I view the
great object of the divine law as answered by the death of
Christ in a much higher degree, than it could have been by a
mere law-administration and literal infliction of the penalty.
Must not his death be regarded as a more awful manifesta-
tion of divine displeasure against sin, than the execution of
the law on sinners themselves P I am forced to view the
subject in this light, when I contemplate the infinite dignity
of the Saviour's person, and the spotless purity of his char-
acter, and then turn my eye to Gethsemane, and to the
scenes of the cross.
I confess myself averse to indulging much in speculation
here, as to the how and the why of the equivalency in question.
My reason is, that the sacred writers do not seem to indulge
in any curious speculation on the subject. Some things, as
presented by them, appear exceedingly plain. When they
bring to our view the WORD, who was in the beginning with
God and who was GOD ; who created all things; who is
GOD OVER ALL, and blessed forever; the TRUE GOD and
eternal life; and represent him as becoming incarnate—as
taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross; and all this on our ac-
count, that we might be redeemed from deserved ruin; they
do this to excite our gratitude, our love, our humility, our
obedience; and also to urge upon us our obligation to devote
Ourselves, with all we have and are, to the service of him
20
230 TEIE ATONEMENT. [DISC. I.
*
“who loved us, and who gave himself to die for us.” They
teach us that the gospel presents motives to obedience of a
higher nature, and puts restraints upon vice that are more ef-
fectual, than a system of law could do. With this we may
well be content; for with this they appear to have been sat-
isfied. Where is there any philosophizing, any refined spec-
ulation in their writings, about the manner in which equiv-
alency or satisfaction is or can be made out 2 Can we not
acquiesce in the subject, just as they have left it? If they
present the death of Christ as a monitory and most affecting
display of the evil of sin, and of the diyine displeasure against
it, the value of which is enhanced beyond description by the
dignity of his person, and the peculiar severity of his suffer-
ings; and if this makes an appeal to the moral sensibilities
of the human race, in favour of gratitude and obedience to
God, and against sin, in a manner far more affecting and suc-
cessful, than the literal execution of the penalty of the law
on sinners; is not this sufficient P And if thus much lies on
the face of the New Testament, and every reader, learned
and unlearned, can see and feel it; this is enough. The ob-
ject of the law is in the most effectual manner answered.
For myself, I need nothing more than this to produce qui-
etude of mind, in regard to this part of our subject. More
than this, the Laplander and the Hottentot—nay most of the
human race—cannot well be expected to understand ; nor can
I see how it is really important that they should. If others
feel that clear and satisfactory views about the manner in
which equivalency is made out, are to be obtained by pursu-
ing the speculations of a refined philosophy, I will not object.
But I may suggest one caution, viz., that if we attempt to
build the doctrine of atonement on the speculations of phi-
losophy, and do not acquiesce in the matter as it is simply
presented by the writers of the New Testament—so simply
that the heathen can understand and feel it as well as we—
then we must not be surprised, if we find some other modes of
what may be deemed more refined philosophy, objecting to
the atonement, and claiming a right to prostrate the edifice
DISC. I.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 231
which we had supposed to be reared and established, by the
same power which has raised it up.
I have said enough, I trust, to explain what I mean, and
also what I do not mean, by the principal terms employed
relative to the doctrine which I am discussing. I pass on
then, - -
II. To prove the doctrine, that Christ in his sufferings was
our SUBSTITUTE, or that by them he made an EXPLATORY
OFFERING for sinners. -
Here I must ask at the threshold : Before what tribunal
must the question be brought which this subject necessarily
raises 2 ...”
I am bold to aver that philosophy is not a competent judge
to decide it. In averring this, however, I take it for granted,
that philosophy is unable to disprove the credit due to divine
revelation. On the supposition that such is the fact, and as
a believer in divine revelation, I hold myself under obligation
to prove nothing more in regard to the substitution or expia-
tory sacrifice of Christ, than that the Scriptures have re-
vealed it as a FACT. Has God declared it to be a FACT *
Do the Saviour and his apostles declare it to be so? These
are the questions, and the only ones of any particular impor-
tance, about which a sincere and implicit believer in the di-
vine testimony needs to be solicitous. It cannot surely be of
much consequence, what difficulties can be raised by specu-
lating on philosophical grounds, about the nature or manner
of substitution. The fact itself is that with which we are
concerned, as poor ruined sinners. We might indeed well say,
that when the authority of revelation is once admitted, the
questions why and how, in respect to the atonement, might be
entirely dismissed from our discussion, as being by no means
necessarily attached to it. Does philosophy find the doctrine
of atonement by the death of the Son of God mysterious 2
We readily concede that it is so ; and we know that the dis-
tinguished apostle of the Gentiles believed the mystery of god-
liness to be great ; and that the angels themselves are repre-
Sented as earnestly desirous of prying into this mystery.
232 TEIE ATONEMENT. [DISC. I.
But if philosophy wonders here, (for which we will not
blame her), yet she has no right to scoff. If atonement by
the vicarious suffering and death of Christ be a reality, it is
one which the book of God only reveals. I fully agree with
the Naturalists in saying, that the book of nature presents
nothing but a blank leaf, in respect to an atonement effected
in this manner. Not one syllable can be made out from it,
with any certainty. The necessity of some atonement or ex-
piatory offering, has indeed been felt by nearly all the human
race, however unenlightened. It has been universally ac-
knowledged, in the bloody sacrifices which they have offered
to the gods whom they worshipped. But the method of it, as
proposed in the Gospel, is quite above the discovery of unen-
lightened or even philosophical reason. The most rigid sect
of moralists among the heathen did not admit, that pardoning
mercy could with any propriety be extended to those, who
had incurred the penalty which justice demanded. Seneca
declares that a wise man does not remit the punishment which
he ought to exact. (De Clementia II. 6, 7). How then could
this philosopher, or those who were like him, discover or be-
lieve the doctrine of substitution or vicarious suffering by the
death of the Son of God? What they never imagined, or
what many when it is proposed to them regard as foolishness,
God has declared to be the means of salvation. To revelation
then we must go for any instruction, with regard to the doc-
trine of pardoning mercy through the atoning blood of Jesus.
But another view of the subject is necessarily suggested by
that which has now been taken. This is, that as philosophy
was unable to discover the doctrine of atonement by Christ,
so she is equally incompetent to make any valid objections
against it. She cannot show that it is absurd. Could this be
done, then we must admit that the doctrine of atonement by
vicarious suffering would be incapable of defence; for the
human mind, if it be well illuminated, and guided in its re-
searches by candour and a love of truth, cannot receive and
accredit that which is absurd. But who does not know that
through ignorance, prejudice, and haste, or when influenced
DISC. I.] THE ATONEMENT, 233
by erroneous philosophy, some men may pronounce things to
be absurd, which the most acute, sober, and judicious think to
be very rational 2 In regard, however, to the doctrine of sub-
stitution, the matter seems to be quite clear. Absurd this
doctrine of itself cannot be called ; for the wisest and best hu-
man governments, as has already been mentioned, often admit
the principle in respect to penalties incurred. But will any one
venture, on account of this, to accuse civil rulers of acting irra-
tionally and absurdly P Will any one even venture the asser-
tion, that this principle, prudently and Soberly applied, is not the
means of evident gain in respect to the great ends which
civil government is designed to accomplish 2 If not, then
surely it must be conceded, that infinite power, connected with
infinite wisdom and benevolence, can employ substitution in
such a way as to promote the important ends of the divine
government. Philosophy, most evidently, has it not in her
power to disprove this; and therefore has no right to deny
the possibility of it; much less to declare that the doctrine is
absurd. In short, as she cannot do this, nor disprove the
credit due to revelation, it is plain that the matter comes not
at all within her jurisdiction.
The question in respect to substitution, then, stands high
above the objections which all the efforts of philosophy can
raise; equally unaffected by her sophistry at one time, or by
her scorn and contumely at another.
It follows from what has been said, that the impossibility of
Substitution, under the divine government, cannot be estab-
lished. Nay, I advance farther, and aver that so far from
there being any impossibility in the case, it is a matter of fact
that substitution was admitted for nearly fifteen centuries,
under the Mosaic dispensation; to say nothing of the expia-
tory sacrifices of the patriarchal age. It was admitted, too,
under the Mosaic economy, as a type of the substitution or
expiatory offering of Christ. Paul has taught us, in the most
explicit manner, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, that all the
expiatory offerings and sacrifices of the Jews were typical of
the great atoning sacrifice by the death of Christ; and that they
20%
234 TEIE ATONEMENT. [DISC. I.
were originally designed by God to be so. Consequently, when
thus authorized, we may draw a comparison from the one, in
order to illustrate the other.
The expiatory offerings of the law were not a substitution,
I admit, which did of itself procure a remission of the punish-
ment due to the moral turpitude of sin; for it is impossible,
as the sacred writer has told us, that the blood of goats and
bullocks should take away sin, and tranquillize the conscience
wounded by a sense of guilt. It could not remove the appre-
hension, that divine displeasure might inflict on the offender
punishment of a spiritual nature. But still, it is a fact that
the blood of goats and bullocks was appointed by God, to be
an expiatory offering for certain offences against the Jewish
law; while at the same time this very offering was also a type
of the sacrifice to be offered by Christ, in order to remove the
punishment due to moral turpitude. He who brought a sin
or trespass offering, and presented it to the Lord, was ex-
empted from the sentence which the law of Moses pronounced
against the external offence that he had committed. The
whole nation, as such, were freed, on the great day of atone-
ment, from the penalty annexed to certain offences, when the
high-priest entered the most holy place, and presented the
blood of the national offering or victim before Jehovah; not
indeed from the punishment of a spiritual nature due to sin,
but from penalty of an external nature, threatened to be in-
flicted during the present life. In a word, God as the sove-
reign legislator and judge of the Jews did, by the exercise of
his Supreme right, actually appoint sin and trespass offerings
as expiatory sacrifices; which, being presented agreeably to
his appointment, were followed by the real remission, on his
part, of the penalty due to certain offences, which was threat-
ened by the law of Moses. So the apostle himself states the
subject: “The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a
heifer, sprinkling those who were defiled, made expiation in
respect to external purity,” i. e. after the performance of such
DISG. I.] THE ATONEMENT. 235
sacrificial rites, the Jews were regarded and treated, in respect
to their external relations, as pure or free from exposure to
the penalty threatened by the law of Moses. Heb. 9; 23.
The fact just stated cannot be called in question. We
have only to open the book of Leviticus, and it is at once ex-
hibited before our eyes. - -
Here, then, we are presented with a case of substitution;
actual substitution by the appointment of God, the Supreme
legislator and judge of the Jewish nation and of all men; a
case in which a beast was slain, instead of the criminal being
punished who made an offering of it, and who had himself in-
curred the penalty of the Mosaic law.
But how and why such an expiation as has been described
was made by the blood of slain beasts, different persons have
endeavoured, and might endeavour, to explain in various ways.
I cannot enter at all here, into the discussion of this point.
Suffice it to say, that all who admit the reasoning in the epis-
tle to the Hebrews, must admit that the Jewish sacrifices were
typical of the sacrifice of Christ. Do not the representations
of the Scripture also entitle us to believe, that the penitent
offender, who was sufficiently enlightened in respect to the
true nature of the Mosaic dispensation, while he knew that by
his offering penalties of an external nature would of course
be remitted to him, might and probably did, by faith, look for-
ward to the great atoning sacrifice, the antitype of that which
he offered, for a remission of the punishment of a spiritual
nature, which was due to his transgressions 2
Considering now the facts in regard to this whole subject,
as they stand disclosed in the Jewish Scriptures, who will
venture to pronounce, that a similar arrangement under the
general government of God in respect to men, is impossible 7
The moral purposes of God in respect to this government,
we may cheerfully admit, are the highest purposes which are
known to us. But had he no moral purposes to effect under
the Jewish dispensation, and by the Mosaic institutes ?
Most certainly he had. Incipient and imperfect they were
indeed, compared with the great moral ends accomplished by
236 TEIE ATONEMENT. [DISC. I.
the Gospel. But still they were real. Yet God, as the
Supreme lawgiver and judge of the Jews, did, in Some cases,
remit the penalty of his law as given by Moses, in conse-
quence of a substitute for it. Now if the thing itself were
absurd or impossible, he could not have done it. Nor can
we conceive of any more impossibility that he should do the
Same thing under his general government of men, than that
he should do it under the Jewish dispensation. Wrong is not
more really done (if there be wrong at all) in the one case,
than in the other; and the one is therefore just as possible
for God as the other. So far as we can see, there is no more
hazard to the general interests of the universe, in the admis-
sion of vicarious sacrifice for sinners, than there was to the
Jewish commonwealth, by the admission of expiatory offer-
ing into its system of government.
In a word, God did admit vicarious sacrifices under his
government of the Jews; and an inspired apostle has taught
us that they were, and were designed to be, types of the great
expiatory offering made by Christ. To express it in another
manner: That was done in ancient times upon a smaller
scale, which at a later period was done on a larger one. The
penalty for certain offences against the Mosaic law, was re-
moved by the sacrifice of goats and bullocks; and the penal-
ty against the higher law of heaven, (if you please so to name
it), is removed by the death of Christ. If both are by the
arrangement of heaven, the one presents no more impossi-
bility than the other.
Nor can it be objected here, that the expiatory sacrifices
of the law procured merely the remission of a civil or eccle-
siastical penalty, which was wholly of an external nature,
and could be inflicted by men; but that the removal of the
penalty due to moral turpitude, is a very different thing, and
has a much more important bearing upon the interests of
God’s moral government. I accede to the fact that it has.
But this does not render an expiatory offering impossible,
provided one adequate to the occasion can be made. I believe
the Scriptures teach us, that such an one has been made by
DISC. I.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 237
the Son of God. As the end to be accomplished by a Sa-
viour's death was of a far higher and nobler nature, than
that accomplished by the sacrifices of the Levitical law, so
the victim that was to be offered, was of a rank which cor-
responded to the object to be attained. The redemption of
men from everlasting death, (not of the Jews only but also
of the Gentitles), was concerned with this sacrifice. Well
then might the apostle draw the admirable comparison, which
he has drawn in Heb. 9:13, 14, between the one species of
offering and the other. “If,” says he, “the blood of bulls
and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how MUCH MORE
shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, of
fered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience
from dead works, to serve the living God.” That is: ‘If
the beast which perished forever under the knife of the sacri-
ficing priest, did still, by divine appointment, make atone-
ment for certain offences against the Mosaic law, so that the
penalty denounced against them was remitted, and the offen-
der treated as though he were not guilty, how much more
shall the holy Saviour, a victim possessed of a nobler nature
—of a never-dying spirit—make expiation for the moral
turpitude of offences against God as the governor of the
world.”
If this reasoning of the apostle be admitted, then we can
never prove the impossibility of atonement for sin, by alleg-
ing that no victim can be adequate to the occasion. For the
apostle plainly declares that the sacrifice of Christ was more
adequate to the purpose for which it was made, than the
death of the victim under the ancient dispensation was, to
the occasion which demanded it.
Nor can the justice of God be alleged as constituting a
ground of impossibility, that an expiatory offering should be
admitted for sinners. All men, who hold that there is for-
giveness at all with God, must of course concede that his
justice is no more impugned by the forgiveness of sin through
an atonement, than it would be without any atonement.
238 THE ATONEMENT, [DISC. I.
Consequently no objection of this nature can be urged by
such, against the possibility of atonement.
Nor are the advocates of propitiatory sacrifice obliged to
content themselves with merely showing that it is possible.
They may advance farther, and venture to say, that the im-
probability of such an arrangement under the divine govern-
ment, can in no valid manner be shown. Will its opponents
appeal to the feelings of men in general, and declare that
such a sacrifice is naturally revolting to the human mind?
How then comes it to pass, that every tribe and nation, from
the philosophic Greeks down to the roaming Tartars and
the fiend-like race of New Zealand—every part of our de-
graded race however ignorant or barbarous, that have, at all
acknowledged the existence of any divinity—have agreed in
offering to him propitiatory sacrifices P Does this universal
custom of the mere children of nature, look as if the doctrine
were revolting to the first principles of the human breast?
Or does it look as if the hand of Omnipotence had enstamped
on the very elements of our moral constitution, a susceptibili-
ty of receiving it, a predisposition to admit it? Who will or
can explain the origin and prevalence of vicarious sacrifices,
on any other ground that this?
. I proceed one step further. To me it seems plain, that
although reason, unenlightened by revelation, never could
have discovered a way of pardon for sin by the expiatory
death of the Son of God, yet, when all the attributes of the
Deity are brought into full view by the Scriptures, and the
character of man is also developed in full, reason may then
well give, and to preserve her character must give, her assent
to the doctrine of pardon by expiatory sacrifice, if she finds it
there revealed.
God is just; therefore he will punish sin: and if we read
only the book of nature, must we not say too, with Seneca,
“therefore he cannot forgive it?” But revelation discloses
his attribute of mercy; and mercy consists essentially in re-
mitting the strict claims of justice, either in whole or in part.
How then shall God possess these two attributes, and ex-
DISC. I.] TELE ATONEMENT. 239
engise them in respect to our guilty rebellious race P A
question which “ages and generations” could not answer; a
mystery hidden from them. A question which philosophy
may seek in vain satisfactorily to solve. But in the cross of
Christ—in his expiatory sufferings and death—we may find
an answer. Here, “mercy and truth have met together;
righteousness and peace have embraced each other.” In the
agonies of Christ, a personage of such transcendent dignity
and glory, we see the terrors of divine justice displayed in
the most affecting manner, and are impressively taught what
evil is due to sin. In the pardon purchased by his death,
we contemplate the riches of divine mercy. God might have
displayed his justice, indeed, in the world of perdition, and
called us to contemplate it as written in characters that
would make us shudder. His mercy also he might have dis-
played, by the absolute and unconditional pardon of sinners,
provided no atonement had been made. But who could look
on the radiance of his simple justice, as exhibited only in
such a manner as I have stated, without extinguishing his
vision forever? Or who could contemplate undiscriminating
and unconditional mercy only, without being influenced to
forget the awful displeasure of God against sin, or being em-
boldened to continue in it? But in the cross of Jesus, his
justice and his mercy are united. Here is the bright spot
where the effulgency of the Deity converges and concenters.
On this we may gaze with admiration, with calmness, with
delight; for here the rays of eternal glory meet and blend,
so as to be sweetly attempered to our vision. The bow in
the cloud, where the glories of the sun, the brightest image
of its Maker in the natural world, meet and mingle, and pre-
sent to our view the delightful token that the waters of a
flood will drown the earth no more, is but a faint emblem of
the attempered glory which beams from the cross of Jesus,
the token of deliverance from a flood more awful than that of
Noah.
D IS C. O U R S E II.
ISAIAH LIII. 5, 6.
HE WAS wou NDED For our TRANSGRESSIONS ; HE WAS BRUISED FOR
OUR INIQUITIEs ; THE CHASTISEMENT OF OUR PEACE WAS UPON
HIM ; AND BY HIS STRIPES ARE WE HEALED. ALL WE LIKE SHEEP
HAVE GONE Ast RAY ; wr, HAVE TURNED EVERY ONE TO HIS OWN
wAY ; AND THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INIQUITY OF US ALL.
I HAVE endeavoured, in the preceding discourse, to make
such explanations as are necessary to a right understanding
of our subject; and to prepare the way for the introduction
of direct proof from the Scriptures respecting the expiatory
sacrifice of Christ. I have endeavoured also to show, that we
cannot refer the question, whether an expiatory offering has
been made by the Son of God for the sins of men, to the
tribunal of philosophy. The impossibility of such an offer-
ing, philosophy cannot prove. The fact that substitution in
the case of penalties incurred, did for many centuries consti-
tute a distinguishing characteristic in the administration of di-
vine government among the Jews, must be admitted; and
the possibility that it may constitute a prominent feature of
God’s general government, cannot therefore be disproved. I
have ventured even to advance a step farther, and undertak-
en to show that the improbability of an atonement for sin can
by no means be made out; inasmuch as the human race at
large are deeply impressed with the need of propitiatory sac-
rifice. Moreover, the attributes of God and the character of
man, as revealed in the Scriptures, render the doctrine of
pardon for sin through the expiatory offering of Christ, by
no means improbable.
If I have succeeded in my endeavours to remove obsta-
DISC. II.] THE ATONEMENT. 241
cles, which seemed to lie in the way of making an impartial
estimate of Scripture testimony in respect to the subject be-
fore us, and have also shown that the whole question must
be referred for decision solely to the word of God, then we
are prepared without embarrassment to pursue the inquiry:
What is the testimony of revelation on this subject?
Let me here premise a few considerations respecting the
kind of appeal which I am about to make to the Scriptures;
and then my proof shall be very brief. For nothing can be
plainer, than that if “all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God,” then “the mouth of two or three witnesses” is enough
to establish the point at which I aim. Of the very numer-
ous texts, therefore, to which I might appeal, I shall select
but a few ; and for every attentive and intelligent reader of
the Bible, these may serve as a clue to all the rest.
My first remark is, that every speaker and writer, intend-
ing to be understood, employs, and necessarily employs, lan-
guage in the same sense, in which those whom he addresses
use and understand it. None will deny so plain a proposi-
tion. Nor can it be deemed less certain, that the sacred wri-
ters designed to be understood by those whom they addressed.
My second remark is, that all the writers of the Old and
New Testament were Jews; and that all the Scriptures, with
very little exception, were originally addressed to Jews, or
to churches which in part consisted of Jews. If we design,
then, to come at the meaning of the Sacred writers, we must
necessarily construe their language in the same way as the
Jews would naturally construe it, who lived in the age of the
prophets and apostles. Nothing can be more plain and ir-
refragable, than this maxim of interpretation. It is no part
of the inquiry, what ideas we may affix to the language of
Scripture, coming to read it in another tongue, in another re-
gion, nurtured in the bosom of speculative philosophy, and
desirous of adjusting everything to our own standard. WHAT
IDEAS DID THE PROPEIETS, APOSTLES, AND EVANGELISTS
MEAN TO CONVEY 2 is the only proper question, for one who
21
242 TEIE ATONEMIENT. [DISC. II.
goes simply to the law and to the testimony for the grounds
of his belief.
Let us then call to mind, that every Jew was habitually
conversant with expiatory sacrifices, with substitution ; that
the system of substitution was inwrought into the very con-
stitution of his religious worship ; and that all the Scripture
language, which has respect to the sacrifice of Christ, is di-
rectly borrowed from that which was every day used by the
Jew, in speaking of the Sacrifices that he was required to of.
fer. &
With these facts in view, we are ready to present the sub-
ject, as it lies before us in the Scriptures.
Our text is fresh in your minds, and I need not here re-
peat it. It asserts that the ‘chastisement or punishment by
which our peace is procured, was laid upon the Saviour;
that by his wounds we are healed ; that all we have gone
astray, i.e. sinned; and that Jehovah hath laid on him the
punishment due to us.” Other parts of the chapter, from
which our text is taken, repeat the same idea. “For the
transgression of my people was he smitten,” v. 8; “his soul
[i. e. hel was made an offering for sin,” v. 10; “he shall jus-
tify [i. e. procure pardon for many, for he shall bear their
iniquities,” v. 11; “he bare the sin of many, and made inter-
cession for the transgressors,” v. 12.
I only ask here, whether any man can rationally and can-
didly indulge doubts, in what manner the Jews whom the
prophet addressed, must necessarily have understood this lan-
guage?
In regard to the New Testament, it is so full of the doc-
trine in question, that the only difficulty lies in making a pro-
per selection of testimony.
Peter has quoted some of the passages, which I have just
cited. Observe how he comments on this sentiment. “Who
his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . . .
by whose stripes ye were healed,” 1 Pet. 2: 24. Again,
“We were not redeemed with corruptible things . . . . but by
the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
DISC. II.] TEIE AT ONEMENT. 243
sº
without spot,” 1 Pet. 1: 18, 19. John the Baptist also ex-
claims: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the
sins of the world;” i. e. the victim, who by divine appoint-
ment is, through his expiatory death, to procure pardon for
men, John 1:29. So the apostle John : “The blood of Jesus
Christ cleanseth us from all sin,” 1 John 1: 7. “Who is the
propitiation [or propitiatory sacrifice] for our sins; and not
for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John
2: 2. Paul abounds, everywhere, with the most glowing sen-
timents in respect to this great point. “For he hath made him
to be sin [i. e. a sin offering] for us, who knew no sin,” 2
Cor. 5: 21. “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” 1
Cor. 5: 7. “In whom we have redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins,” Eph. 1: 7. “Whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation [or propitiatory sacrifice], through
faith in his blood . . . . to declare his righteousness [i. e. for
the manifestation of his pardoning mercy, by the remission of
sins,” Rom. 3: 25. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us,” Gal. 3: 13.
It were easy to proceed, and fill out my whole discourse
with passages of the like import. But the limits which I
have preseribed to myself forbid; and I shall close with two
texts more, where the resemblance, between the sacrifices
under the law and the offering of Christ, is so brought into
view, that it is impossible to mistake the writer's meaning.
“For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into
the Sanctuary by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the
camp; wherefore Jesus also, that he might make expiation
(&yūgī) for the people with his own blood, suffered without
the gate,” Heb. 13:11, 12. In other words, what was done
in the type, was fulfilled in the antitype. Again: “For if
the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer,
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh;
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
eternal Spirit offered up himself without spot to God, purge
your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God I’
Heb. 9. 13, 14.
244 THE ATONEMENT. [DISC. II.
I ask now of any candid man, who has some proper con-
ception of the manner in which the Jews employed language
of this nature, nothing more, than that laying his hand on his
heart, and making the appeal to him who searches that
heart, he would inquire, whether a Jew, addressing Jews
with such language as this, could expect or wish to be under-
stood in any other way, than as inculcating the doctrine of
substitution, or the earpiatory sufferings of Jesus?
I have done with citing testimony; for if what I have
adduced does not establish the fact, that the sacred writers
did mean to inculcate the doctrine in question, then plainly,
the many scores of additional texts which might be quoted,
will not prove it; nor any language, I must add, which it
would be in the power of a human being to employ.
As a proof of this I only advert to the manner in which
all plain unlettered Christians have always understood these
texts, from the time of the apostles down to the present mo-
ment. They never had a doubt on the subject of their
meaning, unless some speculating theologian excited it; and
of themselves, I do believe, they never would have one to
the end of time.
But I may make an appeal of another kind, in regard to
the manner in which this language is and must be understood,
by men deeply versed in the idiom of the Scriptures, but
wholly indifferent in regard to the fact, whether one or anoth-
er doctrine is there taught, because they do not recognize the
authority of Scripture to decide upon such matters. The most
distinguished oriental and biblical scholar now living, who dis-
claims all belief in anything supernatural in the Scriptures,
and through the influence of his philosophy maintains that a
miracle is impossible, and who therefore cannot be said to
have any prejudices in favour of the doctrine of atonement,
says, at the close of a masterly explanation of the language
of the chapter from which my text is taken, that “most He-
brew readers, who had once been acquainted with offerings
and substitution, must NECESSARILY understand the words of
our chapter as asserting it; and there is NO DOUBT,” he adds,
DISC. II.] THE ATONEMENT. 245
“ that the apostolic representation, in respect to the propitia-
tory death of Christ, certainly rests, in a manner altogether
preéminent, on this ground.” (Gesenius, Commi, tiber Jesai-
am, LIII.)
So much for the testimony of Scripture and for the man-
ner in which the unlearned and the learned have understood
it, and do still understand it.
We come, then, if my proof is valid, to the simple alter-
native, either to admit the doctrine in question, or to reject
the authority of the sacred writers. There is no other path
which can be taken, unless it can be fairly shown, that the
interpretation which has been given to the language cited
above, is not agreeable to the usage of speech among the
Jews; an undertaking which, I am well persuaded, is des-
perate; and one which no critic, no philologist, can ever
accomplish, until the whole history of Jewish ideas in re-
spect to these subjects, during former ages, is blotted out from
the records of the world. I repeat it, then, for I do most
solemnly believe it, that we must either receive the doctrine
of substitution and expiatory offering by the death of Christ,
or virtually lay aside the authority of the Scriptures, and lean
upon our own philosophy.
III. I come now, according to the plan of my discourses, to
consider some of the objections made against the doctrine of
the atonement.
I do not feel it to be important, here, to dwell upon them
at length. There is only one method in which any legiti-
mate objections can be made, by those who admit the author-
ity of revelation. This is, to show that the language of
Scripture, according to Jewish idiom, does not mean what I
have interpreted it as meaning. But this mode of objecting,
the speculators and skeptics who have rejected the doctrine
of substitution, have been very careful to avoid. Their re-
fuge is philosophy. They raise doubts about equivalency;
they must see, as philosophers, the why and the how in re-
spect to this mysterious transaction. Whatever pertains to
this part of the subject, however, I have sufficiently dwelt
21% -
246 TEIE ATONEMENT, [DISC. II.
upon already. I shall therefore only glance here, at some of
the most popular methods employed to oppose the doctrine
of substitution, or to explain it away.
OBJ. 1. ‘An atonement for sin is unnecessary. God can
forgive it as well without an atonement as with one; and
the doctrine, if true, divests the Supreme Being of the attri-
bute of mercy. If the full debt is paid, where is there any
room for mercy in forgiving it?”
But who is to decide the point, whether God can forgive
sin without an atonement? The natural possibility of it, I
admit; that is, I admit that as sovereign of the universe, and
possessing omnipotence, he might pardon sin, (if he had
judged it best to do so), without the intervention of a suffer-
ing substitute. But this is no real part of our question.
What has he judged best, is the only proper inquiry.; and
how can this be answered? Only, as we have already seen,
by revelation. But that revelation tells us, it is “the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sins of the world;” that “there
is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby
we must be saved, nor is there salvation in any other,” Acts
4:12; that “there is one God, and one mediator between
God and man, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a
ransom for all,” 1 Tim. 2: 5, 6; and that “all have sinned
and come short of the glory of God,” and consequently, must
be “gratuitously justified through the redemption that is in
Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory
sacrifice,” Rom. 3: 23–25.
The point then is put at rest by the Bible. And when
those who doubt, admonish us that it would be unbecoming in
respect to the Supreme Being, and dérogatory to his charac-
ter, to suppose that the sufferings of Christ, an innocent vic-
tim, were deemed by him to be necessary or acceptable; I
answer simply with Paul: “For it BECAME him, for whom
are all things, and by whom are all things, in order to bring
many sons to glory, to make perfect the Captain of their sal-
vation through sufferings,” Heb. 2: 10.
When they further allege, also, that the attribute of mercy
DISC. II.] THE ATONEMENT, 247
is virtually denied to the Supreme Being, by the supposition
of an atonement, they can say this, only on the ground that
an exact and literal equivalent for the penal part of the di-
vine law, both as to the kind and quantity of suffering, has
been demanded of the substitute; a doctrine incapable, as we
have seen, of being supported; and to meet the difficulties of
which, I certainly will not incur any responsibility. The
simple scriptural statement of substitution, is not liable to this
objection.
OB.J. 2. ‘The motives to strenuous effort in order to live
a virtuous and holy life, are greatly weakened by the doc-
trine in question.’
This objection is as old, at least, as the time of Paul; and
it is met by him in such a manner as to save us, at the pres-
ent time, from the necessity of any effort to make an adequate
reply. After representing the death of Christ (Rom. iii.) as
the only foundation of the sinner's hope, he meets this very
objection, which he knew would be made by those who
doubted his doctrine, in these words; “Do we then make
void the law, through faith ?” i. e. do we diminish the force
of moral precept or obligation, by preaching the doctrine of
gratuitous pardon through atoning blood? To which he an-
swers at once : “God forbid; rather we establish the law,”
i. e. we enforce its obligations by higher motives than before
existed. After illustrating, by various instances, the fact
that such a method of justifying sinners is presented to view
in the Jewish Scriptures, he resumes the consideration of the
objection. He represents the objector as suggesting: “What
shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? God forbid,” he answers again, “how shall we
who are dead to sin, any longer continue to practise it?”
Rom. 6: 1, 2. He then goes on to show, (which is indeed a
most conclusive and irrefragable answer to the whole objec-
tion), that Christianity, from its very nature, implies of ne-
cessity the mortification of all our sinful passions, and appe-
tites; it is itself, in its very essence, a principle directly
248 THE ATONEMENT. [DISC, II,
hostile to them, and therefore never can indulge or foster
them.
All the difficulty of objectors here, arises from overlook-
ing the whole of this grand point. Atoning blood, extensive
and gratuitous as the favours are which it proffers, never prof-
fered one unconditionally. The sinner must be humbled,
and penitent, who is sprinkled with it. The grace of God,
which has appeared to all men through a Saviour's death, in-
culcates on them, without exception, the absolute necessity
of denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts. It urges this,
as the New Testament most amply shows, by excitements to
virtue of a higher nature, and by penalties for offences more
awful, than any system of law could offer or impose.
OBJ. 3. ‘There is no need of laying so much stress upon
the death of Christ, or of regarding him as our substitute in
any sense. He may very properly be called our Saviour
and Redeemer, inasmuch as by his instructions, he has taught
us the way in which we may acceptably obey God.”
That to give instruction was a part of Christ's errand on
earth, as our Redeemer, I cheerfully admit. But that this
was the great work, which marked him exclusively as the
Saviour of sinners, it is quite impossible to prove. What 1
Have we not other instructors, such too as were inspired, as
well as he P Did he write the New Testament P Did he,
who taught about three years, who was never out of Pales-
time, and made but few disciples, teach as much, and labour
with as much success, as Paul, who preached about thirty
years, and traversed the world to proclaim the messages of
salvation ? If the simple fact of giving instruction, of making
disciples, of successfully inculcating the truth, makes a Re-
deemer, then who has the best title to that appellation, Paul,
or (I speak it with reverence) Jesus of Nazareth? And to
whom should the songs of the redeemed in heaven be direct-
ed? Have we not, too, on such ground as this, just as many
redeemers as we have, or have had, religious teachers ?
OBJ. 4. ‘The death of Christ was a seal or confirmation
DISC. II.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 249
of the truth, by which we are enlightened and saved. It is
unnecessary to consider what the Scriptures say of its effica-
cy, as amounting to any more than this.”
Is this so? Then was Stephen, and James, and Peter,
and Paul, and every other martyr to the cause of truth, who
has sealed his testimony to it by his own blood, our redeem-
er too. Shall we them bow the knee to them for this testi-
mony, and ascribe our salvation, at least in part, to them?
And the redeemed in heaven—do they ascribe salvation to
martyrs, when they cast their crowns at the feet of the LAMB,
and sing: THOU wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
THY blood 3
OBJ. 5. ‘Christ was our Redeemer, in that he has by his
example set before us an acceptable way of worship, and
taught us, by personal obedience both active and passive,
how we may please God.”
The force of his example to inculcate virtue and piety, we
ought most gratefully to acknowledge. But the redeeming
efficacy of it, I cannot by any means admit. A most conclu-
sive reason against such a view of it, is found in the fact,
that while his example could, of course, have an influence
only during his life, and on times after those in which he
lived, his atonement is represented as reaching back to the
very origin of our race. Thus Paul: “If the blood of bulls
and goats . . . . . . sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh; how
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your con-
science from dead works, to serve the living God. And for
this cause, [i. e. because his expiatory sacrifice possesses a
spiritual or moral efficacy of such a nature], he is the Media-
tor of the new covenant, so that, his death having taken
place to make expiation (eis &ntolºzgogu) for sins committed
wnder the former covenant, they who are called may receive
the promised blessings of the heavenly inheritance,” Heb. 9:
13–15. That his death is here plainly considered by the
apostle, as having a retrospective view and influence, is clear
from what follows. After observing that the Jewish sacri-
250 TEIE ATONEMENT. [DISC. II.
fices needed to be often repeated, he goes on to say: “The
death of Christ once only was sufficient; if this were not
so,” he adds, “then he must often have suffered since the
foundation of the world.” That is, the object which his
death has now accomplished, the expiatory sacrifice which
he has now made, must be adequate for men in all ages; for
the past, as well as for the future; otherwise Christ must
have often suffered, since the foundation of the world, Heb.
9:25, 26.
Exactly to the same purpose, is the sentiment in the third
chapter of the epistle to the Romans. After asserting that
God had sent forth Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, Paul
adds: “To declare or manifest his gratuitous method of jus-
tification by the forgiveness of sins in past times, [or, so that
the sins of former times might be remitted], through the di-
vine lenity; and to declare his gratuitous method of justifica-
tion, at the present time,” Rom. 3: 25, 26. The opposition
of present time here, to the past in the preceding clause,
shows beyond all reasonable doubt, as it seems to me, that
the object of the apostle is to assert, not only the influence
of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, but its extension to past
times as well as to present; and of course, the sentiment is
the same with that which is disclosed in the epistle to the
Hebrews.
Here then we may take our stand in defence of vicarious
sacrifice, Secure against being moved by suggestions, that eac-
ample is the great point in the Redeemer's work. Here, at
all events, is vicarious influence, if there be influence on ages
that have passed by. And that the apostle means to assert
this, appears to me as clear as any other sentiment deducible
from his writings. 3.
OBJ. 6. The last objection which I shall notice, is, ‘ that
to represent the innocent as suffering for the guilty, is a vir-
tual impeachment of divine equity, and of those principles of
moral government which the ruler of the universe has estab-
lished.’
To him, who acknowledges the Scriptures as a divine rev-
DISC. II.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 251.
elation, I reply simply in their language: “He hath made
him to be a sin-offering, who knew no sºn, i. e. the innocent
has suffered for the guilty, 2 Cor. 5: 21. “But Christ hath
once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might
bring us to God,” I Pet. 3: 18. Such is the fact ; and I
merely ask: Is God unjust 2 and do the Scriptures repre-
sent him to be so, because of this 2
Even to those who do not acknowledge the authority of
the Scriptures, to the sober Rationalist or Theist, I might
present a greater difficulty still. Children suffer on account
of the crimes of their parents; nations, on account of the
vices of their rulers; and that, without the consent of the
sufferers. Yet, by their own acknowledgment, divine justice
and the principles of moral government are not impeachable
on this account. Are they so then, if Christ voluntarily, and
out of pity and love, suffered the just for the unjust?
But I must leave the examination of objections. I dismiss
them all with this single remark. When it shall be shown
that the language of the Scriptures must not, according to
rules of interpretation which are fundamental and capable of
demonstration, be construed as conveying, and as designed to
convey, the idea of a vicarious or expiatory offering by the
death of Christ; when it shall be shown that there is even a
possibility, that the Jews could have understood it in a dif-
ferent way; then we may consider the doctrine of substitu-
tion as doubtful: but never till then, unless our own conjec-
tural reasonings are to usurp the place of the sacred writers,
in deciding upon this matter.
Having thus briefly canvassed the topics proposed for con-
sideration at the commencement of my discourses, I shall close
with a few reflections on the subject which has been dis-
cussed. - • " 3.
1. The doctrine of the atonement is a fundamental doc-
trine in the Christian system; and that which distinguishes
it, in a peculiar manner, from all other systems of religion.
It is fundamental ; because, often as belief in a Saviour is .
urged in the New Testament, and urged as the indispensa-
252 THE ATONEMENT. [DISC. II.
ble condition of salvation, equally often is belief in that Sa-
viour, as our atoning Sacrifice, urged ; and equally conspicu-
ous is this point, in the whole system of the Christian re-
ligion. It is not merely, or principally, in Jesus as our teach-
er, our example, or as having sealed the truth of his testimo-
ny by his own blood, that we are called to believe ; but prin-
cipally in him, in that very character in which he was “to
the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness,
while unto them who are saved, he is wisdom and righteous-
ness and sanctification and redemption.” What says Paul
to the Corinthians ? “I am determined not to know anything
among you save Jesus Christ and him CRUCIFIED,” 1 Cor.
2: 2. Why Christ CRUCIFIED 2 Why not Christ as a
teacher, an example, a martyr, a prophet? Plainly because
whatever was done by Christ in all these characters, it would
have utterly failed to accomplish the design of saving men,
unless his expiatory death had also taken place. Christ
crucified, then, is the very point on which ultimately hang
all the hopes of our sinful race. So Paul viewed it, when
he said: “God forbid that I should glory, save in the CRoss
of Christ,” Gal. 6: 14. So we too ought to view it. Other
systems of religion teach the existence, attributes, and moral
government of God. This does Judaism in its modern form ;
this does Theism ; this does even Mohammedism. Other
systems inculcate our social and relative duties. The re-
ligion of Hindoostan exhibits the Deity in a state of incarna-
tion; so that even this is not in all respects peculiar to Chris-
tianity. But no religion save the Christian, exhibits the in-
carnate WORD, suffering, bleeding, dying for sinners; a
Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. This is at
once the glory and the hope of the Christian system. This
is what marks it with a peculiarity, which makes it exceed-
ingly distinct from, and Superior to, all other systems. Give
up this point, and you confound the broad line of distinction,
which separates it from all else that is called religion. Suffer
this sun even to be eclipsed, and the race of man is covered
with gloom. Quench his glory, and we are at once involved
DISC. II.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 253
in ten-fold more than Egyptian night; we are doomed to
wander in the shadow of death, on which no morning rays
will ever dawn, nor one gleam of radiance ever fall to alle-
viate its terrors.
2. I remark, finally, that a Saviour suffering for us, the
eternal Word, GoD manifest in the flesh, and in our nature
offering an expiatory sacrifice, presents to the moral sympa-
thies of our race, higher excitements to virtue and piety, and
more powerful dissuasives from sin, than any other considera-
–tion which the Christian religion proffers.
I am quite confident, that I might safely undertake to estab-
lish the correctness of this observation, from the nature of our
moral constitution, and the manner in which we are most suc-
cessfully influenced to engage in the mortification of our sin-
ful appetites, and in the practice of virtue. But I will not
make such an appeal, because I choose to rest the whole sub-
ject on the Scriptures and the actual experience of Christians.
Paul, when speaking on the topic now introduced, says:
“God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us,” Rom. 5: 8. “Greater love
than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his
friends;” but Christ has far surpassed this. The same apos-
tle says: “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God
by the death of his Son,” Rom. 5: 10. Here then is a con-
sideration which will make every heart to vibrate, that is not
lost to all sense of gratitude and of mercy. How many thou-
Sands have heard the thunders of Sinai unmoved; and even
while their awful power has made the very ground to rock on
which they stood, how many have still turned a deaf ear to all
the admonitions and threatenings which they conveyed, and
grown more desperate in their resolutions to persist in rebellion
against God! Yet, after all, they have been melted down by
the proclamation of Jesus' dying love, and have fallen as hum-
ble suppliants at the foot of his cross. Yes, we may say with
John : “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid
down his life for us,” 1 John 3:16. And again : “In this was
manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent
22
254 TEIE ATONEMENT_ |DISC. II.
his only begotten Son into the world, that we might have life
through him.” But on what point did this love principally
rest? Where did all the glories of benevolence concenter?
The same apostle immediately informs us: “Herein is love,
not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son
to be the propitiation for our sins;” i. e. when we were enemies
to God, Christ died as our propitiatory offering, and made
reconciliation for us, 1 John 3: 9, 10. Herein is love indeed,
and hard must be that heart which can resist the proposal of it;
for if any consideration can avail to subdue the stubborn spirit.
of the human breast, this must be the one which has the most
powerful influence of all. -
I appeal to fact. When the missionaries of the United
IBrethren undertook to preach the eternal power and Godhead
of the Deity, as displayed in the creation, to the poor benighted
Greenlanders, they listened, they gazed, they turned away
with silent neglect. The faithful disciples urged on them
still more vehemently the attributes of the Creator and Judge
of all, and their moral accountability to him. They listened;
but their hearts remained like the eternal ice, with which their
region is overspread. Compassion for their perishing condi-
tion made the servants of Jesus more urgent still. One other
chord there was, which perhaps, when touched, might be made
to vibrate. They touched it with a faithful hand. They pro-
claimed to the poor, gazing, perishing heathen, a Saviour,
bleeding, groaning, dying for them. They pointed them to
his bleeding hands, his wounded side; they bid them look to
that Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
The sight prostrated them to the earth. Their stubborn hearts
melted like wax before the fire. They fell at the foot of a dy-
ing Saviour's cross, and exclaimed: Lord Jesus, save us or
we perish forever ! -
Yes, and millions of the ransomed, who have gone to Zion
with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads, can testify to
the power of this mighty truth on their rebellious hearts. God
so commended his love toward them, by disclosing a Saviour
dying on their account, that they could no longer resist the
DISC. II.] THE ATONEMENT. 255.
invitations of his mercy. It was a mighty stream, rushing on
with overwhelming power, and bearing everything away be-
fore it. - --
That Jesus died, and died for us; that he was our SUBSTI-
TUTE ; that his tender compassion did take us into view indi-
vidually; that he took our nature in order to enter most inti-
mately, most endearingly, into our sympathies, and propose
himself to us under the most attractive form; is the view which
Paul took of the Redeemer’s work. He was not an isolated
monument of suffering, and of God’s displeasure against sin-
ners; not merely a sign that sin could be pardoned, by which
only an abstract testimony could be given, like that which the
rainbow gives of God’s covenant to drown the earth no more—
a symbol which might have served equally well for angels or
for men. No ; “Verily he did not assist the angels, but the
seed of Abraham.” Man was the object—the only object—
of his incarnation, sufferings, and death. Wherefore it be-
hoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that
he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things per-
taining unto God, to make reconciliation for the sins of his
people. For in that he himself suffered, being tempted, he is
able also to succour those that are tempted,” Heb. 2: 16–18.
See what pains is here taken to represent the suffering Sa-
viour as participating in our nature, and entering with the
most tender sympathy into all our wants and woes. Is this
to propose him as a mere example of suffering, cold, distant,
abstract ; or is it to make him such a high-priest as we needed,
one who can be touched with a feeling for our infirmities, hav-
ing been tempted in all points as we are 2 Speak, ye whose
hearts have been melted by a Saviour's love, and tell us. Yes,
ye who live amid the horrors of eternal winter and storm ; or
ye, who roam in deserts parched beneath a burning sun ; all
ye, who once were without God and without hope in the world,
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the
covenant of promise, speak, and say: Is not this the Saviour
you need; the Saviour who has cheered your desponding
hearts ; who has opened to you the prospect of glory Is
256 TEIE ATONEMENT. [DISC. II.
not this he whom your souls love? Speak, ye redeemed, en-
circling his throne above, and casting your crowns at his feet.
Is not this he who drew your souls to him by bonds of love
stronger than death, which many waters could not quench, nor
floods drown P Hark! I hear the notes of that song, which
fills all the regions of heaven with harmony. It echoes back
to this distant world : “THOU WAST SLAIN, AND HAST RE-
DEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD, out of every kindred
and tongue and people and nation, and hast made us kings
and priests unto our God forever and ever.” O for a heart
and tongue to unite with this grateful, happy throng, and be-
gin on earth the notes which we hope to sing, through ever-
lasting ages, in the world above
Fear not, my brethren, who are to preach this precious Sa-
viour to a perishing world, fear not that the declaration of his
atoning blood will ever palsy the moral energies of the soul.
What says that great apostle, who won more souls to Jesus
than any other herald of his salvation has ever done? “The
love of Christ constraineth us.” But why did it constrain him,
and to do what? “It constraineth us, because we thus judge,
that if one died for all, then were all dead;” i.e. it constrains
us, because, when we were dead in trespasses and sins, Christ
died to redeem us. What follows 7 He died for us, “that
they which live, should henceforth no more live unto themselves,
but whid him who died for them and who rose again.” Preach
the same doctrine; it must forever have the same influence—
the same mighty, overpowering, saving influence—on every
heart that receives it. Proclaim to a perishing world glad tº-
dings—glad tidings of great joy. Jesus died for them. Jesus
can and will save them, if they accept the offers of his mercy.
Glory in nothing but his cross. Be not turned aside from
preaching him crucified, by any scorn and contumely on the
one hand, or cold and speculative philosophy on the other.
This doctrine is the power of God unto salvation to all who
believe. Proclaim it then to a world perishing in iniquity.
Proclaim it to the very ends of the earth. It will force open
the prison doors. It will liberate the captives. It will scatter
DISC. II.] TEIE ATONEMENT. 257
heavenly glory over our benighted world. It will call the dead
to life. It will convert this great Aceldama into the garden
of God. This boundless valley of dry bones will become the
scene of as boundless a resurrection to life.
I thank God, whose providence has so long detained me
from this sacred place,” that I have now enjoyed another op-
portunity of testifying to you my convictions in respect to a
Saviour's dying love. If I should never again be permitted
to do it, receive this as the last and highest expression of my
affection to him and to you. I ask for no other privilege on
earth, but to make known the efficacy of his death; and none
in heaven, but to be associated with those who ascribe salva-
tion to his blood. AMEN.
* For some time, previously to the composition and delivery of these
Discourses, the writer of them had been prevented, by long continued
infirmity, from the delivery of Sermons in the pulpit.
22%
T H E L A M B 0 F (30 D .
[THE following Sermon was delivered in the Chapel of the Andover
Theol. Seminary, on the last Sabbath of the Winter Term of 1846. The
Students made a request that I would publish it, by including it in the
little volume which they had learned I was about to republish. I hesi-
tated, for a while, about complying with their request; because I was
afraid that this Discourse might be deemed a repetition, in some mea-
sure at least, of the preceding ones. It was composed and delivered,
without any reference to publication. On a review of the subject, it has
seemed to me, that the former discourses stand related to this, as a whole
does to a part. They discuss the subject generically; the following Dis-
course, in a specific manner, and in reference to an important and con-
troverted text of Scripture. What led to the composition of the latter
was; the reading of F. Lilcke's Commentary upon the text, who has ex-
pended much effort and ingenuity in order to show, that the expiatory
death of Christ and redemption by it are not brought into prominent
view, by the passage in question. Having myself formed a different opin-
ion, I have endeavoured, in the following discourse, to give my reasons
for it. I have preferred to do this in an exegetical way; believing fully
that this method of preaching is occasionally of great importance, and
has a powerful tendency to excite in Christians an active spirit of inquiry
respecting the meaning of Scripture. At any rate, this mode of preach-
ing conducts us immediately to the fountain-head of all true doctrine.
In respect to repetition of things already said, the reader must expect
somewhat of this mature with regard to certain particulars. My audi-
ence were almost entirely different, when this last Sermon was delivered,
from my former one, and knew little or mothing of my two former Dis-
courses on the Atonement. To them, therefore, nothing in the follow-
ing Discourse wore even the appearance of repetition. In publishing it,
I should like to avoid this appearance in the view of readers at the pres-
ent time, if it were feasible; but I find that I cannnot do this without
tearing the discourse asunder, and reducing it to a fragmentary state.
Changes in it therefore I have not made, excepting a few mere verbal
alterations. Discourses of such a nature, designed for popular assem-
blies, are often injured by filing away and polishing. I have undertaken
nothing of the Sort, on the present occasion. A good reason for it is,
that I did not wish to change the phase of the Discourse, so as to make
it different from that which interested my audience, or from a popular
discourse on an occasion of Communion-Service. My audience, however,
was composed of Students; and this will account for the use of a few
expressions and allusions, that I should have changed or omitted, be-
fore another and different audience. I now retain these, for reasons of
the same naturé as those above stated,—M. S.]
S E R M O N.
JOHN I. 29.
BEHopD THE LAMB of GoD, which TAKETH Away THE SIN of
THE WORLD lº
SEVERAL inquiries naturally present themselves to our
minds, on reading such a declaration as this. By whom was
*t first made 2 On what occasion ? And what is the exact
meaning which it was designed to convey 3 - -
It was made by John the Baptist, the announcing herald
and forerunner of the true Messiah. The birth of this per-
sonage was foretold by an angel. In some respects it was
supernatural. The character of John was an extraordinary
one. Our Saviour says of him, that “he was more than a
prophet ;” and that “among those born of woman, a greater
than John the Baptist had not arisen;” (Matt. 11: 7–11).
It is a moral greatness, beyond a doubt, to which this decla-
ration of the Saviour specially refers; but on other grounds
it would be easy to vindicate a high rank for John. Of all
the prophets, he only was the immediate forerunner of Christ;
and he only was exclusively charged with the duty of an-
nouncing the immediate appearance of the promised Messiah.
To him only was it vouchsafed to make a change in the tenor
of the Mosaic religion, and to baptize into a new and prepara-
tory dispensation. The persons, who by their office are
nearest to the king, in respect to his royal acts, are of course
his highest officers. And such was the place of John.
His character was of the order of Elijah, and Elisha, and
Isaiah. He was a fearless and uncompromising reformer.
* Preached on the occasion of administering the Lord's Supper.
262 TEIE LAMB OF GOD.
Withal, strange as it may seem to us, he was exceedingly
popular among the Jews. The secret of this undoubtedly is,
that he announced the Messiah as immediately coming, under
whose reign the whole Jewish nation were then expecting
deliverance from a foreign yoke, and an elevated rank among
the nations of the earth. Panting with strong desire for the
attainment of both these objects, multitudes flocked to John
from all parts of Judea. “All Judea and Jerusalem,” says
the evangelist, “went out to John in order that they might
be baptized.” Among them went Jesus himself, now about
thirty years of age.
This leads us easily to answer our second question, viz.
On what occasion were the words of our text uttered?
They were spoken in presence of that immense multitude
who surrounded John, and were addressed to them. They
were spoken the next day after John had baptized Jesus in
the presence of all the people who flocked to him; they were
uttered, of course, after the multitudes who were there had
seen the Holy Spirit. descending from heaven as a dove, and
resting upon Jesus; and after a voice from Heaven, had pro-
claimed: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased. -
John was now near the completion of his work. Jesus.
was thenceforth to enter on his official duties, and to set up
that kingdom which John had so often announced. In this
state of things, John introduced to the multitudes around him
the exalted personage, whom he had by baptism consecrated
to his holy office. Only a single sentence from his introduc-
tory speech has been recorded ; but that comprises, one may
well say, the substance of a long discourse: “BEHOLD THE
LAMB. OF GOD, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE
WORLD !” *
. This brings us, in the third place, to inquire into the exact
meaning of such an annunciation. -
If John, as we believe, was commissioned by heaven to in-
troduce the Messiah to the Jews, we must regard the declara-
tion by which he performs this duty, as containing truth, and
TEIE LAMIB OF GOD. 263
nothing but truth. To no prophet or priest, except to the
Messiah, had been conceded the honour and the privilege of
having a forerunner or herald to prepare the way for his ap-
pearance. Yet John, who was greater than all that had pre-
ceded him, considers himself as entitled to no higher place
than that of a menial servant, in comparison with the elevated
rank of Christ, and most readily acknowledges the claims of
the newly baptized Saviour to the honour, homage, confi-
dence, and obedience of all men. Not only had no prophet, no
priest, no king, before Jesus of Nazareth, ever been introduced
to the Jewish people in such a manner; but it never had been
announced concerning any one of them, that he was to re-
move or take away the sins of even the Jewish nation, much
less the sins of the whole world. A sacrifice of a more ex-
alted nature and of greater efficacy than any which had been
presented, or could be offered by them, was needed in order
to purify the conscience from dead works, and to fit the of
ferer for an acceptable service of the living God. .
John had often and most earnestly urged upon the Jews
the duty of repentance, and assured them that nothing short
of this could prepare them for the due reception of the Mes-
siah. Now, when Jesus makes his appearance in order to
enter upon the duties of his station, John discloses to them
the great object which is to be accomplished by him. The
pardon of sin—the removal of both the penalty and the power
of sin—was that object. Mere repentance, important as it
was and is, can never of itself remove the penalty of a broken
law. It does not atone for sins already committed; it only
prepares the penitent to avoid transgression for the future, by
inspiring a hatred of sin, as well as a sorrow for it. John did
not tell the Jews, that if they repented they would be forgiven
because of their repentance. He urged repentance upon them,
as the indispensable condition of being made partakers of the
blessings which Christ was to bestow. When he had done
all that he was commissioned to do, after he had baptized
and exhorted to immediate repentance, he publicly and sol-
emnly announces to all his converts, and to the world, that
264 THE LAMIB OF GOD.
they are “to look to the Lamb of God, in order that their
sins might be taken away.” -
But who or what is the Lamb of God? Why does John
give to Jesus such an appellation ?
I know of but two lights in which this matter can be view-
ed. The literal sense is out of all question, in this case, be-
cause the appellation is given to a person, and a lamb in a
literal sense is not a person. Of course the word lamb
involves a comparison or simile. There are two ways, now,
in which a comparison may be made; the one has respect
merely to disposition or character; the other has its basis
in the fact, that lambs were so extensively employed, and on
the most important occasions, as propitiatory or sin-offerings,
under the ancient dispensation.
As to the first source of comparison, innocence, meekness,
and unresisting submission to harsh treatment, are characteris-
tic in an eminent degree of a lamb. It is, even among us, one
of our most familiar and forcible images, employed to designate
a combination of such attributes or virtues. It is possible, Is
admit, that John might apply the appellation of lamb to Jesus,
in order to indicate that such characteristics as I have just
named, belonged in a peculiar manner to him. So had Isaiah
done before him : “He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not
his mouth;” (Is. 53: 7). Had the object of John been
merely to set forth the meek and patient virtues of Jesus
amidst persecutions and sufferings, he doubtless might have
spoken of him as a lamb, and with much significancy. But
how would such a view of his words agree with the rest of
our text? He is not merely a lamb—but “a Lamb of God;”
and not only so, but “he takes away the sin of the world.”
Now the fact that Jesus was innocent, and meek, and mild,
and patient, and unresisting when forced to suffering, is con-
nected, when considered by itself, in no intelligible manner
with taking away the sin of the world. There were doubt-
less many pious persons in that assembly which John ad-
THE LAMIB OF GOD. 265
dressed, who were in a good degree of the same meek and
patient character, and might be called, as Jesus calls his true
followers, lambs of his Father's flock. But this did not make
them saviours of the world from sin. If Jesus was perfectly
innocent, and meek, and unresisting—all this might help to
form an elevated and very amiable character. It might qual-
ify him to be an excellent prophet and teacher. But if he
is mainly referred to, in this character, by the text before us,
then how can we help the feeling that John has been unfor-
tunate in the choice of his metaphorical language 2 In re-
spect to the announcement of a teacher or prophet we should
expect to hear something indicative of acuteness and wisdom
and eloquence. If John means to designate an accomplished
teacher, we are prepared to hear him call Jesus a light, a sun,
a guide, or to describe him by some other similar appellation.
But to choose a lamb as the symbol of intelligence, wisdom,
eloquence, power of instruction—is one of the last choices
that we should expect any man to make. When the Saviour
sends out his disciples to teach, he exhorts them to “be wise
as serpents, and harmless as doves.” We understand this at
once. But if John the Baptist meant to characterize Christ,
as “taking away the sins of the world” merely by his saga-
cious and discriminating instruction, he has made choice of a
word which does not in the remotest manner convey to our
minds any image of this sort. The rhetorical argument from
this passage is therefore invincibly against such a supposition.
The moral argument is still stronger. If Jesus as an in-
structor is only, or principally, the Saviour of the world, why
have not Paul, and other apostles, and evangelists, and pro-
phets, yea, and all preachers of the gospel too, the same reason
to be called the saviours of men? Let it be that Jesus had
a prečminence and higher qualifications; yet their work and
office is the same in kind as his. Nay, I may go still further:
If the light actually diffused abroad over the world, is the
principal means and the measure of taking away sin, then
Paul has a higher claim to be called Saviour, than Jesus of
Nazareth; for he taught much longer, far more widely, had
23
266 THE LAMIB OF GOD.
more success, and has left on record the most important in-
struction we now have respecting the nature of the Christian
system.
On both grounds, then, viz. on that of rhetorical propriety,
and on that of the great moral object to be accomplished by
Christ, the interpretation of Lamb in our text as a mere sym-
bol or indication of personal character, or of didactic powers,
is out of all reasonable question.
We are of necessity thrown, then, upon the other figura-
tive or symbolic meaning of the word lamb, viz. AN ATONING
OR PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, BY WHICH THE PARD ON OF
SIN IS SECURED, or (to use the language of the text) “the
sins of the world are taken away.”
Nothing could be more easy and natural, than for a Jew
to employ the word in such a sense. What was that victim,
whose blood, sprinkled on the door-posts of the Hebrew habi-
tations in Egypt, was a sign to the destroying angel that he
must pass by, and leave the inmates of the dwelling unharmed,
while every Egyptian's house was mourning the death of a
first born ? The victim which furnished that blood was a
lamb. Lambs were to be ever employed as victims, at the
great feast of the passover. They were extensively employed
in other sacrifices, and on occasions of great solemnity. Be-
ing less expensive victims than bullocks, the great legislator
of the Jews enjoined an extensive use of them by the people,
so that the poorer classes might thus participate in the offer-
ings which were legally to be made, -
No one can wonder, then, that a Jew, who regarded Christ
in the light in which Isaiah has placed him, viz. as “wounded
for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities,” should
call him a Lamb. See how familiarly Paul speaks, in regard
to this matter: “Purge out,” says he to the Corinthians, “the
old leaven.” Every Jew of course would spontaneously feel
the reference in this command to the leavened bread which
was to be put away, at the feast of the passover. But the
apostle does not stop with this. He goes on to assign a rea-
son for his command, in language equally plain and signifi-
TEIE LAMIB OF GOD. 267
*.
cant: “For even Christ, our passover,” i.e. our passover-
lamb, “is sacrificed for us,” (1 Cor. 5: 7). Peter shows that
the same idea is familiar to him : “Ye were redeemed,” says
he to the Christians whom he is addressing, “not with cor-
ruptible things, . . . . but with the precious blood of Christ,
a lamb without blemish and without spot;” (1 Pet. 1: 18, 19.
Ex. 12; 5). That apostle who leaned on the bosom of Jesus,
and who has recorded the words of John the Baptist which
constitute our text, seems to have imbibed, in an unusual
measure, the spirit which led to the employment of such lan-
guage as I have repeated. Rapt into celestial vision, he be-
held the throne of God, supported by four living creatures,
and surrounded by the twenty-four elders. “In the midst of
them,” i.e. between the circling elders and the throne, “I
saw,” says he, “a LAMB, as it had been slain, having seven
horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God.”
That Lamb advances to the throne, and takes the book with
seven seals out of the hand of him who sat upon that throne,
in order that he might break the seals and disclose the con-
tents of that book. But how are the heavenly spectators af-
fected by this? Every one falls prostrate before the Lamb,
and all unite in singing the new song: “Thou wast slain,
and hast redeemed us to God by thy BLOOD, out of every kin-
dred and tongue and people and nation.” All heaven re-
spond to this. They shout aloud: “Worthy is the LAMB,
that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and
strength, and honour, and glory and blessing.” The whole
universe reëchoes back this song: “Blessing and honour,
and glory and power, be unto him who sitteth on the throne,
and to the LAMB forever and ever!” (Rev. 5: 8–14). This
Settles the question, as to what views were connected with the
word lamb, as applied to Christ. It is a lamb which is slain ;
a lamb whose blood has a redeeming efficacy; even as Paul
has often asserted that we “have redemption by the blood of
Christ.” And although John has elsewhere in the Apoca-
lypse presented the Lamb to our view, as “King of kings
and Lord of lords,” yet there is nothing in this which is at
268 TEIE LAMIB OF GOD.
all at variance with his other view of the subject. One thing
lies upon the face of these passages; which is, that the high-
est elevation of heavenly rapture and song is always reached,
whenever Christ presents himself as a Lamb that had been
slain. * - ‘.
May I not safely venture to assert, now, not only that John
the Baptist might have meant to call Jesus a Lamb, because
he was to be an expiatory victim, but that, according to rhe-
torical propriety and the Jewish usages of speech, he must
have meant to convey such an idea? I do not believe, that
we can rationally suppose the Jews, who encircled the herald .
of Jesus’ approach, would ever have thought of any other
meaning of John’s words than this. . And could John fail to
know this? And why should we suppose him to have em-
ployed mystical or equivocal language, on an occasion so
Solemn and important P
But if any doubt remains on the mind of any one who hears
me, in regard to this point, it will all be removed, as it seems
to me, when we advance in the farther explanation of our
téxt. e
Jesus is not only a lamb, but THE LAMB of GOD. Here
is superadded, in the way of explanation, a new relation or
quality of the Lamb in question. It is barely possible, that
lamb of God may mean most eaccellent lamb; as mountains of
God are said to mean very high mountains, and the child Mo-
ses was fair to God is said to mean that he was exceedingly
fair. Time has been, when these idioms were thus inter-
preted; but the idea of making a mere superlative out of the
name of God, is now generally abandoned by the best critics,
and the words of God are admitted to be indicative of some
special relation to God. Accordingly, in the text before us,
the Lamb of God must either mean the Lamb which belongs to
God, or else the Lamb which God provides. The Lamb which
belongs to God would make an inept and frigid meaning, in
the case before us. The main design of John the Baptist is
to show in what relation Jesus stands to those whom he ad-
dresses, not to show to whom the Lamb appertains as prop-
TELE LAMIB OF GOD. 269
erty. It follows, then, that the meaning must be : The Lamb
which God has provided, or which he presents as a sin-offer-
ing. Every Jew, in his own case and on account of his own
sin, was obliged by the Mosaic law to provide, and present
as a sacrifice for sin, a lamb without spot or blemish. What
each had thus done for himself, God now does for the Jews
and for all men. He provides a spotless victim, who through
the eternal Spirit was to offer up himself as a sacrifice to God,
and thus procure eternal redemption for all.
Mark, my hearers, what expanded views the forerunner of
Jesus had, in regard to the nature and extent of Christ's
mission. He was first of all a lamb, i. e. a propitiatory or
vicarious sacrifice; then, secondly, he was a lamb presented
by no mere man who was himself a sinner, but provided by
God himself; and of course, thirdly, we may accede to the
remaining part of the declaration : Which taketh away the sins
of the world. In the language of the apostle John this
phraseology imports, that the Lamb of God was to be a pro-
pitiatory sacrifice for Gentiles as well as Jews. The atone-
ment of Christ, then, its efficacy, and its universality, are all
plainly within the scope of John the Baptist’s view.
This brings us to the last declaration of our text: Which
taketh away the sºn of the world.
What is it to take away sin P The Greek words (&tgow
zºv &uggvica) are not of the classical idiom, but are simply
Hebrew in Greek costume. The Hebrews employed the
phrase (jiy Nº) as meaning either to bear the punishment
or consequences of sin, or to expiate sin, or to forgive sin.
Either of the two first meanings will answer well for our text,
for Christ “bore our sins and carried our sorrows; he bore
our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Pet. 2: 24); he was
made a curse for us (Gal. 3: 13); he was made sin, who
knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: 21). One might vindicate this
shade of meaning, also, by appealing to the lamb as a sacrì-
jicial victim, which bore suffering in the room of him who
presented the offering. Substantially, too, this meaning at-
23#
270 TEIE LAMIB OF GOD.
tached to the phrase would communicate to us the idea of
Christ as an atoning sacrifice. But I doubt not that the
other shade of meaning conveyed by this Hebrew phraseolo-
gy, is the true idea of the passage before us. The Lamb
that takes away the sins of the world, is the Lamb that makes
expiation for them, and thus removes their condemning and
soul-destroying power. The Greek verb translated taketh
away (&ſoo), like the corresponding Hebrew one (sº),
means, first of all, to lift up, elevate ; then to raise up and
remove, as one lifts up a burden and then conveys it away.
It is exceedingly significant in the passage under considera-
tion. Christ took on him the burden of our sins, and this
load he carried away or removed from us. Figurative, in-
deed, is the whole manner of expression. Figurative was it
among the Jews, who spoke familiarly of their sacrificial
victims as bearing the sins of the offerer, and taking them
away. Over the head of the goat, which on the great day of
expiation was sent into the wilderness, confession was made
by the high-priest in behalf of all the people, while his hands
were laid on the head of the goat, in order thus to signify
that the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to
the goat; and the same scape-goat is said to “bear all their
iniquities unto a land not inhabited” (Lev. 16: 21 seq.), i. e.
it took away their sins. The offender who offered a sacrifice
in a manner prescribed by law, was ecclesiastically and civil-
ly freed from the penalty of the law. The law adjudged the
victim to have suffered in his room or stead.
No other meaning than one drawn from these familiar
sources, will answer the demands of our text. All else falls
far below it, or widely misses the mark. To say that Christ
takes away the sins of the world by virtue of the instruction
which he communicated as our great teacher, is true enough
to a certain extent; but this idea by no means answers
the exigencies of our text. A lamb is not the emblem of
an instructor. When the evangelist wishes to convey his
views of Christ as our great teacher, he calls him the Light of
the world; he says that in him was life, and that life was the
THE LAMB OF GOD. 271
light of men; he says that the Only Begotten of the Father
has declared the purposes of God fully to us. Indeed it is
quite plain, that entirely another. mode of expression than
that in our text must be adopted, in order intelligibly to con-
vey the idea in question. &
One word as to taking away the sins of the WORLD, and
I have done with my main theme. Other conditions besides
the expiatory death of Christ are necessary to complete the
actual salvation of the sinner—conditions on his part, which
are indispensablé. He must be a penitent; he must believe
and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only and all-suffi-
cient Saviour of sinners. This done, salvation is as wide as
the world of men. The proffer of it is universal; the pro-
vision for it on the part of God is all-sufficient. But the sin-
ner must become united to Christ by faith, in order actually
to avail himself of this provision. & e
Thus have I endeavoured to explain and vindicate this
most important part of all the preaching or declarations of
John the Baptist, which is left on sacred record. No one
will deny that our subject has an intimate connection with
the solemnities in which we are to engage this day; for to-
day, (we may say with the apostle of old), is Christ our pass-
over sacrificed for us. Or we may use the words of the
same apostle on another occasion : “Christ Jesus is evident-
ly set forth before us, as crucified among us.”
Christians are you prepared for this sacred feast 2 Do
you look by faith to . that Lamb of God, which taketh away
the sin of the world? I would most affectionately and
solemnly warn you, that it is necessary to discern the Lord’s
body aright, if we would escape condemnation when we come
to this table; and surely so, if we would rationally expect to
participate in the blessings which it indicates. What then is
discerning the Lord’s body aright? Would any one ever
devise such an expression, in order to inculcate the necessity
or the importance of recognizing Christ as our instructor, or
as a perfect model of piety and virtue 2 “Not discerning the
Lord’s BoDY aright !” And is his body our teacher, and his
272 THE LAMB OF GOD.
body our model of holiness and virtue —No! good taste,
propriety, as well as all that is awful and sacred in the death
of Christ, revolts at such an interpretation. Peter has ex-
plained it: “Who his own self, in his own body, bare our
sins upon the tree,” (1 Pet. 2: 24). It is the discerning of
that body, laden with our sins, suffering and dying under the
weight of them, which we are called to, on an occasion like
the present. My dear Christian friends, are you prepared
to do this in a spiritual manner—in such a way as to feed by
faith on the body and blood of an atoning Saviour? This is
what is meant by “eating his flesh and drinking his blood.”
I reject—were not the occasion so sacred I would say—reject
with scorn, all carnal and literal interpretation of this. How
can the literal eating of flesh, and the literal drinking of hu-
man blood, purify and sanctify the spirits of men? It is a
heathen conception. But there is a meaning in phraseology
of this nature, which is transcendently excellent, and is re-
freshment to the soul. Paul felt what it was, when he said
to the Corinthians: “I am determined to know nothing among
you, save Jesus Christ, and HIM CRUCIFIED.” Paul ac-
knowledged it, when he declared that he would “preach
Christ crucified,” and that “the preaching of the cross is the
power of God unto salvation.” Paul realized it in all its ex-
cellence, when he said to the Galatians: “God forbid that I
should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Are you prepared my friends to sympathize with him—to
enter fully into the meaning of his words 2 If you are, then
may you this morning behold the Lamb of God which taketh
away the sins of the world. I cannot, indeed, point you to
his bodily presence, as John the Baptist did his hearers ; but
I am authorized to assure you, that the symbols of his body
and of his blood, are not symbols of what has no existence
and no reality. They are symbols of a present Christ. He
is as really here to-day, as he was on the banks of the Jor-
dan, when John announced him as the Lamb of God, to the
wondering multitude. He will be at the head of our table,
on this occasion, if we are ready to receive him. Faith can
TEIE LAMIB OF GOD. - 273
see him there in all his meekness, and all his benignity, and
all his majesty. Faith has an ear also to hear him address
us and say: “Eat O friends; drink, O beloved P’ “This
is my body, which was broken for you; my blood, that was
shed for the remission of sins.” O Lamb of God who takest
away the sins of the world, open our blind eyes to see thee
in thy glory and in thy mercy | Unstop our deaf ears, that
we may listen to the invitations of thy love to-day, and so
hear that our Souls may live AMEN.
C HRISTIANITY A DISTINCT RELIGION.
[After having already apologized, at the beginning of the preceding
Discourse, for the repetition of certain topics in respect to the atonement
and Godhead of Christ, it would seem to be trespassing upon the
patience and offending the taste of the reader, to insert another discourse
here, which needs still more an apology of the like mature. If this
volume consisted of one treatise or discussion only, it would be out of
question thus to trespass upon my readers; who doubtless would, and
not unmaturally, feel that I expected to be heard for much speaking, if
they did not bring the more serious charge of using vain repetitions.
All that I have to say is, that the discourses, when composed, were sep-
arated by years, and were delivered before different audiences and at va-
rious places, and could not therefore appear as repetitions to the audi-
tors. They are in each case simple copies of thoughts familiar to my
own mind, and not transcriptions of each other. My own taste and judg-
ment would lead me to omit some of them in this little volume, in order
to avoid the appearance of repetition. But I feel compelled to defer to
the often repeated wishes of friends whom I love and respect, by insert-
ing them all, without remodeling or substantial change. Each has its
own peculiar attitude; and besides what is common to all, each is made
up, for the most part, of what is peculiar to itself. The preceding Sacra-
mental Sermon is a purely exegetical discourse. The Sermon which now
follows, brings to view an attitude of Christianity, which never can be
made too much of. If we wish to know whether we are really Chris-
tians; or whether others who claim this honourable name are entitled to
it; we must first know what Christianity is, in distinction from all else
that is called religion. This great question I have endeavoured to an-
Swer. In so doing, it was impossible for me not to say some things, that
the reader has already met with in the preceding pages. I hope, how-
ever, for his indulgence, in these circumstances, and that he will not ac-
cuse me of merely copying from myself, or of making up a book of
repetitions to no purpose.—M. S.]
S E. R. M. O. N.
MATT. XVIII. 20.
FOR WHERE Two OR THREE ARE GATHERED TOGETHER IN MY
NAME, THERE AM I IN THE MIDST OF TELEM.3%
SUCH was the declaration of the Saviour to his apostles.
He had been giving them directions with regard to the mode
of exercising discipline in the church, and had promised them
special assistance in the discharge of this duty, when he ut-
tered the words of our text. He had told them, that when
two of their number should be agreed on earth, respecting
anything which they would ask, it should be done for them
by his Father in heaven. On this, he assured them, they
might rely ; since no such request could escape his notice, or
fail of attracting his aid. Wherever two or three are met to-
gether, said he, in my name, there am I in the midst of them ;
consequently the apostles could not fail of obtaining that aid
which he had promised.
Although these words had a particular reference, when
they were first spoken, to the apostles, and were intended to
satisfy their minds respecting the assistance which their Lord
and Master would give them, while employed in his service;
yet, as there is nothing in the nature of the case which me-
cessarily limits them to the apostles only, I shall consider
them as addressed to Christians of every age, and applicable
to all who convene in the name of Christ. Not that a
promise of miraculous aid is to be extended to all who are
convened as the disciples of Christ; not that everything for
* Preached at the Dedication of the Church in Hanover Street, Bos-
ton, March 1, 1826. -
24
278 CEIRISTIANITY
which they now ask will be specifically granted, as it was to
those who had a miraculous faith, and who asked for various
things under special supernatural guidance. The applica-
tion of our text to Christians of every age, does not necessa-
rily involve this. The assurance of Christ to the apostles,
that whatever any two should agree in asking for, should
be bestowed upon them, is grounded not on the fact that he
would be specially present, and present only with them as
apostles, but on the fact, that wherever his disciples might
convene he would be present. It involves a general promise,
that they who should be his sincere friends and faithful min-
isters of the gospel, should enjoy his presence and aid. It is
a promise of a nature similar to that which the Saviour made
at the moment of his ascension : “Lo I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world.” This was addressed to
the apostles; and was designed in a peculiar manner to cheer
their drooping spirits, and animate them in the great work
which they were about to undertake. But who will say,
that it must be confined solely to them 2 Were they to con-
tinue to the end of the world? If not, then Christians in
general, or at least the ministers of the divine word in gen-
eral, down to the end of time, are meant to be included.
This may suffice to show, that our text can be properly
adduced at the present day, and on this occasion, as applica-
ble to an assembly of worshippers convened in the name of
Christ. -
If so, we may now proceed to inquire :
I. What is it for an assembly of men to convene in the
name of Christ P
II. What is implied in the declaration that he is in the
midst of them P
Our English translation of the verse, which I have chosen
as my text, hardly conveys to the common reader of our lan-
guage the force of the original Greek. Such a reader would
naturally suppose, that the phrase in my name means, by the
* Matt. 28:20.
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 279
authority or command of Christ; as we speak of anything
being done in the name of the king, or in the name of the
commonwealth. But this would be an entire miscongeption
of the meaning of the passage before us. In the Hebrew
language of the Old Testament, and in the Greek of the New,
which very frequently (as might naturally be expected) imi-
tates it closely, the word name is often employed only as a
kind of periphrasis or circumlocution, in order to express him,
himself, i. e. the person to whom the word name refers. Thus
the Hebrews say: Let the name of God be honoured 1 instead
of simply saying: Let God be honoured / God says: I will
reveal my name, instead of I will reveal myself. So our Sa-
viour says, in the prayer which we familiarly call the Lord's
Prayer : Hallowed be thy name, which means, Be thou held
on reverence, or adored. - - *
From this very common usage in the Hebrew tongue it
comes, that in the New Testament such phrases as for thy
name's sake, on account of thy name, often mean nothing
more than for thy sake, on thy account. For example: Ye
shall be hated of all men . . . . . for my name's sake, i. e. for
my sake. All these things shall they do to you . . . . . on ac-
count of my name, i. e. on account of me.” Whoever shall
forsake his family and friends . . . . . for my name's sake, i. e.
on account of me.” Whatever ye shall ask in my name, i. e.
on account of me, for the sake of my cause." The Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, i.e. on ac-
count of me, or for the sake of my cause.5 If ye are re-
proached for the name of Christ, i.e. on account of him, be-
cause ye are Christians.6 Whoever shall receive a little child
in my name, i.e. on my account.”
It were easy to add many more examples of the same na-
ture, but I forbear. I have produced these, merely to show
that I do not hazard anything in asserting the sentiment of
our text to be this : Where two or three are convened on my
* Matt. 10: 22. * John 14: 13, 14. * I Pet. 4: 14.
* John 15: 21. * John 14; 26. 7 Luke 9: 48.
* Matt. 19:29.
280 CEIRISTIANITY
account, for my sake, because of me. The original Greek
(eig zö Šuby Švouc.) can scarcely admit of any other con-
struction.
To meet together on account of Christ, is to convene as his
disciples; as having a common interest in him ; and as pos-
sessing characteristics which distinguish those who do thus
convene from other men, i. e. from the world around them.
Men may convene for a great variety of purposes, either
of business or of pleasure. But it will not be affirmed that
all conventions of this sort are for the sake of Christ. Nay,
men may meet together for acts of religious worship, and yet
not convene for the sake of Christ. Sober theists like Lord
Herbert, Jews, Mohammedans, nay idolaters, may meet to-
gether for the sake of social worship; but they come not to-
gether in the name of Christ; nor has he promised to be in
the midst of such assemblies.
There is something, then, which must distinguish the Chris-
tian worshipper from all others; something which makes him
'what he professes to be, a Christian, in distinction from an
unbeliever, a heathen or polytheist, a deist or naturalist, a Jew,
or a Mohammedan. Like every other religion received by
men, Christianity has, and must have, some distinctive traits
of its own which make it what it is ; which make it Chris-
tianity rather than Deism, or Judaism, or Islamism. The
disciples of Christ, his true disciples, must of course recog-
nize these traits. If there be doctrines and duties of Chris-
tianity which differ from those of all other religions, then
they who are the genuine followers of Christ, and real con-
verts to his religion, must receive those doctrines, and prac-
tise those duties. Nor can any be truly said to meet togeth-
er in the name of Christ, or as his disciples, who do not ad-
mit the one, and practise the other.
Surely a man could not, with any propriety, be called a
Mohammedan, who should refuse to receive the Koran, and
to practise the rites and duties which it enjoins; nor could
he be called a Jew, who should reject the Pentateuch, and
the peculiarities of the Jewish institutions. It cannot be any
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 281
more proper, then, to consider men as real Christians, or to
call an assembly convened for the purposes of worship, Chris-
tians, provided they reject the peculiarities of the Christian
religion which make it what it is, viz. Christianity in distinc-
tion from all other religions.
What then is it to come together as Christians? What
are those distinctive traits of belief or character, which sep-
arate Christians from all other worshippers; make them the
subject of that promise which our text contains; and give
them, therefore, the assurance that Christ will be present
when they worship as his disciples?
Christianity does not differ, as to every doctrine which it
teaches, and every duty which it prescribes, from all other
systems of religion. The better part even of pagans admit-
ted some of the doctrines which our religion inculcates. Many
of the moral duties, for example, were taught with no small
degree of force and perspicuity by Socrates, Plato, Epictetus,
Plutarch, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others. The light of
nature did much for such men; and the doctrines which they
taught, and the duties which they inculcated, so far as they
were guided by that light, were altogether accordant with those
which Christianity teaches and enjoins.
But the difference, after all, is so wide between Christianity
and any of the various systems of idolatry and polytheism,
that I do not think it worth a moment’s delay, on the present
occasion, to show that a worshipper under the Gospel is of a
very different complexion from one who either bows down to
images which his own hands have made, or worships the host
of heaven, or prostrates himself before heroes and conquerors,
whom superstition has exalted to heaven and ranked among
the objects of human adoration.
Very different from all these, and at a great advance be-
yond them, is the considerate theist or naturalist of modern
times, the Jew, and the Mohammedan. These, I mean the
Sober and reasoning part of them, all unite in the belief, that
there is one only living and true God, spiritual, eternal, om-
niscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable, just, wise, good,
24%
282 CHRISTIANITY
merciful, and faithful; the creator, preserver, and governor
of all things; and the proper object of religious worship by
all the creatures which he has made. They all agree, that
Tman is a rational, accountable, immortal being, placed in a
state of moral probation; and that there is a future world, a
judgment to come, a state of punishment for the wicked, and
of reward for the righteous. They all agree, that God is the
proper object of prayer, and of secret and social worship;
they assert the obligation of men to repent of their sins, and
to forsake them ; and they unite in a full acknowledgment of
nearly all the moral duties which the gospel enjoins.
I have said that the sober theist admits all this ; and I might
appeal to the works of Lord Herbert, Tindal, and others of
past times; of Kant and Eberhard, of recent memory; or to
various writers of the present time, in proof of this proposi-
tion, were any disposed to doubt it. I presume, however, that
none who hear me will doubt it. If then the maturalist, who
rejects all revelation, and denies all supernatural intercourse
between God and his creatures, admits thus much ; we might
well expect that the Jew, with the Old Testament in his hands,
would go still farther. This is in fact the case; for he ad-
mits the authority of the Old Testament; the inspiration of
Moses and the prophets; that there is a Messiah to come;
and that God is not only to be worshipped by a life of prayer
and the practice of social virtues and moral duties, but to be
worshipped in the particular manner pointed out in the Old
Testament, so often as this may be possible.
The Mohammedan goes still farther, in the theory of his
faith. He admits both revelations; that in ancient, and that
in later days; that by Moses and the prophets, and that by
Jesus Christ. He admits them to have been of divine au-
thority, and still to be substantially so. But all that is essen-
tial in them, he believes is comprehended in the Koran ;
which, in his view, is the last and most perfect of all divine
revelations.
How then does the disciple of Jesus differ from these vari-
ous religionists? Not in the belief of one God; not in main-
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 283
taining the perfection of all his natural and moral attributes;
not in regarding him as the creator, preserver, and governor
of the universe ; not in the belief that we are rational, ac-
countable, immortal beings; that there is a judgment to come;
that there is a future world of happiness, and another of wo,
in one of which men will be placed, according to the charac-
ter which they sustain in their probationary state; not in the
belief that God is the proper object of prayer, and of private
and social worship ; not in admitting the obligation to incul-
cate and practise all the social and moral virtues. So far as
all these truths are concerned, the Christian occupies ground
in common with the naturalist, the Jew, and the Mohamme-
dan. Why is he then a Christian, and not a Theist, nor a
Jew, nor a Mohammedan 2 Plainly because he admits some
other doctrines, and practises some duties, that are peculiar
to Christianity, and which exclude the peculiarities of the
other systems of religion, that give names to their respective
votaries. When Christians assemble, then, as the disciples of
Christ, in a manner that comports with the name which they
bear, they assemble as possessed of some peculiar traits of
character, which distinguish them from all other worshippers.
They meet together, indeed, to acknowledge and adore one
only living and true God, possessed of all possible natural and
moral perfections; as immortal beings; as probationers for
eternity ; as believing in a judgment to come, and in the re-
wards and punishments of the invisible world. They meet
together, acknowledging and inculcating the moral and social
duties, and believing them indispensable in order to secure
divine approbation. Thus far they go, in common with the
Rationalist, the Jew, and the Mohammedan. But the differ-
ence between these religionists and Christians, lies in some-
thing that is superadded to all this; something which they
only admit, and must admit and practise, in order to be
Christians.
What then are the peculiarities which distinguish them,
and which render it proper to say of them that they meet in
the name of Christ, or on account of him 2 A very interest-
284 CHRISTIANITY
ing and a very delicate question; one which, however, my
text leads me to make an attempt briefly to answer. If I am
not fully, I am at least in some good measure, aware of the
responsibility and the difficulty of the case. But I am not
going to dogmatize. I shall appeal to no councils; no fathers;
no creeds; no catechisms; no works of the schoolmen; no
labours of acute and metaphysical divines; in a word, to no
human system whatever. All—all—of these are made by
frail erring men. They are not of any binding authority;
and we have a warrant that is sufficient, not to receive them,
or any of them, as possessing such authority. I advert to the
warning of our Saviour, which bids us call no man master
wpon earth ; for there is one who is owr master, that dwelleth
Žn heaven.
TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY. What we find
there, we may rely upon. All else is uncertain ; to say the
least, it is exposed to error. -
Will you allow me then, my friends, to make such an ap-
peal as I have now described P Instead of striving to please
your fancy, by presenting you with fine imagery and poetic
pictures, or with ingenious and subtle disquisition, or with
speculation which might amuse and pleasantly beguile away
an hour, will you permit me to carry you along with me over
various parts of the New Testament, the record and statute-
book of our holy religion, and see what the Saviour himself,
his apostles, and the teachers inspired by him, have taught us
respecting the peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of
real Christians ? While you, my brethren, who are to convene
in this house, expect to meet together to worship God, and
inculcate the duties of morality, at least as much as others do
who bear not the Christian name ; you expect also to come
here in the name of Christ, and as his disciples. You intend
to profess and to do not only more than the pagan, but more
than the naturalist, or the Jew, or the Mohammedan. I shall
not attempt, within the brief limits assigned to this discourse,
even to glance at all the peculiarities of the Christian sys-
tem, which as the disciples of Christ you are bound to main-
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 285
tain. The most that I can do, is merely to present a few
particulars, which are prominent among the characteristics
that distinguish the Christian religion from all others. More
than this cannot be reasonably expected, from an occasion
like the present. I observe then,
(1) You who are here to meet together in the name of
Christ, must believe and trust in him as the true Messiah, the
Son of God, and the only Saviour of sinners.
Thus Jesus himself commissioned his apostles to declare :
Go . . . . preach the Gospel to every creature. He that be-
lieveth . . . . shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. But what is it to be saved 2 Another Scripture
has answered the question : He that believeth on the Son, hath
everlasting life, i.e. happiness. What is it to be damned?
This inquiry also is answered: He that believeth not the Son,
shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Again: He that believeth on him, is not condemned; but he
that believeth not is condemned already, because he does not
believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Thus
said the Saviour, on another occasion, to the Jews: If ye be-
lieve not that I am. He, (that is, the Messiah), ye shall die in
gour sins ;4 in other words, remission of the penalty you
have incurred, or pardon for sin, can be obtained only
through such a belief. John tells us, that the object of writ-
ing his Gospel was to persuade men to believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have
life through him.5 He tells us again in his epistle, that he
who believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself;
but he that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, because he
believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. What was
that record P. He proceeds to inform us: This is the record
that God hath given to us eternal life ; and this life is in his
Son.6 What follows? He that hath the Son hath life, and
he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.7
* Mark 16:15, 16. * John 8: 24. * 1 John 5: 10, 11.
* John 3: 36. * John 20:31. 7 1 John 5: 12.
* John 3: 18.
286 CHRISTIANITY
In full accordance with this, when the trembling jailer
prostrated himself before Paul and Silas, and said: Sirs,
what must I do to be saved? they answered: Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.] -
But is there no other way of salvation ? May we not be
safe, if we adhere to some other prophet, some other system of
religion ? No; notif Peter is to be credited, who declared to
the persecuting Jews: There is salvation in none other; for
there is none other name given under heaven among men,
whereby we must be saved.” The claims of the Saviour then
are supreme, are exclusive; they admit of no rival with him.
The Gospel teaches that there is but one true religion; one.
right way to heaven; one Saviour of sinners. If before the
Saviour came God winked at the times of ignorance, he no
longer does so where that Saviour is proclaimed. He now
commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” -
But why are we to believe and trust in the Son of God,
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world?
Because he is the Saviour, and only Saviour of sinners.
Bös name was called Jesus, because he was to save his people
from their sins, i. e. from the power and penalty of sin.”
But how save them? Merely by instruction ? By exam-
ple? If he be a Saviour merely because he instructed the
people; then has Paul a better title to that name than he.
Jesus wrote no part of our Scriptures; Paul wrote the most
instructive parts of all. Jesus never travelled beyond the
boundaries of Palestine; he made but few converts to his
religion: Paul travelled almost the world over; converted
many thousands; and built up a multitude of churches. Yet
Paul does not claim the honour of being the Saviour of men ;
neither do other Christians, his fellow men and cotempora-
ries, highly as they value him and his labours, attribute it to
him,
Was Jesus an example of virtue? So was Paul. That
Jesus was more spotless, does not render his example more
* Acts 16:31, * Acts 17:30, 4 Matt, 1; 21.
* Acts 4; 12, -
A DISTINCT RELIGION, 287
imitable by us. If we can come up to Paul’s standard,
our salvation is at least secure. Did Jesus die, to seal by his
blood the truths of the holy religion which he taught? So
did Paul. Did he exhibit the highest conviction of those
truths which he taught, by unshaken attachment to them,
amid every kind of persecution, suffering, and trial? So
did Paul. Did he work miracles, in confirmation of them 2
So did Paul. Was he a divinely commissioned instructor 2
So was Paul. Was he taught of God, as to the doctrines
which he preached? So was Paul. Nay more; Paul was
caught up into the third heaven, and heard unspeakable
words, which it is not proper for man to utter; but this is
nowhere said of Jesus. What then did Jesus perform, which
Paul did not? In the office and duty of an instructor, a
martyr, a prophet, a worker of miracles, a divinely commis-
sioned messenger, a successful reformer, simply considered
as such, Paul was in almost all respects equal, in many re-
spects superior, to him. Why is not Paul then—Paul the
great apostle of the Gentiles to whom we belong—our exalt-
ed benefactor to whom we owe an eternal debt of gratitude 2
Why is not he to be hailed as our Saviour 2 Why are we
not to meet together in his name 3
Ah, my brethren, it is, because there is only ONE name
given under heaven, whereby we can be saved. Only one has
made atonement for sin by his death, and brought in ever-
lasting redemption for us. This Paul did not; Peter did
not ; James did not. They all were martyrs to the cause of
truth. They sealed their testimony with blood. But it was
only the blood of Abel, and not that which “speaketh better
things.” But Jesus was wounded for our transgressions; he
was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace
[i.e. by which our peace is procured] was upon him, and by
his stripes we are healed. . . . The Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all.” When he made his first appearance be-
fore the multitudes, assembled on the banks of the Jordan in
* Acts 4: 12. * Is. 53: 5, 6.
288 CEIRISTIANITY
order to be baptized by his forerunner John, he was proclaim-
ed to them by this inspired herald, as the Lamb of God who
would take away the sins of the world. But a Lamb is not
an instructor, nor an example of piety; a lamb is a sacrifice,
a propitiatory offering. re,
When Christians look to Jesus as their Saviour, and only
Saviour, they must consider him as Peter did; who tells us
that he, his own self, bare our sins in his own body on the .
tree . . . . and that by his stripes we are healed.” They must
believe with this same apostle, that we have not been redeemed
with corriptible things, as with silver and gold . . . . but by
the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and
without spot.8 This is that LAMB OF GOD, my friends, to
which John the Baptist pointed his followers; that Lamb
which by its blood was to redeem perishing sinners.
Christians, who are to worship here in the name of Christ,
you must believe with Paul, that we have redemption through
the blood of Christ, even the forgiveness of sins.4 Paul says,
too, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, . . . .
and that we are now justified by his blood; that when we
were enemies to God, we were reconciled to him by the death
of his Son.5 He says, also, that Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many;6 and that if the blood of bulls and
goats served the purpose of external purification, how much
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience
from dead works, to serve the living God."
John too unites his testimony with that of other prophets
and apostles. Jesus Christ the righteous, says he, is the pro-
pitiation, i. e. propitiatory sacrifice, for our sins, and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Again,
the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.9 -
Such was Paul’s conviction respecting this part of the
1 John 1: 29. * Col. 1: 14. Eph, 1: 7. 7 Heb. 9:13, 14.
* I Pet. 2: 24. * Rom. 5: 8–10. * I John 2: 1, 2.
* 2
* I Pet. 1: 18, 19. * Heb 9:28. * 1 John 1: 7.
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 289
Saviour's character and work, that he tells the Corinthians,
he is determined to know nothing among them, save Jesus
Christ and him crucified; not Christ the prophet, the teach-
er, the perfect exemplar merely ; but CHRIST CRUCIFIED.
And though this doctrine was to the Jews a stumbling block
and to the Greeks, foolishness, yet he continued to preach
Christ crucifted, the power of God, the wisdom of God, our
*ighteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” To the Gala-
tians, who were inclined to glory in the rites of the Jewish
dispensation, the same apostle says: God forbid that I
should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.8
Thus preached and wrote apostles and martyrs, who were
inspired of God. Thus you should believe and feel, my
Christian brethren, when you meet together in this sacred
place. And when you approach, here, the table of your
Lord and master, in order to commemorate his dying love,
then believe, when you see and taste the symbol of a Sa-
viour's blood, that, as he told his disciples when this holy
feast was instituted, his blood of the New Testament was shed
for many for the remission of sins.4
Your thoughts, while you are convened in this Šacred
place, will often be directed to a brighter and better world.
Thither you hope to go, and mingle your song with that of
the blessed above. You will remember then, that they, in
unison with prophets and apostles and all the redeemed of
God on earth, sing: Thow wast slain, and hast redeemed us
to God by thy BLOOD, out of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and pation.5
I will only add, that if, after all which you are taught re-
specting the atoning blood of a Saviour, you reject it, and
renounce your hope and trust in it, you will subject your-
selves to the awful sentence which an apostle has pronounced
on all such : If we sin wilfully, after that we have received
* I Cor. 2: 2. * Gal 6: 14. * Rev. 5: 9.
* I Cor. 1: 23, 24, 30. * Matt. 26: 28.
25
290 CEIRISTIANITY
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice
for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and
fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that
despised Moses' law, died without mercy under two or three
witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall
he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of
God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he
was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the
Spirit of grace. For we know him that hath said: Ven-
geance is mine and I will recompense saith the Lord."
If there is any one point, which widely distinguishes the
Christian religion from all others, it is that on which I have
now dwelt. No other religion presents you with a founder,
who has made atonement for his followers by his own blood.
Abraham did not; Moses did not; John the Baptist did
not; Mohammed did not ; none of the heathen even pre-
tend to have done it. But Christ with his own blood en-
tered the sanctuary above, having obtained etermal redemption
for us.” Here then is a difference heaven-wide between the
sincere follower of Jesus, who believes in him as such a Sa-
viour; and the naturalist, the Jew, or the Mohammedan.
Here is the fundamental principle in which Christianity dif-
fers from all else that is called religion. When you meet
in the name of Christ, you must believe and acknowledge
and feel these truths.-But,
(2) Another characteristic of true Christianity is LovE To
CHRIST.
The true disciples of Christ will not only love him, but
love him supremely, in comparison with every created being
and object. So the Saviour himself demands: If any man
come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple.8 Peter felt the flame of such
love glowing in his bosom, when he wrote thus to the Jews
in their dispersion respecting Christ: Whom having not
* Heb. 10: 26–30. * Heb. 9:11, 12. * Luke 14; 26.
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 291
seen, ye love ; ??, whom, though you now see him not, yet be-
lieving ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;'
and again : Unto you who believe, he is precious.” John also
has told us, that whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is
born of God; and that every one who loveth him that begat,
viz. the Father, loveth him also that is begotten of him, viz.
the Son.3
From Paul we might expect the same testimony, drawn
in glowing colours; and we are not disappointed. To the
Ephesians he says: Grace be with all them that love the Lord
Jesus Christ, in sincerity." The Colossians he exhorts to
seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the
right hand of God, and goes on to say, that their life is hid
with Christ in God; and that when Christ, who is their life,
shall appear, they also shall appear with him in glory.5 He
tells the Philippians, that he was in a strait betwixt two, hav-
ing a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far bet-
ter.6 To the Corinthians he declares, that the love of Christ
constrains him, viz. to labour and suffer, because he thus judg-
ed, that if one died for all, then were all dead.” And in clos-
ing his first epistle to them, such a sense had the apostle of
obligation to love the Saviour, that he declares: If any man
love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema Maran-
atha, i. e. accursed when the Lord shall come to judgment.8
If you say: ‘All good men, all prophets and apostles, are
to be loved and reverenced; I concede it cheerfully. But
the distinction between the love due to Christ and to them is,
that the former is supreme. - No created being or thing can
come at all in competition with him.
“But are we to love the Son rather than the Father ? Or
more than we love the Father ?” I answer: We are to love.
the Father in him, and him in the Father.9 The Father has
no jealousy in respect to any degree of love which we may
* I Pet. 1: 8. * Eph. 6: 24. 7 2 Cor. 5: 14.
2 I Pet. 2: 7. * Col. 3: 1–4. 8 1 Cor. 16:22.
* 1 John 5: 1. 9 Phil. 1: 23. * John 14: 11.
292 - CEIRISTIANITY
bear to the Son. He himself has proclaimed him to us, as
his beloved and only Son, in whom he is well pleased.|
But I deem it unnecessary to dilate on this topic. It is so
plain a case, that Christians ought to love Christ, and love
him ardently, sincerely, Supremely, that I do not expect there
will be any to gainsay it. Whether we consider Christ in
respect to what he is, or to what he has done, he is deserving
of our highest love and gratitude.
(3) Another peculiar trait of Christians, as drawn in the
New Testament, is, that they render religious homage to the
Saviour.
On this topic, as well as on others, I stand not in this sa-
cred place to descant as a polemic. With human creeds or
subtleties, or school distinctions and speculations, I have at
present nothing to do. Creeds judiciously composed, sup-
ported by Scripture, and embracing essential doctrines only,
may be useful as a symbol of common faith among churches.
But they are not the basis of a Protestant’s belief; nor should
they be regarded as the vouchers for it. My object now is
to inquire simply : What did the apostles and primitive dis-
ciples of the Lord and Saviour say and do, relative to the
great subject before us? And the evidence of this shall be
adduced merely from the sacred records.
I observe, then, that the primitive disciples did render to
the Saviour religious homage. They made him the object of re-
ligious invocation. When the apostles were assembled at Jeru-
salem, for the first time after the Saviour's ascension to heaven,
and were proceeding to elect another apostle in the room of Ju-
das the traitor, they made invocation to the Saviour, and said:
Thou Jord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show whether
of these two thou hast chosen.” The time, the manner, the
object of this prayer, and the appellation given to him who
was addressed, all concur to show that the Saviour is here
meant. Stephen, the expiring martyr, who was filled with
the Holy Ghost, and on whom the very visions of God were
* Luke 3: 22. Matt. 3: 17. * Acts 1: 24.
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 293
opening, with his last breath invoked the Saviour, and said:
Jord Jesus, receive my spirit 11 Amanias, when bid by Christ
to go and comfort the persecuting Saul who had been sub-
dued by the power of the Saviour, says: I have heard how
much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem; And here
he hath authority from the chief priest, to bind all that invoke
thy name.” When the Christians in Judea heard of Saul’s
conversion, they said with amazement: Is not this he who
destroyed them which invoke this name, i. e. the name of Christ,
in Jerusalem 33 In both these cases, they who invoke the name
of Christ, i.e. call upon him in prayer, is familiarly used as
a mere periphrasis for Christians ; implying, of course, that
they who were the disciples of Christ habitually invoked his
name. Paul, in giving an account before the Jews of his
conversion, relates that Ananias came to him and said: Arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking the name of
the Lord ;4 where the word Lord evidently means Christ.
Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, says: Whosoever shall
call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved;5 where the
context clearly shows that Christ is meant. The same apos-
tle, in addressing the Corinthians, at the commencement of
his epistle to them says: Unto the church of God at Corinth
. . with all that in every place invoke the name of the Lord Je-
sus," i. e. all Christians; naming them just as we have seen
Ananias did, by mentioning that distinguishing act of their re-
ligion, viz, invocation upon Jesus, which separated them from
all others. The same Paul, when he had a thorn in the flesh,
the messenger of Satan to buffet him, besought the Lord thrice,
that it might depart from him.7 Here the context makes it
quite certain, that by the JLord, Christ is meant. The same
writer again points out Christians, in his first epistle to Timo-
thy, by using the phrase they that call upon the Lord, as de-
scriptive of them.8 -
| Acts 7: 59. * Acts 22: 16. 7 2 Cor. 12: 8.
* Acts 9: 13, 14. * Rom. 10: 13. * 2 Tim. 2: 22.
* Acts 9: 21. * 1 Cor. 1: 2.
25*
294 CHRISTIANITY
Moreover the holy apostle, who in the visions of God saw
heaven opened, tells us that the four living creatures, and
four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having
every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours. But
what are these odours, which the leaders of the heavenly choir
present, in the posture of humble adoration, to the Lamb f :
The writer has told us: They are the PRAYERS of the saints,
i.e. of the church on earth. Here then it is made certain, that
the Lamb is the object of invocation by the saints on earth,
and of religious adoration by the host of heaven above.
Paul does not scruple to direct the same expression of
homage and praise to the Saviour, as to God the Father. At
the close of his epistle to the Hebrews he says: Jesus Christ,
to whom be glory forever and ever, Amen.” Peter says the same
thing: Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ; to him be glory both now and forever,
Amen.3
In heaven they do the same. Says the holy apostle who
enjoyed the visions of God: Every creature which is in heaven,
and on the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in
them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and
power, be ºnto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the
Jamb, forever and ever.4. Here, brethren, is that Damb of
God, who has taken away the sins of the world, on the throne of
the universe ; here he is represented as worshipped by all
heaven, in the same manner as He is, who sitteth with him
on the throne. *
And why should not this be so, if the same apostle who re-
lates this, is worthy of credit in his other declarations 2 He
has said, that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word W.As GOD.5 He has told us that
all things were made by him, and that without him was nothing
made, which was made.6 He has said of the Son of God:
This is the true God and eternal life.7 Neither the grammati-
— Rev. 5: S. * Rev. 5: 13. 7 1 John 5: 20.
* EIeb. 13: 21. * John 1: 1.
* 2 Pet, 3: 18. * John 1: 3.
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 295
cal construction, nor the idiom of the writer, allows us to re-
fer this last declaration to any other than the Saviour.
Paul also has given us sufficient reason to regard the Sa-
viour as the object of our worship. He has declared him to
be God over all, blessed forever. He has affirmed of him, that
&n the beginning, he laid the foundation of the earth; that the
heavens are the work of his hands; and that while they all shall
perish, he is the same, and his years shall not fail.” He has said,
that by him all things were created that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or do-
minions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by
him, and for him.8 In writing to Titus, the same apostle has
described the gospel as teaching us to look for the blessed hope,
and glorious appearing of the great God even our Saviour Jesus
Christ;4 for so, I cannot doubt, the original ought to be trans-
lated. -
Are any inclined now to ask the question: How can all this
be true? My answer is, that facts themselves are all that it
concerns us to know. The manner in which things can be,
is not important to us; and is indeed unknown, even in re-
spect to the most common phenomena of nature. Facts I have
now given you, on the authority of the divine word. If you
ask: How could Christ be God and man P I answer with
Paul: God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself;5
God was manifest in the flesh ;6 for after all the controversy
about the genuineness of this text, it seems quite evident to
me that it must be acknowledged, according to the rules of
criticism. Nor is what Paul asserts any more than John has
told us, when he says that the Word was God,7 and then de-
clares that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.8 The
same apostle too has told us of assertions which the Saviour
himself made, that amount to the same thing. Whoever, said
Jesus to Philip when he had asked to see the Father, whoever
* Rom. 9: 5. 4 Tit. 2: 13. 7 John 1. l.
* Heb. 1: 10–12, * 2 Cor. 5: 19. * John 1: 14.
* Col. 1: 16. * 1 Tim. 3: 16.
296 CEIRISTIANITY
hath seen me, hath seen the Father. And again, I am in the
JFather, and the Father in me.” f
This is enough for the humble Christian, who receives the
Scriptures as the word of God, and the only rule of his faith
and practice. You, my brethren, who are to meet here in the
Saviour's name, will, I trust, call upon that name. You will
worship the Father in him, and him in the Father. The man-
ner in which natures human and divine are united in the per-
Son of the Saviour, you need not inquire after ; you ought
not to do it; for you can find no precedent for so doing, in the
book of God. The fact is all you need to know ; and the
fact you ought as Christians to believe, and you must believe,
if you pay implicit deference to the authority of the Bible.
This then is another of the distinctive traits of Christians
as such. They are not simple worshippers of God, the God
of nature; but worship God in Christ and through him. May
your practice, in this respect, be like that of Paul, and Peter,
and Stephen, and John, and of others whose names are writ-
ten in the Lamb's book of life
I shall notice but one more distinctive trait of Christians,
on the present occasion. This is,
4. That they obey the commandments of Christ.
If ye love me, said the Saviour to his apostles, keep my
commandments.3 Again : He that hath my commandments,
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." Once more : If a
man love me, he will keep my words. On another occasion
he said to them : If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide
in my love; and again :6 Ye are my friends, if ye do what-
soever I command you.”
The same apostle who has recorded this has said: Hereby
do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments,
7s a liar, and the truth is not in him.8
To the same purpose Paul speaks, when addressing the
* John 14: 8, 9. * John 14: 21. 7 John 15: 14.
* John 14: 11. * John 14; 23. * 1 John 2: 3, 4.
* John 14: 15. * John 15: 10.
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 297
Christians at Rome he says: How shall we that are dead to
sºn, live any longer in it?! And again: Shall we sin because
we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid?
Once more : If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his.3
But there would be no end of citing texts like these, from
the New Testament. I will only add, on the present occa-
Sion, that whatever evidences any man may think himself
to have of being a Christian, if he have not this, that he
keeps the commandments of the Saviour, his religion is
nothing more than profession, empty profession. No matter
how orthodox he may be in his speculations ; if he be not so
in his practice, it is all in vain. Faith without works is
dead. The devils believe and tremble ;4 but the devils do not
obey.
I have now done with this part of my discourse. I have
left, and must of necessity leave, many points untouched,
which belong to the Christian's system of faith and practice,
and which serve to distinguish him from religionists of other
names. I designed only to bring to view some of the more
prominent and important points, which render this distinction
palpable. I must hasten to my
II. General head of discourse, which was designed for
inquiry respecting the meaning of the declaration, that Christ
will be in the midst of those who assemble in his name.
I shall say but few words in regard to this; as it needs but
little illustration. When Christ says he will be in the midst
of his disciples, the simple meaning is, that he will be present
to aid and to bless them. It is of the same import as the
phrase to be with one. Christ promised his ministers to be
with them always, i. e. to aid and bless them always. So he
promises Christians, whenever they assemble in his name, to
help and to bless them.
This promise will be fulfilled. His veracity is pledged for
its fulfilment. But when Christians are every day conven-
* Rom 6: 2. * Rom 8: 9. 4 James 2: 19, 20.
* Rom. 6: 15.
298 CHRISTIANITY
ing in every part of the earth, and in a multitude of places
widely distant from each other are meeting together at the
same moment, how can his pledge be redeemed, unless Christ
has a power of omnipresence? It is difficult, rather (I may
say) it is beyond our ability, even to imagine the possibility
of this, unless the Saviour is invested essentially with divine
attributes. You, my brethren, who are to meet here in his
name, believe this; and you have no difficulty therefore in
giving full credit to what our text asserts. On this subject,
I have no fears of raising your expectations too high. Only
perform the conditions required of you as the disciples of
Christ; meet here in his name, on his account, as his humble,
devoted, obedient followers; and he will be in the midst of
gyou, he will aid and bless you, in all that you are called to do
and suffer for his name’s sake.
It is with the design of so doing, and with the hope you
may obtain the precious blessing which the Saviour has
promised in our text, that you have associated yourselves into
a regular church, and erected this goodly edifice, where we
are now assembled. You consecrated yourselves to your
God and Saviour, when you first united with his children, in
order to approach his table, and celebrate the memory of his
dying love. You repeated these solemn vows, before him
who searches the heart, and before your fellow men, when
you formed the religious association who are here habitually
to meet in the name of Christ, and pay their homage to him.
And now you come, having consecrated yourselves to him
who redeemed you, to consecrate this holy temple, the fruit
of your cares and labours, to him whose presence you hope
will dwell in it—will be always here in the midst of you,
whenever you assemble.
Come then, brethren, unite now with me, whom you have
made the organ of communicating your views and feelings
on the present occasion, in the dedication of this sacred
structure to him.
O God, whom the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot
contain; who art worshipped in thine eternal courts above,
A DISTINCT RELIGION. 299
by the general assembly and church of the first born ; this
edifice, in which we are assembled, with all that belongs to
it; this temple reared by mortal hands, and designed for thy
service, we consecrate to thee! To thee, Father of our
spirits and framer of our bodies, our kind preserver, our con-
stant benefactor, we consecrate it ! Saviour of sinners, Lamb
of God who takest away the sins of the world, who redeemest
us to God by thy blood, we dedicate it to thee! To thee,
eternal Spirit, our Sanctifier, our Guide, our Comforter, we
consecrate it ! King eternal, immortal, invisible, only wise
God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, forever let it be sacred
to thee! *
And now Lord God our Saviour, accept this voluntary
offering and consecration of ourselves, and ours, to thee!
Fulfil now the desire of our souls, in respect to that gracious
presence, for which thy disciples assembling here are en-
couraged to hope 1 To the latest generation, may multitudes
convene here in thy name, and find delightful proof that thou
art in the midst of them! May this goodly structure, which
has now been consecrated to thee, survive the vicissitudes of
time, and be a soul refreshing place, for those who love thy
precious name, down to the period of thy second coming!
Then with the wreck of countless worlds, let it crumble to
dust, at the sound of thine awful trumpet; and let those who
have worshipped thee here, in the spirit of the gospel, at thy
command shake off the sleep of ages; burst the bars of death,
and rise in thy glorious image, with Songs and everlasting joy
upon their heads;–rise and meet with all the ransomed of
the Lord before thy throne, to worship in that temple not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens! AMEN,
L E T T E R.
W II, L I AM E. C. H. A N N IN G, D. D.
ON TELE SUBJECT OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
[PERHAPs the object of the following Letter may seem to the reader to
have been merely of a temporary nature; and inasmuch as the immediate
occasion of writing it has long since ceased to operate, it may be deemed
more advisable, by some, to omit the piece in question. My reasons for
republishing it, however, are not simply those which originally and spe-
cially induced me to write the Letter. It is some sixteen years since it
was published; and although three large editions of it were then printed,
it has long since been out of the market, and not procurable for those who
wished a copy of it. The subjects discussed are those which, in a gene-
ral point of view, can never cease to be interesting in a Republic, like
ours. The truths which I have endeavoured to illustrate and vindicate,
are those which ought to be ever kept watchfully in view among us, and
can never be over-estimated. It will be seen, by the PostScript to this
Letter, (written for the present edition), that reasons for vindicating re-
ligious liberty are not wanting, in the present posture and proceedings
of some religious partizans. It is time to look at this whole matter once
more, and as it were de novo. Especially am I desirous of bringing this
subject before the public, at the present time, because our brethren in
England and on the continent of Europe, are beginning, at last, to open
their eyes upon the subject of Church and State, and to throw off the
shackles which civil governments impose upon their consciences in mat-
ters of religion. They look to our views, as resulting from actual ex-
perience, and are anxious to know our feelings and opinions in such cir-
cumstances. If I might indulge the hope that my feeble voice would be
heard across the Atlantic, by those who are struggling for the liberties
of true Protestantism against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
and against spiritual wickedness in high places, I would fain believe,
that a statement of the ground, which we take and vindicate here, may
be of some use to them in their inquiries. At all events, we need at
home to have our own minds stirred up in the way of remembrance; for
we are yet not a little short of attaining to entire and rightful liberty and
equal justice. There are two ways of hindering the enjoyment of such
liberty ; the one, open and direct, by oppressive ordinances; the other
under the broad shield of constructive law; which, however, when thus
employed, is covert and out of public view. We have little or no rea-
26
302 INTRODUCTION,
son to fear the former; under the latter a part of our community, as
I believe, are now suffering. .
The position I have taken is somewhat bold; and there are not want-
ing those who will doubtless deemit assuming. I can only say: ITátaš-
ov uév, &covaov Óé; or (to modify this a little in translating it) read first
and then judge. If I have exhibited a narrow party spirit, such as the
Orthodox are charged with cherishing—then smite; and even more than
once. If I have merely given voice, as a freeman, to the feelings of
some hundreds of thousands in this Commonwealth; if, although I may
have nothing extenuated, I have still not set down aught in malice; then
those, who feel that my complaints are uttered in order to reach their
ears, and who do not relish the idea of discussing such matters before the
public, will, I hope, take what I say in good part, and regard it as the
voice of friendly monition, and not the obloquy of an enemy. My carthly
course is nearly finished; and I can have but little to fear from any in-
justice that I complain of so far as it respects myself. But he who
knows all hearts, knows that I love my country, and love this noble
Commonwealth, and earnestly wish for its highest prosperity and welfare.
I feel as if I were now giving my last testimony to the great cause of re-
ligious liberty; and feeble as it may be, I do trust that it is sincere, and
animated by a sense of sacred duty. Every mite may do some good
when rightly and timely contributed; for it helps to swell the aggregate
feeling in favour of religious rights and liberty which are absolute and
complete. Most sincerely do I hope, ere I quit the world, to see all
grounds of such complaint, as I feel compelled to make, removed, and
this Republic become an example to the whole earth of true religious
freedom and equal justice in their fullest sense.
My Brethren in sentiment, in whose behalf I speak, (although not as
their constituted representative), will cheer me, as I hope, in my arduous
task, by their approbation. To those of whom I complain, I would most
respectfully say: If you acknowledge me as a fellow-citizen and a free-
man, you will concede to me the right to speak, so long as I observe the
rules of decorum, of moderation, and of comity. Such of you as are
truly liberal, (and many such there are), will even thank me for turning
your attention to matters of serious complaint and uneasiness. To the
partizans among those of whom we complain, whose practical maxim
seems to be : Aut Caesar, aut nihil, I have only to say, that I do not feel
myself bound to be silent, because they do not like to hear me speak
about such matters. Sure I am, that they cannot with any truth say,
that it is no concern of mine. Every citizen of the State has a direct
and deep interest in the subjects discussed. If the day of reflection
should come, and a change of the course which some influential men are
pursuing should be the result of it, they will then thank me for the sug-
gestions I have made, however unwelcome the whole subject may now
be. I have not uttered one word for the sake of reproach. What may
seem at first view to look like this, is nothing more than a simple state-
ment of facts, or a picture of grievances. While undertaking to admon-
ish others of wrong, I ought to be the last to do a wrong, like to that of
which I complaim.—M. S.]
\
H. E. T. T. E. R. .
REVEREND SIR,
IN perusing the volume which you have recently publish-
ed, entitled ‘Discourses, Reviews, and Miscellanies,’ and al-
so in reading your ‘Election Sermon’ recently delivered be-
fore the Legislature of this State, I have met with some pas-
Sages which contain charges, expressed or implied, against
the denomination of Christians in Massachusetts who are
called Orthodox or Trinitarians, that seem to me to deserve
serious and candid examination. If they are indeed well
founded, it is proper that the community should know it; nor
can it be taken amiss, that you have given your name to the
world as a pledge that they can be established and made good.
But if they have no foundation in point of fact, you will join
with me in Saying that they ought in justice no longer to pass
current under the sanction of your name, but that the pub-
lic should be correctly informed respecting them.
Passages in your recently published works, of the nature
to which I have above adverted, are somewhat numerous.
But as it is not my object to multiply quotations, or to dis-
pute about words, I shall content myself in this place with
making merely a few extracts.
|My first extract shall be from your Election Sermon re-
cently published. .
“You have all heard of the outward evils, which religion,
when thus turned into tyranny, has inflicted ; how it has dug
dreary dungeons, kindled fires for the martyr, and invented in-
struments of exquisite torture. But to me all this is less fearful
than its influence over the mind. When I see the superstitions
304 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
which it has fastened on the conscience, the spiritual terrors
with which it has haunted and subdued the ignorant and sus-
ceptible, the dark appalling views of God which it has spread
far and wide, the dread of inquiry which it has struck into su-
perior understandings, and the servility of spirit which it has
made to pass for piety, when I see all this, the fire, the scaf-
fold, and the outward inquisition, terrible as they are, seem to
me inferior evils. I look with a solemn joy on the heroic spir-
its, who have met freely and fearlessly pain and death in the
cause of truth and human rights. But there are other victims
of intolerance, on whom I look with unmixed sorrow. They are
those, who, spell-bound by early prejudice or by intimidations
from the pulpit and the press, dare not think; who anxiously
stifle every doubt or misgiving in regard to their opinions, as if
to doubt were a crime ; who shrink from the seekers after truth
as from infection ; who deny all virtue, which does not wear the
livery of their own sect; who, surrendering to others their best
powers, receive unresistingly a teaching which wars against rea-
son and conscience ; and who think it a merit to impose on such
as live within their influence, the grievous bondage, which they
bear themselves. How much to be deplored is it, that religion,
the very principle which is designed to raise men above the
judgment and power of man, should become the chief instru-
ment of usurpation over the soul.
“Is it said, that, in this country, where the rights of private
judgment, and of speaking and writing according to our convic-
tions, are guarantied with every solemnity by institutions and
laws, religion can never degenerate into tyranny ; that here its
whole influence must conspire to the liberation and dignity of
the mind P’’ I answer, we discover little knowledge of human
nature, if we ascribe to constitutions the power of charming to
sleep the spirit of intolerance and exclusion. Almost every
other bad passion may sooner be put to rest ; and for this plain
reason, that intolerance always shelters itself under the name
and garb of religious zeal. Because we live in a country, where
the gross, outward, visible chain is broken, we must not con-
clude that we are necessarily free. There are chains not made
of iron, which eat more deeply into the soul. An espionage of
bigotry may as effectually close our lips and chill our hearts, as
an armed and hundred-eyed police. There are countless ways
by which men in a free country may encroach on their neigh-
bours' rights. In religion the instrument is ready made and al-
ways at hand. I refer to Opinion, combined and organized in
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 305
*
sects, and swayed by the clergy. We say we have no Inquisi-
tion. But a sect, skilfully organized, trained to utter one cry,
combined to cover with reproach whoever may differ from
themselves, to drown the free expression of opinion by denun-
ciations of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude by
joint and perpetual menace,—such a sect is as perilous and pal-
sying to the intellect as the Inquisition. It serves the minister as
effectually as the sword. The present age is notoriously secta-
rian, and therefore hostile to liberty.”—pp. 25–28.
Again, in the newly printed volume of your Discourses,
etc. you say:
“We do not deny, that our brethren have a right to form a
judgment as to our Christian character. But we insist that we
have a right to be judged by the fairest, the most approved, and
the most settled rules, by which character can be tried ; and
when these are overlooked, and the most uncertain standard is
applied, we are injured ; and an assault on character, which
rests on this ground, deserves no better name than defamation
and persecution.
“I know that this suggestion of persecution will be indignant-
ly repelled by those, who deal most largely in denunciation.
But persecution is a wrong or injury inflicted for opinions; and
surely assaults on character fall under this definition. Some
persons seem to think, that persecution consists in pursuing er-
ror with fire and sword ; and that therefore it has ceased to ex-
ist, except in distempered imaginations, because no class of
Christians among us is armed with these terrible weapons. But
no. The form is changed, but the spirit lives. Persecution has
given up its halter and fagot, but it breathes venom from its
łips, and secretly blasts what it cannot openly destroy.—pp. 561,
562. -
In the same volume, when speaking (as in the preceding
extract) against a “system of exclusion and denunciation in
religion,” you make the following remarks:
“Another important consideration is, that this system of ex-
cluding men of apparent sincerity, for their opinions, entirely
subverts free inquiry into the Scriptures. When once a particu-
lar system is surrounded by this bulwark; when once its de-
fenders have brought the majority to believe, that the rejection
of it is a mark of depravity and perdition ; what but the name of
liberty is left to Christians? The obstacles to inquiry are as
26%
306 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
*
real, and may be as powerful, as in the neighborhood of the In-
quisition. The multitude dare not think, and the thinking dare
not speak. The right of private judgment may thus, in a Pro-
testant country, be reduced to a mullity. It is true, that men
are sent to the Scriptures; but they are told before they go, that
they will be driven from the church on earth and in heaven, un-
less they find in the Scriptures the doctrines which are embodi-
ed in the popular creed. They are told, indeed, to inquire for
themselves; but they are also told, at what points inquiry must
arrive; and the sentence of exclusion hangs over them, if they
happen to stray, with some of the best and wisest men, into for-
bidden paths. Now this ‘ Protestant liberty,’ is, in one respect,
more irritating than Papal bondage. It mocks as well as en-
slaves us. It talks to us courteously as friends and brethren,
whilst it rivets our chains. It invites and even charges us to
look with our own eyes, but with the same breath warns us
against seeing anything which Orthodox eyes have not seen be-
fore us. Is this a state of things favorable to serious inquiry
into the truths of the gospel; yet, how long has the church
been groaning under this cruel yoke P
“Another objection to this system of excluding professed dis-
ciples of Christ, on account of their opinions, is, that it is incon-
sistent with the great principles of Congregationalism. In
churches, where the power is lodged in a few individuals, who
are supposed to be the most learned men in the community, the
work of marking out and excluding the erroneous may seem
less difficult. But among Congregationalists, the tribunal be-
fore which the offender is to be brought is the whole church,
consisting partly of men in humble circumstances, and of un-
improved minds; partly of men engaged in active and pressing
business; and partly of men of education, whose studies have
been directed to law and medicine. Now is this a tribunal, be-
fore which the most intricate points of theology are to be dis-
cussed, and serious inquirers are to answer for opinions, which
they have perhaps examined more laboriously and faithfully than
all their judges 2 Would a church of humble men, conscious
of their limited opportunities, consent to try, for these pretend-
ed crimes, professing Christians, as intelligent, as honest, and as
exemplary as themselves P. It is evident, that in the business of
excluding men for opinions, a church can be little more than
the tool of their minister, or a few influential members; and
our churches are, in general, too independent and too upright
to take this part in so solemn a transaction. To correct their
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. - 307
deficiencies, and to quicken their zeal on this point, we are now
threatened with new tribunals, or Consociations, whose office it
will be to try ministers for their errors, to inspect the churches,
and to advise and assist them in the extirpation of “heresy.”
Whilst the laity are slumbering, the ancient and free constitu-
tion of our churches is silently undermined, and is crumbling
away. Since argument is insufficient to produce uniformity of
opinion, recourse must be had to more powerful instruments of
conviction ; I mean, to EccLESIASTICAL courtTs. And are this
people indeed prepared to submit to this most degrading form of
vassalage ; a vassalage, which reaches and palsies the mind, and
imposes on it the dreams and fictions of men, for the everlasting
truth of God!”—pp. 565, 566.
Once more, in your preface to the same volume you say;
“It is due to myself to say, that the controversial character of
a part of this volume, is to be ascribed, not to the love of dispu-
tation, but to the circumstances in which I was called to write.
It was my lot to enter on public life at a time when this
part of the country was visited, by what I esteem one of its
Sorest scourges; I mean, by a revival of the spirit of intole-
rance and persecution. I saw the commencement of those sys-
tematic efforts, which have been since developed, for fastening
on the community a particular creed. Opinions, which I thought
true and purifying, were not only assailed as errors, but brand-
ed as crimes. Then began, what seems to me one of the gross
immoralities of our times, the practice of aspersing the charac-
ters of exemplary men, on the ground of differences of opinion
as to the most mysterious articles of faith. Then began those
assaults on freedom of thought and speech, which, had they
succeeded, would have left us only the name of religious liberty.
Then it grew perilous to search the Scriptures for ourselves, and
to speak freely according to the conviction of our own minds.
I saw that penalties, as serious in this country as fine and im-
prisonment, were, if possible, to be attached to the profession of
liberal views of Christianity, the penalties of general hatred and
scorn ; and that a degrading uniformity of opinion was to be
imposed by the severest persecution, which the spirit of the age
would allow. At such a period, I dared not be silent. To op-
pose what I deemed error, was to me a secondary consideration.
My first duty, as I believed, was, to maintain practically and re-
solutely the rights of the human mind; to live and to suffer, if
to suffer were necessary, for that intellectual and religious liber-
303 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
ty, which I prize incomparably more than my civil rights. I felt
myself called, not only to plead in general for freedom of thought
and speech, but, what was more important and trying, to assert this
freedom by action. I should have felt myself disloyal to truth
and freedom, had I confined myself to vague commonplaces
about our rights, and forborne to bear my testimony expressly
and specially to proscribed and persecuted opinions. The times
required that a voice of strength and courage should be lifted
up, and 1 rejoice, that I was found among those by whom it was
uttered and sent far and wide.”—pp. vii. viii.
On the tenor and spirit of these accusations throughout,
(which however only accord with a multitude of other pas-
Sages in your writings), it is not my purpose here to remark
in a particular manner. I reserve what I have more special-
ly to say respecting these, for another part of the present
Letter. f - - •
I trust you will have the ingenuousness to avow at once,
that it was your intention in these passages, and in others of
the like nature, to characterize the efforts, the arguments,
the designs, and the cause of those who are usually denomi-
nated Orthodox or Trinitarians in this Commonwealth.
You will permit me, in the following pages, to name the
class of men Orthodod, to whom I here advert, and to call
their liberal opponents Unitarians. I do this merely for the
sake of convenience and brevity; not for the sake of making
any claims for one party, or of casting any odium on the
other, by the use of such appellations. *
In the above extracts them, (as often elsewhere), you have
charged the Orthodox with a settled, steadfast, unrelenting
purpose to suppress all free inquiry respecting matters of re-
ligion, to cover with reproach those who may differ from
themselves, to drown the free expression of opinion by de-
nunciations of heresy, and to strike terror into the multitude
by joint and perpetual menace. In addition to all this, you
represent them as saying: “Since argument is insufficient
to produce uniformity of opinion, recourse must be had to
more powerful instruments of conviction, to ECCLESIASTI-
CAL COURTS.”
RELIGIOUS IIBERTY. -** 309
If there could be any doubt whom you mean to charac-
terize, in the passages extracted from your Election Sermon,
and from the preface to the volume of your Works, the dec-
larations in the Appendix to this volume, in the piece which
commences on page 557, put the matter beyond all contro-
versy. I will not therefore expend any time in labouring to
establish a point so perfectly clear. I take it for granted
that you yourself are altogether too frank and ingenuous,
even to pretend that you did not mean to characterize Ortho-
dox Christians in general throughout this State, and in par-
ticular the clergy who belong to this denomination of Chris-
tians. And I take this for granted, because I cannot help
believing that no Unitarian who reads your writings, has
ever once suspected, or ever will suspect, that you meant to
characterize any other than the Orthodox; and no Orthodox
man who reads the whole of your works, can possible suppose
otherwise. You aim at real existences, not imaginary, future,
fantastic ones; I mean those which you believe to be real.
The friends with whom I am accustomed to think and act,
do not once suspect you of laying out your energies, in be-
labouring what you believe to be “a man of straw.”
For myself then, as one among the denomination. of the
Orthodox, I take my full share of all the remarks which you
have made against them. One and all of my brethren, with
whom I am united in Sentiment and affection, feel, so far as
I know, in the same manner as I do, with respect to the
design of your remarks. We understand you to aim these
accusations directly at us; for it does not signify to go round
and round this matter, as afraid to look at it or to touch it.
We know that the accusation and reproaches are intended to
strike us ; and we stand up, without a blush or a trembling
nerve, before the tribunal of denunciation where you have
arraigned us, to hear our sentence with that fortitude, we
would fain hope, which it becomes those to exercise who sin-
cerely believe that they are in the right. If we now take
the liberty to move an arrest of your judgment, we hope you
will not refuse us a hearing. It is natural, you know, for
310 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
men who are accused of crimes that are capital as to reputa-
tion if not as to life, to appeal, in case of condemnation, to a
higher tribunal, if such appeal be lawful; and if not, to move
an arrest of judgment, when the verdict or sentence does not
agree with facts and evidence. Above all will they do this,
when they know the accusations to be wholly ungrounded,
and that they are truly innocent of the matters laid to their
charge.
I acknowledge, indeed, that a few solitary passages are
found in your writings, in which you seem to manifest a
little relenting on the subject of the severe and high wrought
language with which you reproach me and my brethren.
You sometimes say, that you aim not at Calvinists, but at
Calvinism ; that there are men among the party whom you
oppose, whose hearts are better than their heads, and whose
religious character you feel bound to respect; and other
things of the like nature. But such declarations are “few
and far between.” They seem most evidently to be the
result of mere constraint, when they do appear; constraint
arising probably from a sense of decorum, and apparently
too from an apprehension, that a strenuous advocate of liber-
ality does not appear altogether to the best advantage, while
he is uttering indiscriminate condemnation against more than
one half of the community in which he lives, and which, if it
be well grounded, falls with more justice still and with `
heavier weight, on the blessed Pilgrims who laid the founda-
tion of his country's happy freedom and greatness.
It is my most serious conviction, arising from a perusal of
your writings as a whole, that no one can justly affirm us to
be under obligation to you on the score of benevolence and
kindness, because of the exceptions to which I have just re-
ferred. A native Fellah of Egypt, being in company with
a recent European traveller there of great spirit and intelli-
gence, was asked by the latter, (who had been expatiating in
praise of the Pasha of Egypt, and on the happy, flourishing,
and safe condition of the country), whether he did not agree
with him as to the munificent and generous character of his
IRELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 311:
sovereign. To this the Fellah replied, with a most signifi-
cant look, and elevating his hands toward heaven ; “God is
great! Our lord, the Pasha, gives with one hand, and takes
away with two.” So it is, my dear Sir, with your praise.
In some solitary passages, you allow, for decency’s sake and
in order to save the appearance of liberality, that there are
some among us who have a share of common sense in re-
spect to most subjects, and a few that have a little smattering
of what the world deems learning; possibly two or three
Orthodox individuals may be found, in the whole State, that
have a small degree of cultivated taste. But in other passa-
ges almost without number, you rank the whole together, and
fearlessly avow that none but bigots, and those who have bid
adieu to what little understanding they possessed, can be
found in the ranks of Orthodoxy. And what is more than
all, some of your partial friends applaud this, and call it bold
and fearless declaration of the truth, and the development of
high and commanding genius.
I cannot say, however, that I feel any gratitude for such
concessions. It lies on the face of your writings, that they
are against the tenor of your habitual feelings and views,
which (in respect to us) are most manifestly those of scorn,
of indignation, and of unsparing severity. You give with
one hand, but take away with two. For one, I am unable
to bring my mind to an attitude, in which such gifts can be
gratefully accepted. If it be my fault, may heaven forgive
me for it! But I am as yet ignorant of its being a fault. I
have been accustomed to suppose, and do still believe, that
in a land of religious freedom, the Orthodox have as good a
right to maintain the doctrines of the Pilgrims, as Unitarians
have to assail them ; and that the time has not yet come,
when any one individual, however exalted in his own view
or in that of his party, can by sweeping denunciations and
accusations crush all who venture to oppose him. Sir, you
could not have committed a greater mistake than to assume
the place of that individual; to consign us over to the ranks
of those, who are plotting against the dearest rights of all who
312 RELIGIOUS IIBERTY.
have any respect for religion; to hold us up to the world as
combined to oppress and to enslave (in a religious respect)
our fellow citizens; and then to deliver us over to the exe-
cration of all honest men, who prize Christian liberty and
social freedom.
There is no denying that you have done this. It stands
in high relief in the preceding extracts, which you cannot
disavow. More especially you cannot disavow them, because
most of them are not the hasty effusions of moments when
excitement was urging on the thoughts and the pen and the
press, but they are declarations reviewed and republished to
the world after a series of years, in which, as one would
naturally suppose, anger had time to cool and resentment to
be disarmed. They are written in characters so large and
plain, that “he who runneth may read.” Nor did you, when
you penned them, believe or expect that Unitarians would
misinterpret them. I cannot refrain from believing that you
did bond fide mean them to speak, what they plainly appear
to speak.
And now, when called before such a tribunal, and loaded
with denunciations which if credited would forever blast our
character and ruin our influence with the community, we do
not confess the justice of our sentence, nor acquiesce in it as
passed by a court which has the legitimate and ultimate
power of deciding. We have a right to appeal, and we do
make the appeal, to the public, to honest and candid men of
all classes and parties, we care not what their name may be,
from the accusations that you have so often and with such
unexampled severity proffered against us, and from the
sweeping judgment of excision, (excision as to all respect or
affection or confidence due to us), which you have so often
pronounced. - -
I say we here, not because I am deputed by my brethren
to perform the task of writing this pamphlet, (for this is not the
case); but because I know their sentiments and feelings on
these subjects. None of my brethren had even any know-
ledge that I was engaged in this work, until it was completed.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 313
So I cannot be accused of acting in concert, or of being urged
on by the calls of party. But knowing them as I do, I ven-
ture here to speak in their behalf as well as my own. What-
ever is wrong in this letter, they and the public must put to
my account alone. Whatever is just and true, may be con-
sidered as spoken in behalf of all my injured brethren as
well as myself.
We are accused of a settled design to invade the religious
liberties of this community, and to force upon them, sooner or
later, a creed which was framed in the dark ages, and is
worthy only of them. We are charged with an intention to
erect ecclesiastical courts, which, like the Inquisition of old,
are by terror and compulsion to bring this whole Common-
wealth to one uniform system of religious doctrine. &
Such allegations it is proper that we should meet; and in
order to do this, I shall begin with an open declaration and
avowal of our sentiments on the subject of religious liberty.
I cannot indeed vouch for it that every man in this State who
is named Orthodox, will subscribe to the following sentiments.
But this I can say fully, that all among the Orthodox with
whom I am acquainted, whether of the clergy or of the laity,
do for substance agree in the principles of religious freedom
that I am now to propose. With most, against whom I sup-
pose the denunciations in your works are specially directed, I
have the pleasure of being acquainted; and I know well their
feelings and views. I venture therefore to say we ; and I am
fully confident, that the avowal made in this manner cannot
be contradicted by any credible evidence whatever.
Let us come them to the sentiments of the Orthodox, in re-
gard to religious liberty. I will be as brief as the nature of
the case admits. You will pardon me, however, for being
somewhat particular and specific, because I wish to be defi-
nitely understood, and to allow of no room for misinter-
pretation.
(1) We hold that every individual has a perfect right to
eacamine and decide for himself, what his own religious sent?-
ments or creed shall be.
27
314 RELIGIOUS I,IBERTY,
We mean by this, that no law of the land, no public au-
thority or tribunals, and no private combination or society of
men to which he has not voluntarily attached himself, shall
have any power to demand from him any religious Creed
whatever, i. e. no power shall compel him to profess any
creed, by civil penalty either in respect to his person, his
property, or his civil or social rights. We are far from be-
lieving that religion has no connection with the prosperity and
stability of government. We do fully believe that no good
government on earth can be long maintained and be stable,
without piety among its subjects. But this is an influence of
religion on government and a connection with it, which are
indirect. We do not hold to the expediency, or propriety, or
safety, of committing in any sense to the civil government the
disposal of religious matters, in respect either to faith or modes
of worship. The only power which we wish ever to see them
possess, is, that they may check what is indecent, or hurtful
to the public morals, or dangerous to peace on account of the
injury which it does to others. But this we would always
desire to see effected, rather as an offence that is indictable at
common law than by statute. We wish always to see civil
government protect all its citizens in the peaceful enjoyment
of their religious privileges; to do this, on the same ground
that we should wish to see its subjects protected with respect
to any other rights that are dear to them. We mean that the
Mohammedan even, and the Jew, and the Deist, as well as the
Christian, should have the liberty of worshipping in his own
way among us, so long as they demean themselves peaceably,
and do not invade the rights of others. We know of no eac-
ception to participation in civil and social rights, and the right
of worshipping in our own way, or of even not worshipping
£n any way, under a government that is free in the sense that
we would have it; and all this without any abridgement of
the rights of citizens, without any civil disabilities. At most
we know of only one case, to which an exception can be made
on the ground of religious opinion. This is, where a man de-
nies the existence of a God, or of a state of future rewards
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 315
and punishments. In such a case, we do not see how the ob-
ligation of an oath can have any binding force at all; and
therefore we cannot see the propriety of administering one to
him, either as a witness or as a magistrate. We cannot help
looking on it as a mere mockery of this solemnity, to admin-
ister an oath in such cases.* -
We are aware how much has been said, and may be said,
in favour of the State having some established form of religion,
and some particular religious test of office. But we are fully
persuaded, that the evils which result from such an arrange-
ment very much outweigh all the good that can be derived
from it. Religion, all true religion, is a voluntary offering on
the part of man to his Creator. A forced creed is no creed.
Belief, from its own nature and the very constitution of the
human mind, must be free, spontaneous, induced by argument,
not compelled by fear or by threats. All professed belief of
this latter kind, is utterly unworthy of the name. It is an ob-
ject of abhorrence to God, and of loathing to men. And
whether an attempt is made to force it on our minds, by the
terrors of an Inquisitorial tribunal, or by the milder penalties
of additional taxation and loss of civil rights, it matters not
with us. We will not say that both of these ways of enforc-
* Recent decisions of the Supreme Court in this State, seem to have
settled this matter on the basis, that a denial of the truths in question
should be regarded as affecting the credibility rather than the competency
of the witness. This will at least save the Courts much time and many
invidious decisions about character. Plainly it is the easiest way of man-
aging this difficult matter. But whether it is compatible with the gene-
ral principle, among all Courts in Claristian countries, and (as I believe
to be the fact) in the Supreme Court of the United States, is another
question. Practically, as it will operate in most cases, the difference be-
tween atheistic and other witnesses will be done away. Juries will not be
apt to concern themselves with a matter of this kind. But the Supreme
Court seem to have had a kind of foresight as to the times which are
coming upon us. For what could they do, unaided by their recent rule,
with the Hegelians, and other like philosophers? It would seem mecessary
for them to fit for office by going to Germany, and attending courses of
Lectures on Philosophy, in order to be able to sctile the questions: What
is atheism? Who is an atheist?
316 - RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
ing it ought to receive equal disapprobation from us; but we
do truly say, that both receive our unqualified disapprobation.
We are the more confirmed in our views of religious liberty
as thus explained, because we see very plainly, that the re-
ligious opinions which the civil power may sanction to-day, it
may proscribe to-morrow. It has often done so. But be-
lieving as we do, that religion is a matter of immeasurably
greater interest than everything which pertains to the present
world, we should be among the last men on earth to commit the
disposal of our faith to the civil magistrate, who might on one
day exalt the Christian religion, and on another trample the
cross beneath his feet. We set too high a value on this pre-
cious gift of heaven, ever voluntarily to commit the keeping
of it to hands which may thus desecrate and abuse it.
I have only a word to add here, in order to prevent being .
misunderstood, respecting a special obligation which one may
voluntarily contract, to a religious society who cherish a par-
ticular belief.
If we enter such a society, professing the same belief with
them, and understand it as a condition of membership or good
standing among them that we continue to cherish the same
belief, then, in case we do change it, it is plainly lawful and
proper that the society should withdraw from its connection
with us as a member. But all this is a thing merely of volun-
tary obligation. And in no case whatever do we believe that
civil disabilities, or penalties, should be connected with any
excommunication by a Christian church.
(2) We not only believe that all men should be left free to
form their religious opinions, without any civil penalties or
disabilities, but we maintain most fully, that when the religious
sentiments of any one are formed, he has a right to propagate
them, to defend them, and to support them, by his efforts, his pen,
or his influence.
In all this we understand of course, that in so doing he does
not slander or abuse his neighbor, nor deny him any civil or
social right as a member of the community, nor hinder him
in the lawful exercise of it. Of the former of these faults the
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. - 317
&
civil law justly may take cognisance. Against the latter, the
law of love and of doing as we would be done by protests.
We believe most fully, that men have a right to propagate
their religious sentiments, ºf they confine themselves to argu-
ment and persuasion, and do not appeal to abuse, which is a
crime in the eye of the civil law, it being manifestly against
the peace of the community. We are well aware, indeed, of
the mischiefs which may result from a free right to propo-
gate religious, or rather irreligious, sentiments of any kind.
We know too well, what incalculable evil the publication of
such books as the Age of Reason, the works of Boulanger,
of Voltaire, and of La Mettrie, have occasioned. We shud-
der at it as one of the most dreadful of evils, inasmuch as it
takes hold on eternity and not merely on time. But dread-
ful as it is, we regard as a still greater evil, the power of civil
government, or of any ecclesiastical tribunal, to suppress the
publication of books at its option. To-day it may choose, as
Frederic the Great did, and the French Directory after him,
to circulate widely Voltaire, and D'Alembert, and Rousseau ;
or to-morrow it may spread wide the poison of some heresy
lurking under a Christian name ; while, at the same time, it
inhibits all antidotes to these tremendous evils. The liberty
of the press, the unreserved liberty of it, is in our view funda-
mental to religious liberty. If the press be, as it doubtless
sometimes is, a most terrible instrument of doing evil, it is
also one of the most efficient of all instruments in doing
good. We would forever leave it open and free to do good;
and if the liberty to do evil must come along with this, (and
we do not see how it is possible to prevent it), why then the
friends of truth must trust to argument, to reason, to Con-
science, and to God, for triumph over the powers of darkness.
And this they may do, without peril to the cause in which
they are engaged.
If I have not liberty to propagate my religious sentiments,
provided I do it by reason, and argument, and persuasion,
and with decorum, then I am not free. Liberty in its high-
est and most precious sense is denied me. As an immortal
27#
318 - RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
*
being, I look forward to the time when myself and all around
me are to enter on the “recompense of reward,” a final and
eternal one. If I am serious in my religious views; if I am
well persuaded that they are true, and this after repeated
and protracted and patient examination; then I must be
utterly destitute even of the spirit of common humanity, if I
do not desiré others to participate with me in this persuasion.
Were it a matter pertaining merely to their temporal inter-
ests, most of my fellows beings would pronounce me destitute
of humanity, in case I should not warn those around me
whom I thought to be in danger, and should not excite them
to escape from it. But O the never-dying soul | The
awful tribunal of “eternal judgment P’ “The fearfulness of
falling into the hands of the living God, who is a consuming
fire P’ If I believe that there are unequivocal declarations
in God’s word, (as I truly do), in respect to these tremen-
dous subjects; if I believe that the impenitent are surely ex-
posed to endless misery; that those who reject the Saviour
as he is offered in the gospel, “shall not see life, but that
the wrath of God will abide on them ;” can I as a man of
any pretensions to benevolence, refrain from telling all this
to others, from urging it upon them, and from warning them
of the danger in which I sincerely believe them to be?
Truly, the opponents of our religious views must halt here,
and candidly avow, that if such are our real convictions, we
ought in all good conscience to urge them upon our neigh-
bors. - -
Say, if you please, that we are utterly mistaken ; that all
our convictions are the result of superstition, or prejudice, or
bigotry, or of a narrow illiberal education; yet so long as we
are in this plight, what are we to do? As honest men, we .
must follow the dictates of our consciences. We acknowl-
edge the possibility that these may be blinded, or perverted,
or even “seared ;” but so long as we are not convinced that
this is the case, how can we do otherwise than propagate our
sentiments by all proper methods and with all the earnest-
ness in our power P The liberty of doing this, we value as
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 319
much more than we do mere civil liberty, as the interests of
eternity exceed in value those of time.
If then it is essential to a full enjoyment of religious liber-
ty, that men should have the right of propagating their re-
ligious sentiments, whatever they may be ; and that they
should be restrained by the laws of the land, only so far as
the laws guard the reputation of individuals who may be
unjustly assailed, and protect them from injury as to their
property or rights; it will of course follow, that men should
have the right of defending their sentiments when they are
assailed, and of showing, if they can do so, that the sentiments
of those who assail them are erroneous and hurtful.
Here, my dear Sir, is a part of religious liberty, on which
it does seem to me that yourself, and some others who have
the like zeal with you against the Orthodox, have not suffi-
ciently reflected, or that you are unwilling to concede it.
We believe, on the part of the Orthodox, that the sentiments
of those distinguished men who fled from persecution in the
old world, in order that they might worship God in the new
one, and in such a way as best agreed with the dictates of
their consciences, that these sentiments do essentially agree
with the revelation which God has made in the holy Scrip-
tures. We believe this eac animo, from real persuasion, be-
cause we have searched the Scriptures and think that we
find these sentiments there; not because Calvin, and the
Reformers, and the Pilgrims believed them. The possibility
of this, you I trust are prepared to admit. If there are
bigots among us, as you so often assert, I may still venture
to suggest, that at least we are not all bigots. Such of us
then as believe, from investigating the Bible, that the senti-
ments of the Reformation are found there, hold fast to the
position that we ought to have the liberty of defending these
sentiments when they are assailed, and of exposing, if we
can, the errors of those who assail them.
But here, it would seem, is the very essence of our crime.
In your view, it appears to be altogether commendable, that
|Unitarians should deluge the community with Improved
320 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
Versions, with the works of Fellowes, and Belsham, and
Briestley, and Cappe, and others of the like character; that
they should form themselves into Tract Societies and dis-
tribute hundreds of thousands of Unitarian tracts, assailing
the sentiments of the Orthodox openly, or secretly under-
mining the principles which they regard as of vital impor-
tance; that they should form Missionary Societies and en-
deavour not only to spread their principles among the Hindoos
and coöperate with Rammohun Roy, but to traverse the
regions of the West and South in our own land, and forestal
the efforts of the Orthodox there; that they should hold
public meetings, in which not only the clergy, but legislators,
civilians, and judges from the highest seat of justice, come
forward and excite the multitude against Orthodoxy; that
they should issue periodicals monthly, weekly, and almost
daily, in which the public are warned against the Inquisition
that is forming among them, and the desperate set of bigots
who are forging chains for their religious liberty; that they
should declaim against these men and their principles, (their
alleged or supposed principles), from one Sabbath to another,
(in which you above all others, unless you are very erro-
neously represented, have taken the lead); all this, and
much more of the same nature, is not only lawful in your
eyes, but altogether commendable. In public and in private,
from the pulpit and the press, you have not ceased to urge
on, with all your eloquence, measures of this and the like
nature.
But turn now the tablet, and look at the other side of the
picture. When the Orthodox publish their books, tracts,
and periodicals, they are represented as bigots who are little
short of being raving mad. They have neither modesty nor
humility. When they associate for the purposes of friendly
conference and counsel, and in order to strengthen each
other's hands, and to encourage each other to walk in the
way of their forefathers, they are plotting in order to enclose
the community in the toils of the Inquisition; they are form-
ing “EccLESIASTICAL COURTs,” before which all liberal-
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 321
minded men, that choose to think and investigate for them-
selves, are sooner or later to be brought, and be made to.
know that there is only one way of thinking which is to be
tolerated. And since such high crimes and misdemeanors as
these have been laid to their charge, the public are told, that
“the times have required a voice of STRENGTH and courAGE
to be lifted up ; and you rejoice that YOU are found among
those by whom it has been uttered and sent far and wide.”
(Preface, p. vii.) Not a movement can they make, but they
are suspected of forging manacles for the Liberalists, or at
least of looking up the iron to make them with. The forges,
to be sure, are under ground and out of sight, like the shops
of the fabled Cyclops; but you know, as the neighbors of
those famous blacksmiths of old did, that operations are
going on, for you hear the hammering, although you cannot
see the anvils.
On the claim for yourself of “a voice of strength and
courage,” and of “uttering and sending it far and wide,” it
does not become me to make any remarks. The thing I
shall leave to speak for itself. ... But in respect to the assump-
tion, (in the whole paragraph connected with this declaration,
and in a multitude of other places in your publication), that
all which is done by the Orthodox to oppose the views and
designs of Liberalists is bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and
unlawful conspiracy against religious liberty, and design to
bring in again the dark ages of superstition and terror—all
this assumption, in a land of religious liberty, where every
man has the same right to defend and propagate his own
sentiments as his neighbour has to propagate opposite ones;
all this too, in the STATE of MASSAGHUSETTS, in the very
HOME of the PILGRIMS, and in near proximity to FANEUIL
HALL and the MONUMENT OF BUNKER HILL–it requires
some meekness to hear without emotion, and to bear with
becoming patience.
What reason now, my dear Sir, can you assign, why the
Orthodox have not as good a right to their Associations and
Societies, their tracts, their pamphlets, their periodicals, yea,
322 IRELIGIOUS IIIBERTY.
their octavos ; their zeal also, and their union, and even their
strenuousness; in order to maintain their own sentiments, as
you and those who are with you have to all these in behalf
of Unitarianism It is a fair question, and I do insist on a
sober answer to it. Will you say, that men have no right to
be in earnest, in defending bigotry? I know you do say this;
that is, you say what manifestly implies this. But then I am
not to be diverted from my argument by such an answer.
Who, I ask, has made the decision that Orthodoxy is bigot-
ry? “Dr. Channing and his friends affirm it.” Granted;
but in a land of liberty, there is a freedom of thought to be
allowed; and by far the greater portion of our community
have made up their minds, that there is no bigotry in the sen-
timents in question. But you, Sir, take for granted the very
question in dispute; and taking this for granted, you decide
just as though there was no appeal from your tribunal, and
consign us over to the ranks of dark designing conspirators
against the religious liberties of our country. It is too late
to deny this, or to tread back as to these charges, unless in-
deed you recall the whole of them. They have gone forth
“far and wide,” and with “a voice of strength;” and I ap-
peal to every honest and ingenuous man on earth, be he
Unitarian or Trinitarian, whether they do not fairly imply
all that I have understood them to imply.
Sir, I repeat it once more, the Orthodox do not understand
why they have not the liberty of defending the opinions
which their ancestors held, in case they do sincerely accord
with them. That they do sincerely agree, they openly pro-
fess and avow ; and neither yourself, nor any man on earth,
has a right to call this in question. Why then do you re-
proach us, that we are in earnest to defend and to propagate
our belief? We do from the heart believe, that the eternal
Salvation of our fellow beings is connected with a hearty as-
sent to the fundamental principles which we avow. Should
We not then be entirely destitute even of common humanity;
should we not be treacherous to the cause which we profess
to believe is infinitely important; should we not in fact be
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 323
gross hypocrites—if we did not manifest our earnestness in
maintaining and propagating our religious sentiments P
But you will concede the theory of this principle. You
will say, however, that the manner of our defending and
propagating our sentiments is what you condemn, and that
this is the principal subject of your severe animadversions.
To this I reply, first, that such is not the case in point of
fact. You have represented us as having dark, selfish, ma-
lignant purposes; as determined at all adventures to intro-
duce compulsion into matters of religion, a compulsion “worse
than the terrors of the Inquisition and the chains, which it
forges.’ This surely is the blackest crime of all, if it be
truly ours; and this as surely has nothing to do with the man-
ner in which we defend and propagate our sentiments.
Next, as to the manner itself, I have but few remarks to
make. I am ready to concede, on my part, that I have seen
and read things among the Orthodox, the manner of which I
in some-respects heartily disapproved. I have never thought,
that to rail at our opponents was either Christian or courte-
ouš. Above all, every reflecting man must say: Nothing
can be more improbable, than that this kind of proceeding
will be likely to convince those who differ from us. Who
will hear us with patience, when we begin our reproof by
letting him know that we think him either a fool or a knave 2
I am not blinded to this by party zeal. I have seen some
of it among those whom I warmly love and greatly respect.
Perhaps I may have shown some of this same disposition in
my own writings. If so, produce it, and I will tread that
part under my feet, and make my atonement by unfeigned
sorrow to an injured public, and to the injured cause of
Christ. But if I have indulged in such a mode of writing, I
am unconscious of it to myself. I disapprove it; I even
abhor it; and yet I know that I am not proof against tempta-
tion, and that I am exposed to all the weaknesses and faults
of those around me.
But while I thus answer to one part of your complaint by
confession, I must be permitted to say, that so far as I have
324. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
been able to form a judgment from reading the periodicals
and pamphlets of both parties, I do think that there is a wide
difference between the faults of the Orthodox in this respect
and those of Unitarians. I know of nothing in any recent
Orthodox publications, which can well compare with the re-
iterated charges against us by Unitarians, from the pulpit and
the press, of bigotry, of gloomy superstition, of dark and
fraudulent designs on the religious liberties of our country,
of worshipping a God who is a tyrant, of propagating horri-
ble and blasphemous ideas of the Divinity, of worshipping a
God who is no better than the devil, of an intention to renew
the horrors of the Inquisition, of being gloomy, unsocial,
illiterate misanthropes, enthusiasts, hypocrites, deceivers, and
other things of the like nature. It were easy to substantiate
this charge by abundance of evidence; and this too from
publications which you yourself patronize by your pen, your
purse, and your approbation. - -
But I forbear. The subject is distressing—it is even
odious. There are men, I know, among your own denomi-
nation, who see all this and look upon it just as I do. You
are very far from being agreed among yourselves in respect
to such measures, as you must know ; at least if you do not
know it, your friends must have been uncommonly reserved
in their communications. There are men among you, and
not a few, of high and ingenuous feelings, who take the liber-
ty to believe that the Orthodox have the same right to “urge
hard” as the Unitarians have, and who look with disgust on
all the accusations of such a nature as those to which I have
adverted. : -
Notwithstanding all that has been done, however, in the
way of making such accusations against us, I do not appear
as an apologist for any severity, or for the calling of hard
names, or for ill natured accusations, on the part of myself or
of my brethren. If we are guilty in this respect, we stand
condemned. But it is to be expected, that when men are
charged with a great crime because they choose to walk, and
insist on walking, in the old paths of the Reformers; and
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 325
when they are assailed in an angry and bitter and scornful
manner for so doing; that some of them may be betrayed
to go beyond the boundaries which Christian meekness and
forbearance and even self-respect allow. I say this is not
strange; although I do not deny that it is wrong. But if it
be wrong, you, my dear Sir, are one of the last men who
have a title to reproach us with this wrong, as I shall have
occasion to show still further in the sequel, before this letter
is closed.
Enough for the present, on the religious liberty which we
avow and advocate, the liberty to defend our own sentiments
and to propagate them. No government can properly inter-
fere with this right. Nor can any party justly deny us such
a liberty as I have endeavoured to defend. I know of no
power on earth, which has the right to say to our opponents:
‘You shall have unbounded liberty of speaking, and writing,
and acting, in order to defend and propagate your sentiments;
but the Orthodox cannot justly claim the same liberty for
themselves.’
That men should differ in opinion, is incident to the frailty
of human nature, and to the imperfection of human knowl-
edge. But still we hold Sacred the right to maintain our
honest convictions, not by word and writing only, but by the
use of our property and influence as well as our tongues and
pens. Our Bill of Rights in this State assures us of this
privilege. We have a right to endow Seminaries in order
to furnish teachers of our own sentiments; we have a right
to demand protection in this; the very same rights in both
respects as Unitarians have. We have a right to give our
property to churches of our own way of thinking, and to be-
lieve and maintain that parishes and churches are not one
and the same. We have a right to feel ourselves injured
when property given to Orthodox churches is wrested from
us under colour of the law. We have rights in a University
which is the property of the whole State, and was not found-
ed or exclusively endowed by Unitarians; at least we have
such rights, so long as we are not absolutely disfranchised.
28
326 IRELIGIOUS IIIBERTY,
We have a right to expect that the property of the State in
such an establishment, should not be appropriated to the
purposes of a party; and that the instructors in them should
not give their services to one sect only, which has in fact,
although not iſ name, excluded all others from any participa-
tion with them in these privileges. We who have children
to educate, in common with our fellow citizens, feel the loss
of such rights. We cannot help deeply feeling them; for
we are obliged to send our children abroad, at a great ex-
pense, in order to avoid their becoming partizans in the pre-
sent warfare against our own sentiments. We do not com-
plain that our sentiments are opposed; but we complain
that they are opposed in this way, and at the sacrifice of
rights that we hold dear and deem sacred. We do not com-
plain that Unitarians build up Seminaries for themselves, in
order to educate young men to spread abroad and defend
their own sentiments; they have an entire right to build up
schools, colleges, or theological Seminaries of this kind, and
to confine their privileges to their own body. The Bill of
Rights assures them of this privilege. But they should re-
member, that it assures us of the same. What we complain'
of is, that an Institution which belongs in common to the
whole State, which was founded and endowed to a large ex-
tent by Orthodox men, and consecrated to maintaining their
faith, should now be made exclusively a party Seminary, so
that from the President down to the janitor, no man of known
Orthodox sentiments, can find access there as an instructor.
We complain that rights public and common, should be
seized by one exclusive party, and appropriated to their own
purposes; that teachers, maintained at the expense of the
Commonwealth, should be devoted to a seminary exclusively
Dnitarian, and paid from a fund in which the Orthodox have
a common interest. Of all this we complain; but never
shall or can complain, that Unitarians manage their own
Seminaries entirely in their own way; provided always, that
they concede to us the same liberty. - -
Look now for a moment on this whole case, and put your-
R.ELIGIOUS LIBERTY. - 327
self in our place. Would you not feel, could you help feel-
ing, that you had to deal with those, who being in possession
of power forget right? And yet, Sir, you are not only look-
ing on, but heartily approving of all this, and have yourself
been an efficient agent in bringing it about. How can it be
that there is only one side to such a question?
We are severely reproached, because we separate in our
religious communion and worship from Unitarians. Some
of your strongest expressions of disapprobation and indigna-
tion are poured out against us for this. And yet, when I
examine this matter to the bottom, I am unable to see the
justice of this reproof. We do sincerely believe, that cer-
tain sentiments are essential to the Christian religion. We
regard them as being so essential, that true Christianity can-
not exist without them. Whether we are in the right or the
wrong as to this, it is not my present purpose to inquire.
Enough that we sincerely believe ourselves to be in the right.
If so, then how can others deny us the liberty of thinking
and acting in a manner that accords with this? If we should
not do so, it would be proof that we were neither sincere nor
in earnest, in our religious sentiments; in other words, that
we were hypocrites. You may believe this of us; and judg-
ing by the general tenor of your writings, I know not how to
avoid the conclusion that you do think so. But we still aver,
that you have no right to affirm this; and we must maintain
this position, so long as our consciences acquit us in respect
to the matter of this accusation.
In separating from those who differ from us in religious
opinion, (as we believe, fundamentally), we are not led on
by motives of bigotry or of an exclusive spirit. We are
prone to ask a question which is not recent : “How can two
walk together, unless they are agreed?” We do not urge
these words beyond what we think to be their plain and ob-
vious import. We do not think that small differences of
opinion about 1207-essentials, are intended to be included in
them. We limit the meaning to agreement in things, which
in our view are essential. Such we do honestly believe to
328 RELIGIOUS I,IBERTY.
be the difference between Unitarians and ourselves. And
such, not a few of the Unitarians themselves have avowed it
to be. Mr. Belsham declares that “we do not worship the
same God;” and some of your writers and speakers declare,
that the God whom we worship is a devil. How can you
complain, then, that we separate from you? Surely you do
not wish to be united in the bonds of communion with such
worshippers. If you have any conscience on this subject,
it must remonstrate against it. -
But who among the Orthodox ever complains that Unita-
rians separate from them 2 I trust none. An inconsistency
with the principles that we profess, would lie on the very
face of such a complaint.
We do not proscribe men from whom we separate in our
worship, either in a civil or social respect. We vote for
them as our magistrates and legislators. We help to elevate
them to the highest offices in the State ; we do so, because
there are among our religious opponents men whose civil and
social worth we acknowledge, and pay it the cheerful tribute
of our regard. We do it also, because the State in which
we live is so divided in matters of religious opinion, that we
fully believe a religious test for civil honour and office would
be altogether inexpedient. We rejoice sincerely in the
welfare of those whose religious opinions differ from ours, and
cheerfully contribute to do them civil honour. All this can-
not be denied of us with truth. And when we separate from
them in our worship, it is with pain, with deep regret, with
ardent wishes that they might cherish the like religious senti-
ments with ourselves; but with a 8onsciousness too, that our
duty to the principles which we profess, obliges us to follow
the course that we pursue. -
Such are our views, feelings, and motives, in regard to
the painful subjects of dispute now agitated in this commu-
nity. Such I am sure are my own ; and such, I have satis-
factory evidence, are the views of my beloved brethren with
whom I have the pleasure to be associated in action and in
belief.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. * 329
I have thus given a brief view, in regard to our opinions
about religious liberty and the rights of conscience. In dif-
fering from many around us, and in separating from their re-
ligious communion, we well know, we do fully recognize the
fact, that we are responsible to the great HEAD of the Church.
But we as fully believe, that we are responsible ONLY to Him.
We do not mean to deny others the right of remonstrating,
and of endeavouring to show us that our course is wrong ; but
it is also true, that we do not believe they have any right to
demand that we should abandon it; nor do we think that to
call us bigots, and hypocrites, and plotters against the re-
ligious liberties of the State, is the most Christian way of re-
claiming us.
And now in view of these principles and of these facts in
reference to Orthodox Christians, I would ask: Where is the
ground of the accusations which are made against them as
conspiring against the dearest liberties of the Commonwealth 2
I have often been struck, my dear Sir, in reading your writ-
ings as well as those of others, with the manner in which you
prefer charges of the most heinous nature against us. On
your own side, all that your party have done is liberal, and
just, and noble, and worthy of the exalted age in which the
“march of mind” has become so conspicuous, and which is
carrying us on with a rapid stride far away from the Cimme-
rian regions of Calvin and Luther; nay, the boldest assertions,
the most perilous propositions, if not evidence of a well di-
rected and skilful aim at the enemy, seem to be evidence in
your view of great valour and of high devotedness to the
cause of the New Reformation. On the other hand, all efforts
of the like nature among us, in defence of our own sentiments,
or in the way of assailing what we think to be errors—all these
from beginning to end, appear to be reputed as mere evi-
dences of narrow mindedness, of gloomy bigotry, of furious
zeal, of a persecuting spirit, and of dark designs to renew the
manacles and the dungeons to which the disciples of Ignatius
Loyola have So long made their appeal.
Sir, I do not understand this. By whom has the great
28%
330 RELIGIOUS I,IIBERTY.
question been prejudged and settled, whether all that is just
and true is so plainly on the side of Unitarianism, that it does
not so much as admit of a single doubt, or rather, that it is to
be assumed as a matter of course? Or is this assumption
even founded on one of the great a priori principles of our
moral nature, which it needs no reasoning to settle, and which
no arguments can make plainer or stronger than it is from the
very first moment that it is presented to the mind? So one
who reads your writings, would be strongly tempted to sup-
pose you deem it to be. What you say and write on sub-
jects connected with religious dispute, bears this impress on
its very face. If not, then I can solve the appearances in
your writings, only by a supposition more disagreeable still,
and to which I shall never resort without being absolutely
driven to do it ; I mean the Supposition, that you have, by
the flattery of your friends, and in consequence of dictating
to your party so long, at last come to the position of mind,
that &izög #pm is enough; that you expect as a matter of
course, that all which you utter will be readily assented to,
and that none but bigots will venture to call it in question. I
will not, however, believe this either of you or your friends,
without better evidence than any that yet lies before the pub-
lic. I could easily believe that some of the journal and news-
paper writers, who employ so many paragraphs in fulsome
and bloated eulogies of your works, might belong to the class
supposed above. But as I have no apprehension that you
have any concert with them, or even thank them for the
lacker which they strive to put on you, I have not a word
more to say concerning them. What there is in your writings
that deserves praise, (and this is much, and some of it of a
very high order too), they seem to me to be so unfortunate as
not to see ; and what is of a different or doubtful character,
they are pretty sure to laud in the most extravagant and dis-
gusting manner.
Having thus explained the views and feelings of myself and
my friends, in relation to the religious liberty which we think
to be proper, and which we shall ever strenuously advocate,
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 331
and thus prepared the way to decide more fully how little
your apprehensions respecting our principles and designs are
capable of being justified and defended ; I now proceed more
fully to develope, (as I intimated near the commencement of
this letter it was my intention to do), the tenor and spirit of
your accusations against us. -
In order to present a combined and condensed view of these,
I must beg the liberty of repeating here, not the words in all
cases, but the substance and spirit of the passages which the
beginning of this letter presents. These, united with other
extracts from your writings which I intend to make, will ena-
ble every intelligent reader to judge for himself, whether the
complaints which I have brought forward, and which I have
still to prefer, are not sufficiently well grounded.
I make no hesitation in repeating the expression of my en-
tire undoubting conviction, that the Orthodox are the men
whom you mean to characterize in these and the like pas-
Sages; and all proof of this, to any intelligent reader, I must
think to be utterly unnecessary.
In the first extract just named, you intimate that ‘the re-
ligion of the Orthodox has been turned into spiritual tyranny;
that it has fastened superstitions on the conscience; subdued
the ignorant and susceptible with spiritual terrors; spread far
and wide dark appalling views of God; struck a dread of in-
quiry into Superior understandings; and made servility of spir-
it to pass for piety. The intimidations [of the Orthodox] from
the pulpit and the press have rendered some too timid to think;
made them anxiously to stifle every doubt or misgiving in re-
gard to their opinions; to shrink from the seekers after truth
as from infection; to surrender their best powers to others;
and unresistingly to receive a teaching, which wars against
conscience and reason. [Orthodoxy] makes chains, that eat
more deeply into the soul than those of iron. This espiomage
of bigotry as effectually closes our lips and our hearts, as an
armed and hundred-eyed police. This opinion is combined
and organized in sects, and swayed by the clergy. A sect
skilfully organized; trained to utter one cry; combined to
332 IRELIGIOUS I,IBERTTY.
cover with reproach whoever may differ from themselves; to
drown the free expression of opinion by denunciations of
heresy; and to strike terror into the multitude by joint and
perpetual menace—such a sect is as perilous and palsying to
the intellect as the Inquisition. It serves the minister as ef-
fectually as the sword. The present age is notoriously secta-
rian, and therefore hostile to liberty.” Elect. Serm. pp. 25–28.
Of course, then, the present age is one in which such a sect
lives, (i. e. in your estimation); and lives, not in Europe or
Asia, where it would very little concern us, but here at home,
in Old Massachusetts, the land of the blessed Pilgrims; and
this sect is neither more nor less than the Orthodoac. It would
be strange indeed to deny that you meant to affirm this, merely
because you have not here called them by name. I will not
for a moment suppose you to be capable of such disingenu-
ousness. -
In the second extract above named, you suggest that ‘the
accusation of a persecuting spirit will be repelled on the part
of the Orthodox with indignation. But you insist upon it
that it is true. Fire and Sword, you allege, are not the only
instruments of persecution. The form may be changed, while
the spirit lives.” “Persecution has indeed given up its halter
and fagot; but it breathes venom from its lips, and secretly
blasts what it cannot openly destroy.” Works, pp. 561, 562.
A terrible Hydraindeed, which has such a poisonous breath!
And happy for Massachusetts, that she can furnish “a voice
of strength” to reach “far and wide” enough to frighten it
back to its native fen, whenever it ventures to appear and
send forth its venomous and blasting breath !
In the third long extract as mentioned above, the Inquisi-
tion is again brought upon the tapis. “The multitude [of the
Orthodox] dare not think or speak, because [the Inquisition
in the new form] is more terrible than that of Spain. Men
are told indeed to search the Scriptures; but they know full
well, that unless they find there the creed of the Orthodox,
they must undergo the penalty of exclusion. All this is worse
than Papal bondage. And on the ground of Congregational-
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 333
ism, the church can be little more than the tool of the minister
in the business of exclusion. So all comes into the hands of
the clergy; who, in order to complete the whole plan, are
forming Consociations, and erecting ECCLESIASTICAL COURTs,
which are to compel men to believe as they do. This is a
most degrading form of vassalage, imposing on the mind the
dreams and fictions of men, for the everlasting truth of God.”
Works, pp. 565, 566. -
The fourth extract presents an apology for your controver-
sial efforts. This in substance is, that “you saw assaults on
freedom of thought and speech [by the Orthodox], which
would have left us only the name of religious liberty. It be-
came perilous to search the Scriptures for ourselves, and to
speak our own convictions. The often reiterated idea of
penalties as bad as fine and imprisonment is again introduced,
[a spectre which seems to have haunted you with more than
ordinary obtrusiveness and pertinacity]; and then to frighten
this spectre away, your strong voice was raised, and it made
its retreat.” Works, Pref. pp. vii, viii. -
Here I might rest my case, having made out proof enough
of the ground of complaint which I have alleged, in respect
to the treatment that we have received at your hands. But
that I may not seem to have fastened on a few paragraphs,
and to have dealt unfairly, I proceed still farther to cite from
your Works.
On p. 215, you speak of Robert Fellows’ work, as “a use-
ful vindication of Christianity from the gross errors which
Calvinism has laboured to identify with this divine system.’
P. 216, you speak of the “five thorny points of Calvin-
ism,” and say that “few designs are more praiseworthy, than
to free Christianity from the reproach brought upon it by that
system.”
On the same page you assert, that “Calvinism owes its
perpetuity to the influence of fear in palsying the moral na-
ture;” that it terrifies men so “that they dare not confess,
even to themselves, the shrinking, which they feel, from the
unworthy views which this system gives of God; and by thus
334 RELIGIOUS I,IBERTY.
smothering their just abhorrence, they gradually extinguish it,
and even come to windicate in God what would disgrace his
creatures.” - -
Just before the paragraph now presented, you say of Mr.
Fellows’ work, that “it expresses strongly and without cir-
cumlocution, the abhorrence with which EVERY mind, uncor-
rupted by false theology, must look on Calvinism.”
Yet those who abandon Calvinism, with all these awful
severities and horrible absurdities, and prefer to adopt the
system in a somewhat modified or milder form, you represent,
a few pages onward (p. 220), as cowards and degenerate. At
least you say, that “if the stern reformer of Geneva could
lift up his head” and hear their mitigated tone; he would call
them so, and he would tell them that “moderate Calvinism is
a solecism, a contradiction in terms;” by all which I under-
stand you plainly to mean, that such as profess to be mode-
rate. Calvinists, are justly liable to the imputation of cow-
&rdice. X-
On p. 221, after speaking of the Westminster Assembly’s
Catechism and Confession, you say: “A man of plain sense,
whose spirit has not been broken to this creed by education
or terror, will think that it is not necessary for us to travel to
heathen countries, to learn how mournfully the human mind
may misrepresent the Deity.” In other words, the religious
creeds of the heathen can afford no more striking misrepre-
sentations of the Deity, than the Assembly’s Catechism and
Confession. .
On p. 402, you represent Trinitarians as ‘having no right
to object to the picture and symbol worship of the Roman
Catholics. If Christ is God, and has a body, that body may
as well be pictured as any other one ; and there can be no
rational objection to making use of this picture in our wor-
ship.’
On p. 405, you aver that “ Trinitarianism is a riddle;”
that “instead of teaching an intelligible God, it offers to the
mind a strange compound of hostile attributes, bearing plain
marks of those ages of darkness, when Christianity shed but
RELIGIOUS I,IBERTY. 335
a faint ray, and the diseased fancy teemed with prodigies and
wn natural creations.”
On p. 409 you say: “We look with horror and grief on
the views of God’s government, which are naturally and inti-
mately united with Trinitarianism. They take from us our
Father in heaven, and substitute a stern and unjust lord.”
On p. 415, you admit that there are some great minds
among the adherents of the prevalent system [of Orthodoxy]; .
“but,” you add, “they seem to move in chains, and to fulfil
poorly their high functions of adding to the wealth of the hu-
man intellect; and you then liken them to Samson grinding
in the mill of the Philistines.
On p. 423 you say, that if you believed what Trinitarians
teach in regard to sin, you should “feel yourself living under
a legislation unspeakably dreadful, under laws written, like
Draco's, in blood; and instead of thanking the sovereign for
providing an infinite substitute, you should shudder at the at-
tributes which render this expedient necessary.”
On p. 428 you say: “According to these principles [viz.
those of Trinitarianism], the fanatic who exclaimed: I be-,
lieve because it is impossible, has a fair title to canonization.”
“Trinitarianism links itself with several degrading errors;
and its most natural reliance is with Calvinism, that cruel
faith, which, stripping God of mercy and man of power, has
made Christianity an instrument of torture to the timid, and
an object of doubt or scorn to hardier spirits. I repeat it, a
doctrine, which violates reason like the Trinity,” etc.
On p. 557 you say: “Nothing is plainer, than that the
leaders of the party called ‘Orthodox,’ have adopted and
mean to enforce a system of eacclusion, in regard to Liberal
Christians.” -
On p. 558, the Orthodox are represented as having fallen
into some of “the grossest errors.”
On p. 561, the Orthodox are represented as menacing with
ruin the Christian who listems to Unitarians, and as branding
him with the most terrifying epithets, in order to prevent a
candid inquiry into the truth. *
336 IRELIGIOUS I,IBERTY,
On p. 568 you assert, that “it is a melancholy fact, that
our long established form of Congregational church govern-
ment is menaced, and TRIBUNALS unknown to our churches,
are to be introduced for the very purpose, that the supposed
errors and mistakes of ministers and private Christians may
be tried and punished as heresies ; that is, As CRIMES.”
But where shall I end in making extracts of such a nature,
when all of these have been taken from three short pieces in
your book; and in these I have omitted as much as I have
extracted that is of the like nature? I conclude the whole
task of extracting, by presenting one specimen more of the
manner in which you treat that doctrine, which of all that is
peculiar to the gospel the Orthodox deem the most dear and
sacred; I mean the doctrine of atonement by the suffering
and death of Christ upon the cross. It is thus that you speak
of this part of our faith:
“This doctrine of an infinite substitute, suffering the penalty
of sin, to manifest God’s wrath against sin, and thus to support
his government, is, I fear, so familiar to us all, that its severe
character is overlooked. Let me then set it before you, in new
terms, and by a new illustration; and if in so doing, I may
wound the feelings of some who hear me, I beg them to believe,
that I do it with pain, and from no impulse but a desire to serve
the cause of truth.-Suppose, then, that a teacher should come
among you, and should tell you, that the Creator, in order to
pardon his own children, had erected a gallows in the centre of
the universe, and had publicly executed upon it, in room of the
offenders, an infinite being, the partaker of his own Supreme
Divinity; suppose him to declare, that this execution was ap-
pointed, as a most conspicuous and terrible manifestation of
God’s justice, and of the infinite wo denounced by his law; and
suppose him to add, that all beings in heaven and earth are re-
quired to fix their eyes on this fearful sight, as the most power-
ful enforcement of obedience and virtue. Would you not tell
him, that he calumniated his Maker P Would you not say to
him, that this central gallows threw gloom over the universe;
that the spirit of a government, whose very acts of pardon were
written in such blood, was terror not paternal love ; and that
the obedience, which needed to be upheld by this horrible spec-
tacle, was nothing worth P Would you not say to him, that even
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 337
you, in this infancy and imperfection of your being, were capa-
ble of being wrought upon by nobler motives, and of hating
sin through more generous views; and that much more the an-
gels, those pure flames of love, need not the gallows and an ex-
ecuted God, to confirm their loyalty P You would all so feel at
such teaching as I have supposed; and yet how does this differ
from the popular doctrine of atonement?”—pp. 423, 424.
On this last extract I deem all comment superfluous. The
holy apostle who asserts that Christ has redeemed the church
by his BLOOD ; who was “determined not to preach anything
else save Jesus Christ and him. CRUCIFIED;" who “gloried
&n nothing save in the CROSS of Christ;” and the redeemed
in heaven who ascribe salvation to his BLOOD, are the proper
arbiters to decide on such an awful paragraph.
And now, my dear Sir, I come to the main object of this
letter. I have endeavoured to prepare the way, and come at
last to the principal thing in view ; with great reluctance, in-
deed, but still with deep conviction that duty bids me do it.
I have complained that you have uttered frequent and severe
accusations against us, who belong to the denomination of the
Orthodox. I have shown the ground of my complaint.
Permit me then to add to what I have said, by making what
I deem areasonable and proper and Christian request of you.
You have given your name to the world as the author of
accusations, that we are aiming to subvert and destroy the
religious liberty of this Commonwealth ; that we are combined
to put down all free inquiry in matters of religion ; that we
are endeavouring, in secret and openly, to introduce an eccle-
siastical tyranny worse than that of the Inquisition ; that we
are determined to raise up ecclesiastical Courts to try, con-
demn, and punish all whom we deem to be heretics; and thus
to prevent all right of private judgment, and all freedom in
ºrespect to religious opinion.
I have openly avowed in this letter my own opinion, and
what I know to be the opinion of the Christian brethren with
whom I have the honour to be associated, in relation to these
subjects. I know that what I have said is incapable of being
29
338 RELIGIOUS I,IIBERTY.
contradicted on any grounds of evidence. I do know that
the accusations which you stand pledged to support, ARE
NOT TRUE. Before heaven and earth I aver that THEY
ARE NOT TRUE. That they are accusations of a hurt-
ful tendency, need not be said. They go to destroy all re-
spect for us, all confidence in us, all prospects of our useful-
ness in Society or in the church, just so far as you are be-
lieved; and to render us the objects of suspicion, of scorn,
and of hatred. As injured men, as injured in a manner that
is highly unjust and cruel, we call on you either for repara-
tion, or else to support your charges. These charges are
allegations as to matters of FACT. They are not matters of
opinion merely, or the deductions which may be drawn from
opinions. As matters of fact, you are bound to support them.
According to all demands of propriety and justice, you have
no liberty now to retreat, by professing disdain of your oppo-
nents; none to screen yourself under the allegation, (as you
have attempted in the preface to your Works to do), that
you dislike controversy. On every ground of equity, you
must either support the charges which you have made, as to
facts; or take them back; or else stand before the public as
one who has abused and maltreated his fellow beings, mem-
bers of the same Commonwealth, entitled to the same privi-
leges with himself, and having a right to claims that they
shall be spoken of with truth and justice ; a right which can-
not be violated without responsibility for so doing.
Sir, we have borne these charges in silence long enough—
so long that not a few of your friends begin to aver, that
silence gives consent to the truth of them. You have re-
peated them so often and for such a series of years, without
being called in question in some important respects for so
doing, that you seem of late to have considered the right of
doing it as a matter quite beyond the reach of debate. You
do not seem to expect, that the objects of your vehement
and scornful denunciation, will venture to resist or even to
complain. Like those subdued by the irresistible power of
the great Assyrian king, “not a bird would move the wing,
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 339
or open the mouth, or peep.” But if you have believed this
respecting us, you have erred, at least in one point, with re-
gard to your views of the Orthodox. We have not been
cowering with fear; we have “held our peace for good.”
We acknowledge, indeed, that when “we have meditated on
some of these things, the fire has burned within us.” . But if
we have been trespassers in this respect, kindly put it to the
score of human infirmity. After all, however, there are
times when it becomes a duty to call on those who assail us
with bitter reproaches, who endeavour to hold us up to the
Scorn and ridicule of the world, who accuse us of crimes
which in foro conscientia would be properly adjudged to be
high treason against the religious liberties of this Common-
wealth, so long as we profess to be citizens of it, and have
sworn to maintain its constitution and its rights. There are
boundaries beyond which it is not the duty of the peaceable
and the inoffensive to go, in tolerating abuse of this nature
without demanding a reparation. We have come to those
bounds. We allege, before the world that we have been
slandered and abused by your writings; we appeal to the
particulars; we offer the evidence; and we now appeal to
every honest and candid man of any party, to judge whether
we have not supported our charge, that you have made and
often repeated such accusations against us.
If now you can establish the facts which you have alleged,
and which go to make up the charges in question, in respect
to the Orthodox as a body in this Commonwealth, confession
and humiliation in this whole affair undoubtedly will belong
to us. If you cannot prove it of the whole, then the sweep-
ing accusations which you have made are to be modified,
greatly modified. If you can prove it only of a few solitary
individuals, called by the name of Orthodox, but who in fact
are extravagant and reckless men, this will be little to your
purpose, and nothing to ours. We wash our hands of such
orthodoxy. Our Orthodoxy bids us to be peaceable mem-
bers of the State, true friends of our government, advocates
of religious liberty even at the peril of life and property, and
340 TELIGIOUS IIBERTY.
of this too in its highest and most extensive rational sense.
We are Congregationalists, as we profess to be. We have no
prejudices, indeed, against the Presbyterian or other forms
of church government, which our brethren of orthodox de-
nominations in this Commonwealth, or in any part of our
country, see fit to adopt. It is our belief that the gospel has
not prescribed eacclusively any particular form of church gov-
ernment; but that this is left to expediency as times and
circumstances may require. Nor are those who may differ
from ourselves in respect to the regimen of the churches,
therefore to be involved any more than we, in the charges
which you have preferred against the Orthodox. They have
no such objects in view, as you charge upon us all ; and they
would not only disclaim them, but contend most strenuously
against them.
But in respect to such of us as profess to be Congrega-
tionalists, neither yourself nor any man on earth has a right
to deny that we are sincere in this profession. How then
can we have it in view to erect ecclesiastical judicatories and
courts which are to try and punish heretics as criminals?
Why, Sir, the suggestion of such a thing among Congrega-
tionalists, is just as if one were to ask, under the present
form of our government in this State: “What day is appoint-
ed for the coronation of the Governor P’ And the fact that
you even suggest such a thing, shows, either that you regard
us as hypocrites in professing to be Congregationalists; or—
shall I say it—that you make assertions of this nature, with-
out even knowing what Congregationalism admits or rejects.
My belief is, that you cannot make your charges good,
against any man in this State who bears the name of Ortho-
dox. Still I must be understood as asserting no farther than
I have evidence before me. In regard to that class of the
Orthodox at which you have aimed your accusations, I fear-
lessly assert that you cannot possibly make them good. And
in this class, I would comprehend laymen as well as clergy-
men. I have the pleasure of a personal acquaintance some-
what extensive, among the men who are active in promoting
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 341
the interests of orthodoxy in Massachusetts. I know that
you have wronged them in your charges, and that you are
utterly unable to support these charges.
You will ask me, perhaps, why I should select you as the
object of this call and of this complaint. My answer is ready.
You have been ingenuous enough to give your name to the
world, as a pledge that you will support the charges which
you have made. I commend you most sincerely for this. It
is a pledge, that you do not mean to act in the dark, and that
you are not afraid to take on you the responsibility of what
you affirm. I regard it also as a satisfactory testimonial, that
you believe in the truth of what you have alleged. I would
not for a moment have it understood, that in denying the
charges which you have brought, I mean to implicate you in
the charge of uttering intentional falsehood. Sir, I know of
nothing in your life or writings, much as I dissent from many
things which you have said, that would justify me in making
such an assertion. I should deem it inexcusable in myself,
not to explain what I say in such a manner, that I shall not
a be understood by any one as making an allegation of this
nature against you; nor will I allow the objection to be made
to me, that I have assailed you with such a complaint. But
this does not make our case any better, but rather the worse.
The openness and sincerity with which you proclaim your
opinions, are the very means of making them current, with
such a part of the public as have no personal acquaintance
with our views and feelings and motives. If it were known,
or even suspected, that you made such charges as a mere
party fetch, the mischief of them would at once be prevented.
But now, you do the thing with so much openness, and zeal,
and sincerity; and withal hold such a rank in the opinion of
the public as to uprightness, and Veracity, and candour; that
the allegations which you make that are erroneous, become
dangerous and injurious ones. The fact that you are sincere
in making them, then, is no reason why we who are exposed
to injury by them, should not insist that they must be either
made good or retracted. It furnishes the weightier reason
29*
342 RELIGIOUS I,IBERTY.
why we should do so. And the fact that you have given
your name to the world, is a public pledge that you stand
ready to support them. You cannot complain then that we
make the call on you to do this.
As to the anonymous accusations which are a thousand
times repeated, from the more stately Review down to the
insignificant newspaper and two-penny pamphlet, we have
more important concerns in which we ought to be engaged
than in answering them. At all events, I shall never trouble
them with any calls of this nature. .
One other reason I would assign, why I have made the
call on you to support the accusations which you have made
against us. It is this, viz. that if we are to give credence to
the testimony of your friends, you are the head or leader of
the Unitarian party in this State. So the partial friend, who
Has recently made your defence against the criticisms of the
Edinburgh Review, has stated to the world. “Dr. Chan-
ning, as our readers are generally aware, is the acknowledged
Jeader of the Unitarian sect, as far as there can be leaders,
etc.” North Amer. Review, July 1830. p. 46. Takings
this statement (which has often before been virtually made)
to be correct, and knowing that what you say and publish is
rečchoed, and republished, and applauded, so often and to
‘such a wide extent, we have a right to request, may to de-
mand from you the reason, why you endeavour so extensive-
ly to injure us and to bring us into suspicion, or into con-
tempt and hatred.
What sort of impression you make on your admirers, is
sufficiently evident from another passage on the same page of
the N. Amer. Review which I have quoted. The writer
there says: “Dr. Channing has no doubt wriformly observed
the decorum, which belongs to his character and feelings, as
well as to his position, and has treated his opponents with
PERFECT LIBERALITY.” p. 46. Who the writer of this Re-
view is, I know not. He is evidently a man of talents and
knowledge, and no more prejudiced, I presume, against the
Orthodox, that many others, who, like himself, know nothing
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 343
about them. He receives with implicit belief what you say
respecting them. He even commends you for “perfect lib-
erality” towards them. As a matter of common justice to
his fellow citizens, we have a right now to solicit, that he
would peruse the evidence collected in this letter of your
“perfect liberality and decorum ;” then to put himself for a
moment in our condition, and ask: Whether this is the mea-
sure of “decorum and liberality” which he would like to have
exercised towards himself? The complaints which he makes
of the British Reviews, and makes with great justice and
force too, as to not a few things, have respect to mere trifles
compared with those things of which we feel compelled to
make complaint against you.
In the general tenor of his remarks, by way of vindicating
your works against the criticisms of the Edinburgh Reviewer,
I concur. The flippant impudence, (if I may venture to
speak what I feel), the superficial criticism, the illiberal spirit,
and the palpable mistakes in literary taste and judgment,
which the Scotch Reviewer seems to me to betray, hardly
render his work worth the notice bestowed upon it in our own
at present more able and respectable Review. I have no
sympathies with such foreign criticism; no blindness, I trust,
to the merits and excellencies of your writings in many im-
portant respects. I could almost say: “Ubi bene, nemo
melius.” Indeed, I do fully and heartily say this, of a great
many passages in them. I have as much satisfaction in the
claims of America to notice, in consequence of your writings,
as the Reviewer himself. But then, I have complaints to
make which he has either wholly overlooked, or which he is
not disposed to acknowledge as well founded. He will par-
don me for thus criticising on his criticism, and believe me
when I say of the Nörth American as a whole: Non invideo,
miror magis. I could even add, on account of some of the
pieces in this work: I nostrum decus /
But to return ; the mischief of which we complain, in con-
sequence of lending your name to Sanction accusations against
us, does not stop within the narrow circle of Massachusetts.
344 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
For example; the editor of the American Quarterly and
National Gazette, has every now and then retailed, secretly
or openly, accusations against “the bigots” of the North,
which are copied from you, or echoed in the spirit fostered
by reading your works. It comes, however, not with a very
good grace from him. If he is a true son of the Romish
Church to which he professes to belong, it is indeed “passing
strange” that he should rail at the bigotry of us Protestants
and Puritans. A man who professes to believe in the infalli-
bility of the Pope, in the real presence of Christ's body and
blood in the Sacrament, in purgatory, in the plena indulgentia.
which is to be purchased for a few pence and which stands
advertised on every conspicuous street-corner of the eternal
city; who of course, if he is sincere in all this, must, on the
same authority, believe equally in the relics of the cross, in the
transportation by angels of the chapel of my Lady of Loretto,
and in the miraculous liquefaction of the blood of St. Janua-
rius, with a multitude of other things of the like nature; and
who, as a true son of the same church, must bow with cheer-
ful acquiescence in the Bull of the late Pius at Rome, the
“Vicar of God and successor of St. Peter,” dated Aug. 7,
1814, which, after the Jesuits had been suppressed for forty
years by another infallible Pontiff, not only restores them to
all their rights and privileges, but declares, that “if any one
shall infringe, or by an audacious temerity oppose any part of
this ordinance [the Bull in question], let him know that he
will thereby incur the INDIGNATION of ALMIGHTY GOD,
and of the HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL”
—I say a man who sincerely believes all this, is not altogeth-
er the right man to rail at the bigotry of orthodox Congrega-
tionalists in Massachusetts. And if he be not sincere in his
profession of being a genuine and dutiful son of his mother
Church, but professes to be what he is not, then his sneers or
his scoffs are matters which we can make up our minds to
endure with very comfortable equanimity.”
* This gentleman has, for some time past, had his location in Paris ;
where he seems to leave the Puritans in peace, and finds little occasion,
RELIGIOUS IIBERTY, 345
And now, my dear Sir, can you believe me, when I de-
clare, that in all which I have said above, I have no personal
aim at you? It is true that I have called on you personally;
for how could I possibly avoid this, when my whole letter is
concerned with allegations that you have made P But as to
exciting a spirit of hostility or bitterness against you as a man,
I disclaim openly any such intention; it would be unworthy
of the cause which I profess to advocate; it would be unbe-
coming my place, or the character which I would wish to bear.
Is there no separation that can be made by the public, be-
tween calling in question allegations and charges, and per-
sonal malignity towards those who make them 2 I trust there
is ; at least, in my own case, I certainly hope there is. I am
not behind some of your more Sober and judicious friends, in
my approbation and admiration of many things in your writ-
ings. In all your and my personal intercourse, on the occa-
sion of a discussion some years since, I had no personal rea-
sons to complain of you. I would hope that you can say the
same of me. I am sure that I bear you no ill will; I am
certain too, that I am very far from cherishing disrespect for
your talents. I say this fully and freely, because I am anx-
ious to be rightly understood. My complaint is, of the injury
which your charges are adapted to do us; of what I believe
to be utterly unfounded allegations against our character and
designs; of being held up by you to the public, as conspira-
tors against its sacred liberties. Justice, truth, a proper re-
gard to our good name and usefulness, all demand that the
charges against us should be examined, and that they should
either be substantiated or retracted.
I could wish the call on you to do this had fallen into better
hands than mine. But as the unpleasant task has not to my
knowledge been undertaken, I have ventured upon it through
a sense of duty. I can only appeal to the good sense, and
I trust, to scoff at the multitude of sermons which the Clergy there write
and deliver. I owe him no ill will; but there are some things in his
publications, during the time that has now gone by, which, perhaps,
‘dying he would wish to blot.’
346 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
equity, and candour of the community, for a justification of my
course. If these condemn me, then let me stand condemned.
If not, then I shall at least have the satisfaction of believing
that what I have done may contribute to bring more into the
light certain matters, which it has now become high time our
community should more fully understand.
Allow me in closing this communication, (already pro-
tracted far beyond my original intention), to say a few things
in reference to the great contest which is going on between
Unitarianism and Orthodoxy in this part of our country.
Your place as the leader of the Unitarian party, (you will par-
don me for saying this which I copy from your friends), ren-
ders it of some importance, that you should be possessed of
just and definite views in regard to some great points of deep
conviction and feeling among us. We have no secrets to keep
in relation to these matters; and therefore I will frankly state
them. -
First of all we'do sincerely believe in the great Protestant
maxim, that THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE SUF-
FICIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND
PRACTICE. We do not regard them as secondary and
inferior, or a mere supplementary edition of the laws of nature.
What they reveal, we take as our creed, our only creed. We .
do not reject the use of symbols of faith and catechisms; but
we assign no authority or validity to them any farther than as
we believe them to be a true representation of God’s word.
In heart and soul we agree with the great doctrines of the Re-
formers, of Calvin and Luther. We do so because we believe
them to be contained in the Bible, not because we rely at all
on any authority of these great men. But we do not hold
Ourselves bound to defend the same doctrines which they em-
braced, by the same specific reasons in all cases which they
employed in defending them. We have no scruple in reject-
ing some of their reasons, and of employing better ones when
we can find them: Neither do we feel bound to their tech-
nology or diction in all cases. Much of this depended on the
logic of the day, on the metaphysics of the schools, and on the
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 347
state of questions controverted between them and the Roman-
ists. The key to many a proposition in their writings, is to be
found only by knowing against what errors these propositions
were directed; a truth almost entirely overlooked by the
greater part of their opponents at the present time; but one
which is so obvious, that the overlooking it is well nigh inex-
cusable. Many an assertion in their writings, which is now
brought forward as unjust and “monstrous and horrible,”
melts down into plain and simple truth that every rational
Protestant must own, when examined with the caution that I
have suggested, and which a common share of candour de-
mands should be exercised.
We are Calvinists, if you please to call us so, although we
do not court the name. Nor do we refuse it, if it seem good
to our opponents to bestow it. But we do not receive every
thing which Calvin taught; nor anything because he taught it.
We hold ourselves at liberty, and that without being, justly
subjected to the charge of “disingenuousness and cowardice,”
to reject some things which seem to us quite unimportant in
the system of the Reformers; and to reject their reasons in
support of other things which we receive, just so often as we
find them, on examination, turn out to be insufficient.
We say the same things in respect to our Pilgrim Fathers.
We mean to be their “sons in faith,” as we are their sons by
descent. But this binds us not to all their modes of reason-
ing, nor to all their views in respect to matters not essential
to the existence and prosperity of true Christianity.
Having adopted these principles, not from tradition, not
from catechisms and creeds, not from “the fear of what is
worse than the fetters and dungeons of the Inquisition,” but
from what we believe to be calm and dispassionate inquiry
into the Scriptures, from what we know to be long-continued
and diligent investigation of them, we have made up our
minds to stand fast in the liberty wherewith we believe Christ
has made us free, in maintaining the system of doctrine which
is denominated Evangelical or Orthodox. This indeed is
very diverse, in not a few important respects, from what you
348 RELIGIOUS I,IIBERTY,
and some of your friends represent it to be. Some years
since, my respected friend and colleague, the Rev. Dr. Woods,
brought forward against you the allegation of misrepresenting
our doctrines, and called on you to make good the charge, or
to retract it. Of this call, for reasons best known to yourself,
you thought proper to take no notice. Yet the call must, on
all hands, be admitted to be just and proper. You'recently
tell us in your preface, that your reasons for not answering
such calls were, that you might not be involved in personal
controversy; that you must have “spoken with great freedom,”
and “set down as a grave moral offence, the disingenuousness
So common at the present day, which, under pretence of main-
taining old opinions, so disguises and discolours them, that
they can with difficulty be recognized.” But if such be the
fact in regard to your opponents, why not prove this to the
world, by adducing legitimate and satisfactory evidence 2 In
such an age and such a country as ours, where everything
may be and must be examined, it is presuming pretty largely
on the public credulity, to suppose that assertions will stand
for arguments, and high and exasperated denunciation for
patient labour of investigating and proving in detail. It is
what neither yourself, nor any other man in America, has
any right to claim or expect.
But besides those doctrines of the Orthodox which have
been misrepresented and misunderstood, there are others, no
doubt, which are opposed and denied in the very respects in
which we believe them to be true.
I proceed, however, with my remarks of a more general
nature. In the present state of conviction and feeling among
the Orthodox, which results from examination and full per-
suasion, it cannot be rationally expected, that we should ac-
cede to every contradiction of our principles, or succumb to
every tempest that assaults us. There is one way, and one
only, to annihilate all the Orthodoxy of the State; and this is,
to show by the fair and established laws of interpretation, that
the Bible does not support it. All else will fail of its end.
We do in good faith believe that the Bible is the word of
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 349
God; and that it is our supreme, authoritative, infallible, and
only guide. We cannot be convinced, therefore, that it is our
duty to relinquish what we regard as its plain and unequivo-
cal decisions, in order to embrace what we regard as the specu-
lations of men, and the maxims of fashionable philosophy.
We do not concede the propriety of allowing a priori notions
and assertions to take the place of what the Sacred writers
have decided. We are not acquainted with any man, whose
word is law or gospel to us. We would receive no apothegms,
because they are asserted with an air of confidence, and in
glowing and vehement language, or in eloquent strains. A
man to enjoy our religious confidence, must give some good
evidence that he loves, and reverences, and has deeply studied,
his Bible. We submit implicitly to Paul, and Peter, and
others like them ; but in all other cases, we stop to ask the
why and the wherefore.
Sir, you have mistaken the Orthodox Community of Mas-
sachusetts. They care as little for bringing in the dark ages
as you do. They are a great deal farther from commending
the faith of those who are laboring to extend the Superstitions
of Rome in our community than yourself, if the softened
tones, in which you speak of the advocates of these supersti-
tions, are to be taken as the index of your feelings.
Nor are the Orthodox to be diverted from their purpose,
by language of severe reproach and unmeasured indignation.
The sons of those, who left country and kindred to brave the
storms of the ocean in frail barks, to face the gloomy horrors
of the wintry blasts and storms in a savage land and in a
boundless forest, and who did all this cheerfully that they
might hold fast their orthodox faith, and worship God ac-
cording to it—the sons of such men, holding to the same
principles, and believing them to be the only foundation of
their eternal hopes—are not to be diverted from their course
by obloquy and denunciation; however eloquent and severe.
With them. RELIGION IS ALL. The world and all its con-
cerns vanish into insignificance, when they come into compari-
son with the “glory that is to be revealed.” It cannot be
30
350 TELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
expected, then, if they are in any measure what they profess
to be, that they should be overawed or daunted by denuncia-
tion or opposition. No, Sir ; these will not accomplish the
purpose at which they aim. It is not that the Orthodox are
insensible to what their fellow beings think and say of them.
Ear from this. There is much more sensibility among them
on this subject than I could wish. I cannot withhold my
hearty commendation, however, of very many of them, for
checking these feelings, and putting restraint upon them. But
still, they know when they are mal-treated. They know when
their rights are denied under cover of law; when they are
excluded from the literary and civil privileges and offices of
the State; when they are jeered at in private circles, and
pointed at with the finger of scorn in public. With all this
they have borne, and borne long; I do not say that they have
always done this with such patience and meekness as became
them. I am afraid that this is not the case. But depend on
it, Sir, there is a secret flame kindled in this Commonwealth,
by such measures as I have named above on your part and
that of your friends, which, though smothered long, cannot
always be smothered. Justice, and fairness, and equality of
rights, must at last become the order of the day. Well will
it be for the peace of this community, if the season when this
shall take place should not be long protracted. There is
always danger in a smothered sense of injustice and oppres-
sion; above all, when this is the fact with respect to great
numbers, who belong to the leading class of men in the com-
munity; danger to those who feel it, as well as to others.
May Heaven avert its consequences from our beloved Com-
monwealth !
I shall be entirely misunderstood, if I am supposed to utter
these things in terrorem. I know well that our opponents
are not men to be influenced in this way. It is the last
method that I should adopt, in order to influence them. I
say these things merely as one who loves his country and his
Commonwealth, and the happy form of government under
which he lives, and who fears the consequences of anything
IRELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 351
which may have a tendency to disturb our peace. But the
time has come, when the whole truth should be openly told.
Depend on it, Sir, there is a smothered sense of deep injury
among the Orthodox, both of civil and religious injury, which
needs to be allayed by a return to the principles of justice,
and equal rights, and kind discussion, on the part of those
who are striving to crush them. We look to Switzerland;
we see the wandering exile pastors there thrust out from their
country, or languishing in dungeons, and their families beg-
ging their bread, because these dauntless heralds of Salvation
have dared to preach Christ and him crucified. We cannot
help knowing that Unitarianism has done this; and conse-
quently we are slow to receive professions of liberality, as
certain evidence of its existence. We fear that there are not
wanting in our own State, some who would not scruple to
walk in the steps of their liberal brethren abroad; some
whose standing argument against our principles is, that Calvin
burned Servetus; but who unluckily have never read the
ecclesiastical history of Geneva in the nineteenth century.
Far, very far, are we from reproaching the Unitarians as a
body, in our State, with such views and wishes. On the
contrary, we do verily believe that a few of the more intole-
rant among them, are altogether deceived as to the feelings
of their brethren. We do not believe that the majority are
prepared for those ultra measures, to which they are occa-
sionally urged. They would abhor the idea of oppressing
and abusing us, would they but candidly and patiently ex-
amine the whole matter. We must still hope that they will
do this, before they proceed to further measures; and that af-
ter all, the present appearances in our State, which are por-
tentous of storm and tempest, will be dissipated, and unclouded
sunshine follow. At least we hope this. And that this great
end may be accomplished, we would earnestly beseech all
who love the peace and prosperity of Society and the church,
to direct their fervent unceasing supplications to Him, who
“maketh the winds and the waves to obey his voice,” who is
352 IRELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
“King of kings and Lord of lords,” who is “seated at the right
hand of the Majesty on high,” and is GOD OVER ALL
AND BILESSED FOREVER.
I am, my dear Sir, notwithstanding any difference of senti-
ment and feeling, with much respect, and with the most sin-
cere wishes for your happiness in time and eternity,
Your friend and obedient servant,
MOSES STUART.
Andover, July, 1830.
POSTSCRIPT.
THE sixteen years which have passed away, since the preceding
Letter was published, have made some alteration in the state of
things among us, although they have not brought about any ra-
dical and thorough change. It is my apprehension, so far as I
have a knowledge of religious matters in general in this Com-
monwealth, that the tone and demeanor of Unitarianism toward
Orthodoxy has, for some time past, considerably softened, and
become more urbane. The separation which took place as to
ministerial exchanges and intercommunion of religious services
in 1810—1816, after being for a long time strenuously resisted,
and frequently indeed even loaded with indignant obloquy, has,
since that period, been generally acquiesced in with compara-
tive quiet, and has come at last to be almost universally consid-
ered as a matter of course. It is only now and then that a soli-
tary voice is raised, at present, in the way of declamation against it.
Indeed, in looking back upon this whole scene, in which I
have to some small extent been an actor, I can scarcely realize
now, in what way resistance to such a measure should have be-
come so warm and impassioned as it once was. When such
men as Dr. Channing published to the world, that the faith of
Calvinists was a compound of absurdity, superstition, and blas-
phemy, when the God whom the Orthodox worship was repre-
sented as a devil in his purposes and measures; when the cross
of Christ was set forth as a gallows for a criminal, erected and
exposed to the view of an astounded universe ; when the wor-
POSTSCRIPT. 353
ship of the Son and Holy Ghost was reproached as idolatry and
enthusiasm; when, in a word, all the peculiar doctrines of grace,
(so named by the Orthodox), were loudly pronounced to be vi-
sionary and unreasonable and incredible and revolting ; why
should those who published and preached and talked all this,
find fault with the Orthodox for withdrawing fellowship 2 Inde-
pendently of all sacred regard to scriptural doctrine which they
at least profess to cherish, I should say that they must be more
or less than men, willingly to keep themselves very long within
close proximity to such scorching flames as these. Why did
not the common sense and reason of Unitarians lead them, at
that period, seriously to ask: “How can two walk together, un-
less they are agreed 3° Of course, I do not mean to extend the
operation of the principle, to which this question appeals, to all
minute and comparatively unimportant matters in religion, as a
zealous and bigoted partisan might be prone to do, but to the
great, the distinctive, the fundamental principles of the Christian
religion as such. If the Orthodox do, in their most sober judg-
ment, regard the departure of Unitarians from these principles
as a virtual renunciation of the distinctive elements of the Chris-
tian religion, (as they truly do), then what remains for them, if
they act with any kind of consistency, but to separate peaceably
from Unitarians, in their religious services and rites ? Not to do
this, would be to show, either that they were not sincere in their
professed belief, or that, if sincere, they still regarded their prin-
ciples as of very little consequence. That as a body they are
sincere in their belief, is my full persuasion. But if so, how
can they possibly look on such matters as have been and are in
dispute as being of little consequence ; so little, indeed, that the
right of yielding them, or of overlooking them, may be exercis-
ed, whenever comity or etiquette may seem to make such a de-
mand P All this is fairly out of question. They are, as I be-
lieve, in sober earnest; and if so, ought they not, must they not,
demean themselves accordingly P. He who is consistent in con-
tending for religious liberty, must surely allow to them the lib-
erty of rejecting some opinions, as well as of receiving some oth-
ers. Why should another man’s belief compel me to relinquish
mine, or to regard or treat that which I am fully persuaded is
essential and fundamental, as if it were of little or no conse-
quence, and a thing that may be dispensed with at pleasure ?
On the other hand; I have never been able fully to under-
stand, why Unitarians should have been so zealous and earnest
to continue fºllowship with the Orthodox. Fºllowship with those,
30%
354 POSTSCRIPT.
who, as they affirm, gloat over the superstitions and conceits of
the dark ages With those who worship a devil instead of the
true God . With those who are virtually guilty of idolatry in
worshipping the Son and the Spirit ! With those who are striv-
ing to subject their fellow men to a bondage worse than that
under the Inquisition The old adage says, that “a man is
known by the company he keeps.” Had they no fears of being
fonnd in fellowship and company with such impiety and bigotry
and slavish and degraded superstition ? In fact, considering
what they wrote and published respecting the sentiments of the
Orthodox, it is one of the most inexplicable things in all the
history of this Commonwealth, whether ecclesiastical or civil,
that they so zealously and perseveringly insisted on the most
intimate religious communion with the Orthodox, and were so
indignant at its being refused. I have looked in vain for the
satisfactory solution of such a problem, to the usual workings of
the human mind. I am able to find but two things, which aid
me in any measure to account for the occurrence in question ;
and neither of these, it is probable, will be admitted by Unita-
rians. The one of these is, that religion is a by-the-by and
secondary affair in the business of life, which may be accommo-
dated in any way, and therefore need not be made so much of
as the Orthodox profess to make of it; the other is, that the
Unitarians of that period did not relish the idea of being held
up before the public, as differing both from the opinions of the
Pilgrim Fathers and from that of the majority of their fellow
citizens, lest it might throw some hindrances in the way of their
success. Most of the Orthodox are inclined, perhaps, to the
opinion, that both of these causes were combined, in bringing
about the effect under consideration.
Under the dynasty of Judge Parsons and Dr. Kirkland, two
sagacious and very expert leaders, the Unitarian party became
so strong, that at last their fears vanished ; and since that, they
have for the most part gradually and peaceably settled down, on
the plan of agreeing to differ. This has saved the public from
much useless agitation. I trust that this tacit and implied com-
pact between Unitarians and the Orthodox, will remain undis-
turbed for the future, and the more so, as they have at last, (for
such seems to be the opinion of a predominant majority among
them), given birth to and raised up a new progeny of so-named
herelics, although of their own sect. With these truant children
they seem at present to be more occupied and concerned than
with us, and they are often more indignant at them. We may
POSTSCRIPT. 355
now congratulate ourselves, perhaps, on at least a little breathing
spell, as I would hope, from the arduous struggles of the arena.
In the mean time, left for the moment to our peace, we will
stand quietly by, and look on to see how liberally the Liberal-
ists can treat each other. We are curious, as spectators, to
know how an excommunication for doctrine's sake can be brought
about, where there is not only no creed, but where eternal war
is proclaimed and waged against all creeds. Dies indicabit. Till
then, we will thank God for our comfortable rest, and take cour-
age also. But—we shall take care to keep our arms in sight.
We have no intention to put away, and suffer to rust, the pano-
ply that as soldiers of the cross we ought to wear. We confi-
dently expect, that, as soon as the revolting province in the do-
main of Unitarianism shall be subdued or exscinded, the whole
forces of the empire will again be turned upon us; and proba-
bly with a skill and vigour which have been sharpened by con-
test. Let no Orthodox man then sleep upon his post. The ocean
that is quite calm where we are sailing to-day, may be speedily
visited by termpest and tornado again, and the waves roll moun-
tain-high. But if it must be so, we will humbly hope, and even
confidently believe, that there is One who sits at the head of
our little barque, who can arise and say to the winds and the
waves: “Peace | Be still !” and they will obey him.
As a general thing, I should think that the laws of comity and
urbanity, between the two great religious parties, are coming
nearer and nearer to a gentlemanly and Christian shape. We
are gradually coming nearer to the point of agreeing to differ. I
strongly suspect, that the younger part of the Unitarian commu-
nity now look back with astonishment on the fellowship battles
which their fathers fought, and that they cannot well imagine,
why they were not contented to manage their own affairs in
their own way, and to let their neighbours do the same.
So far so good. But there are some important things that
remain, and of which it is time for some one to speak out in
earnest. The exclusive scheme of managing Cambridge Univer-
sity as belonging solely to the Unitarians, has become, at last,
matter of discussion in the highest Court to which this whole
concern is amenable. The discussions there have already told
some secrets ; or at least, they have brought to light things
which had long been kept sub rosa. The result thus far, con-
stituted as that tribunal is, has of course been in favour of the
Unitarian measures. In particular, the last winter witnessed one
event, which ought to be the subject of serious reflection to ev-
356 POSTSCRIPT.
ery orthodox man in the Commonwealth. This is, the accept-
ance of a Report, in favour of the permanent connection and un-
ion of the University of Cambridge with the Unitarian Theologi-
cal Seminary there. Our leading judges, it seems, have given
an opinion, that the donations to this Seminary are so condition-
ed, that the two Institutions cannot be legally severed. I have
good grounds for believing, that this is against the wishes of many
Unitarians, even of some leading persons among them. But the
leading jurisconsults tell us that the matter is decided, and cannot
be changed without a violation of law and forfeiture of funds.
For one, I deeply regret this. Not because I would deny to Unita-
rians the privilege of having a Theological Seminary of their
own. Far from it. I would as readily give to them liberty to
do this, as concede it to the Orthodox ; for in this country they
have the same right to build up Seminaries of their own. But
there are other difficulties respecting this matter, and they de-
serve serious attention from the candid of all parties. -
The University belongs to the STATE of Massachusetts. Yet
if I send a son there, he must attend the worship, at least morn-
ing and evening, which is conducted by Unitarian theological
Professors or Instructors. He rhay indeed by special favour ob-
tain liberty, as I understand the matter, to worship elsewhere
on the Sabbath. But the normal condition of collegiate standing
obliges him to be completely and exclusively under Unitarian
teaching and influence, both scientific and religious.
What right, now, in the first place, have the Corporation of
this State University, to put it exclusively under the manage-
ment of Unitarianism 2 It would be quite in vain to allege, that
there are no other competent instructors. What right have they
to oblige an Orthodox man to subject his son wholly to this in-
fluence, during immeasurably the most plastic period of human
life 2 What right to subject the parent in question, who is a
member of this Commonwealth, to the expense and trouble of
Sending his sons to another State, or to a distant Institution, in
order that he may discharge what he regards as a sacred pater-
mal duty to his children P Liberty to worship abroad on the
Sabbalh ' Why, this does not involve a tenth part of the influ-
ences brought to bear upon the mind of a youth while at Col-
lege. Why then offer us such an inefficient anodyne for our
solicitude, in respect to a matter of such fearful interest? No;
we cannot accept it. We know too much of the influence of
academic life, and of the yielding and moldable state of the
young, to trust to it.
POSTSCRIPT. 357.
I am fully aware of the usual answer to all this, by alleging,
that the University does not act the part of religious instruction,
excepting merely to those students who have finished their pri-
mary collegiate course, and have devoted themselves to the
study of theology. But, conceding for the moment that this
statement is true, how does it, or can it, relieve our main diffi-
culty 2 The want of any positive religious influence, would be an
evil scarcely less than the positive influence of Unitarianism,
and one which a truly pious parent would wish of all things to
avoid. If, on the other hand, there is more or less of positive
religious influence, (and not to suppose this would be even
absurd, where all, or nearly all, the officers and instructors are
Unitarian), then why is it not the imperious duty of a Christian
parent, who sincerely adopts the views of the Orthodox, not vol-
untarily to expose his children to it? How can he be blamed
for sending his sons to another more congenial institution ?
Or rather, how could he be excused at the bar of religious con-
science, if he did not? -
What then is to be done? Or, if I may be permitted to give
the question another shape : What ought to be done 2 This
certainly is a graver question than most persons seem to be
aware of Without any overweening confidence in my own
judgment or ability to answer it, I would most respectfully, and
with feelings of kindness and good will to all, make a few sug-
gestions.
Shall the whole body of the Guardians and Instructors at
Cambridge be changed, and Orthodox men be appointed in their
place 2 No; for this would be for us to do the very same thing
that we complain of in the Unitarians. It would be altogether
a party and sectarian measure. Shall all sects then in the
Commonwealth, Universalists, Abner Kneeland's men, Fanny
Wright's suitors, the Come-out-ers, the Hegelian Transcendental-
ists, the Parkerites, the Swedenborgians, et id genus omne, have
their representatives in the University, and at least a place in
one of the Boards, or among the Faculty P ‘Why not ? it is
asked, ‘for all these belong to the State.” In theory, I readily
acknowledge that I find it difficult to answer this question in
the negative. But still I have an instinctive feeling, that I must
divest myself of all respect for the Court of the Muses, before I
can give my practical assent to such an arrangement. It would
indeed be the utter ruin of the respectability of the University;
and in my most sober judgment, it would be a crying sin against
heaven and our country, to ruin an institution so noble as that.
358 IPOSTSCRIPT.
Here then is one of the predicaments, in which every reason-
ing man is loth to find himself placed. I argue against the man-
agement of Cambridge College for the last forty years, that it
has been altogether sectarian, while the Institution belongs to the
STATE. And yet I revolt from my position, when I come to
such an exigency as that which I have just presented. Is not
this blowing hot and cold with the same breath P. Or at best,
is not any distinction that I can make, as tenuous as in one of
the astronomical demonstrations, which connects important de-
ductions or corollaries with the unassignable difference between
an infinitesimal portion of a vanishing circle and of a vanish-
ing right line, and holds them, at the moment of vanishing, to
be equal?
I frankly acknowledge the theoretical difficulty. But there are
at least some facts about this matter, which are plain. Ortho-
doxy founded the College; originally endowed it; held exclu-
sive possession of it until the last generation, or last but one ;
and always considered it as its most important auxiliary in main-
taining the opinions and practices of the Pilgrim Fathers. For
some half a century past, Unitarians have immensely increased
its funds and possessions and apparatus of all kinds, and its
buildings. They have on this ground a claim upon it supe-
rior to all others. What candid and honest man would deny
them their rights in this respect 2
But what shall be dome 2 What can be done, in a state of
things so embarrassing 2 This practical question is now the great
one. I will not undertake to answer this question for my Ortho-
dox brethren. I have no right to do this; for I am not at all
their authorized representative. But I will venture to express
my own thoughts and wishes, in a brief and respectful manner.
Others of course have the same right to express theirs.
I would say at once: Give up the University to the Unitarians;
for they have the strongest claims upon it, on the ground of
endowments. But on the other hand, Unitarians should give
up to the Orthodox, all the funds which this denomination have
ever contributed, and all the books and apparatus which they
formerly collected, or at least the value of them, and also the
value of the buildings which they erected, and their proportion
of the donations which the Slate has made to the University.
This seems to me to be a plain demand of justice and reason.
I am well aware, that it cannot be enforced by law; and there
are very many other things, just and reasonable, which the
law cannot be brought to bear upon and enforce. I appeal
POSTSCRIPT. 359
therefore to the high Court of Equity, to the common sense of
justice ; to the principle of doing as we would be done by ; and
especially to the principle of generosity. The Unitarians are
wealthy enough to endow a dozen Universities and more, in
this Commonwealth, and yet in no sensible measure impoverish
themselves. It is my belief, that, if they could be led to see the
exigency, they are liberal enough to do what it requires. If the
Orthodox give up the delightful location at Cambridge, with all
its associations so dear to the sons of Muses, is not this sacrifice
enough on their part, even if they receive all which has been
named above 2 -
I am not able to see why it is not a great mistake, yea even
a folly, to carry on the contest about Cambridge any longer,
after the manner of times that are past. It answers no possible
good end. It results in the disappointment and chagrin of
many on the one hand, and in somewhat perhaps of superci-
lious exultation on the part of some on the other. It is there-
fore worse than useless. Give up the whole concern, I would
Say to my Orthodox brethren, to those who are already in pos-
session of the premises, provided they will deal generously with
you.-May I be pardoned for saying this aloud, to all who sym-
pathize with me in religious sentiment?
I know there are some, on both sides, who will not relish this
view of the subject. Some Unitarians, even of truly liberal feel-
ings, would regret to see the College thrown into the hands of
only one Sect, believing that it would help to diminish its repu-
tation and influence. I honour this feeling; but I cannot be-
lieve that it rests on a solid basis. After all that has been said
against the Orthodox by Unitarians among us, (as developed in
the preceding pages), in respect to their superstition, ignorance,
idolatry, and bigotry, and their aim virtually to introduce an
Inquisition among us, it is not to be reasonably expected that
they will in general send their sons to be educated at Cam-
bridge, while under the exclusive influence of Unitarianism. I
think they cannot be persuaded to do so, as a general thing ;
above all, while such a system of rigid exclusion is there pur-
sued in the appointments to office. Then it seems to be ob-
vious, that the mixture of two influences there, would either put
the College into a state of violent contest, or spoil all positive
good influences, by neutral insignificance. I can never think of
such a plan with any good degree of approbation. I know that
the like has been, and is, extensively done in Germany. But
there the human mind is tamely submissive to governmental
360 POSTSCRIPT.
arrangements; and there too, where contest has not fiercely
raged in consequence of such an arrangement, Indifferentism has
become an overwhelming tide, bearing all away before it.
New Englanders are incapable of such a state of things. The
mixture in question might indeed answer a part of the claims of
the mere theory of rights. But as a practical measure, I doubt
not that it would be fraught with mischief, in one or both of the
ways already stated.
Let us behave then like rational men, and like gentlemen, in
such a state of things, and make the best of it that we can. Let
us at least agree to differ. Let each go his own way, and leave
to Providence the disposal of future events. My belief, at least
my hope, is, that there are minds generous enough among the
Unitarians, to accede to such proposals. -
I know not, indeed, how these views may strike the present
Head of Cambridge University; for I have not seen him since
his return from Europe, and have in no way any particular
knowledge of his own personal views. Of course I shall not
undertake to state them. But this I well know, viz. that he pos-
sesses the most ample accomplishments of literature, science,
and taste, for the station that he occupies, and that his life is
free from any stain. My belief is, that he is of a truly liberal
cast of mind, and that he would not lift up one finger to do sec-
tarian violence, or inflict wrong upon the rights and just claims
of others. On some such ground as this, probably, it is under-
stood that he was not originally the favorite candidate for the
Presidency among the more zealous portion of the Unitarian
community in this quarter. It is quite possible that this por-
tion have been disappointed, on account of the decided tone of
their own public in his favour. But they have, as it seems now
to be understood, agreed to acquiesce in the choice of the ma-
jority, probably for a very efficient reason which it would be
useless for me to name. So be it ! If the University must re-
main in this struggling and somewhat hazardous condition, I do
not think a better pilot could be chosen to steer the ship, than .
the one she now has. With my whole heart I wish him all
success in steering her through the breakers; and do sincerely
Hope, that he will ere long be safe beyond them, and sailing on
a quiet sea, with a shining heaven above it.
To bring what I have to say respecting this great question
about Cambridge to an end; more must be said and done than
has been achieved by excited speeches at the meetings of Over-
Seers, and contests about elections to office, and the like. All
POSTSCRIPT. 361
this makes no approach to a radical cure of the evil. Justice
must be done; right must be regarded—practically regarded. I
have read the Pamphlet or Speech of the late President of Cam-
bridge College, in which he has laboured to show, that the Col-
lege was, while under him, in its true position as a State Insti-
tution; and this, because forsooth the Unitarians are no sectari-
ans ! This now, I must confess, is one of the last reasons I
should have expected from a man of sense. No sectarians !!
What then are Unitarians doing in Boston; and what in the
Canton of Vaud, and at Geneva 2 Yea, might I not ask: What
has he himself been doing 2 The Orthodox, so far as I know,
have in general the feeling, that with not a little of professed
impartiality and neutrality, there has been scareely a man in the
Commonwealth, who entertained a feeling nearer to that of
scorn for them, than this same gentlemen, so opposed to all
sects. Sed—de functis officio, nil. -
I appeal to the homest and generous minded men of all par-
ties, and specially among the Unitarians, and ask: Whether it is
not better to put an end to this fruitless and exciting struggle,
before matters have gone too far to let the voice of reason and
moderation be heard? I do know, that the Orthodox as a body
have a deep sensation that might is made to stand in the place
of right, in this matter. I know well that they cannot be satis-
fied with such logic as Mr. Quincy's; and that they deem it
passing strange, that so many men of wealth and generosity and
enlightersed views as to most other matters, should think of ap-
propriating the Hollis’ Fund, and other ancient funds, as the
Unitarians have done. The money is not worth a moment's con-
cern; but as to the principle concerned—I do truly wonder how
conscience can be kept quiet in this matter. Still to persist in the
exclusive course of Cambridge (for forty years past) will be certain
to bring on at last a serious struggle. The Orthodox have a
large majority in the State; and if the trial of strength in this
way must be forced upon them, it is my full persuasion that they
will be ready ere long to stand up in their places. But I dread
such a contest. What if they should be victorious, and having
control of the Legislature should proceed, as their opponents
have practically done, to make the University a party one 2
How easy to make a test, that would man the Institution through
and through with Orthodoxy. Nothing in our laws could hinder
such a proceeding. What I fear is, that they may yet be goaded
to such a measure, by the doings of Unitarians. I should rue
the day when this might take place ; for then the Orthodox
31
362 POSTSCRIPT.
would be doing just what is virtually now done by their oppo-
ments. And then, the peace of the State; the prosperity of its
literature; the well being of education; what is to become of all
these great interests in such a struggle P. It will be well for those,
who plume themselves on dexterity of management, to keep these
things steadily in view. One thing, I believe with entire con-
viction, they may count upon. There are those—and many are
they too—who will never settle down into a tame acquiescence,
that might shall stand for right. We live in a State that threw
the British tea overboard; proclaimed true national liberty in
Faneuil Hall; fought the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill;
and led the van in the glorious achievement of national independ-
ence. How can it be expected that we are always to sit down
quiet and inactive spectators, when some of our most sacred
privileges are, as we fully believe, infringed upon 2
With a trembling hand and an aching heart I have penned
these paragraphs. On calm review I cannot recall them. I do
know that they speak the feelings of scores of thousands; and
imperfectly as I have done the duty of giving these feelings a
voice, I hope I shall not be taxed with exceeding the proper
bounds of a freeman, a Protestant, and a follower of the Pilgrims.
If my feeble voice, moreover, might reach the venerable Halls
of Justice, Ishould venture to say a word even there. I have an
almost excessive regard for our high Courts of Justice, and be-
lieve them to be the very hiſe guard in the temple of liberty. It
may be, that this is the result, in part, of my earlier studies,
which would have led me to frequent them; and which at all
events have filled me with enthusiasm for the noble science of
Jurisprudence. But I think every reflecting reader, who atten-
tively peruses the history of England, must come to feel that her
Judiciary has been the bulwark, and the rampart, and the high
tower, of English liberty, and of the permanence of all her civic
institutions. And so it is with us. Liberty—right—lives or dies
with our Courts. Put a Jeffries of former days upon our Su-
preme Tribunal, and what will be the result 2. The question
needs no answer.
It is my full persuasion, that our Judges do in effect make
twenty practical laws in reality, where our Legislators make one.
So it must be; and so, I am ready to say, it should be. They
must have more skill, than the unpractised; and they have as
little motive to do wrong, as any body of men on earth.
But I must now come to a more unwelcome part of my task.
I have read with attention, and with no little interest the decision
POSTSCRIPT. 363
of Chief Justice Parsons in the case of Burr vs. the Inhabitants
of Sandwich, (Mass. Reports IX. p. 277 seq.); of Chief Justice
Parker, in the case of Baker et Al. vs. Fales, (Mass. Rep. XVI.
p. 488 seq.); of Chief Justice Shaw, in the case of Stebbins vs.
Jennings, (Pick. Rep. X. p. 172 seq.); all having one general
bearing, and all settling down on the principle, that a Christian
church among ws has no political existence, except as connected with
a parish, and no rights which she can claim or enforce, to prop-
erty or anything else of appreciable value, when the majority of a
parish are against her, and separate from her. All this too, not-
withstanding an express Statute, which, long ago, made the dea-
cons of a church a corporate body so far as it concerns the holding
and claiming of church property. The last of these Judges has
argued the case, as it strikes my mind, by far the most ably;
and if he has not justified his decision under our laws as they
are, (which I fully believe not to be the case), he has come
nearer to it than any of his predecessors.
How stands this matter now, in our Commonwealth P Every
church to which property has been given, can any day be
stripped of it all, by a vote of a majority of a parish to form an-
other church establishment, or even another ecclesiastical socie-
ty. Such has been the case; and such will again be the case,
in oft repeated instances. -
How singularly all this strikes one who has just been reading the
history of the Pilgrims, and finds that for half a century or more
after our State was settled, no man could even enjoy the privi-
leges of a freeman, who was not a member of a church Church
and parish were identical. Now, the church depends, it seems,
on the will of a majority who are not members of it, in any par-
ticular place, for the rights, or at any rate for a part of the rights,
of freemen. It has indeed no LEGAL rights as a church, except
in and through a parish. What a change As great as that
from high Orthodoxy to low Unitarianism. Tempora mutantur,
et mos—mutamur cum illis I Never was this more strikingly ver-
rified. Our Republic began in the spirit; it is ending in the
flesh.
It is impossible for any reflecting man to read history, from
the first settlement of this Commonwealth down to the present
period, without emotions of surprise, if not of regret. No coun-
try on earth was ever settled by such a band of men, as first
sought these shores in order to find a refuge from the oppression
of the mother-country. There the all engrossing theme was,
the established religion—the established religion—the established
364 POSTSCRIPT.
religion; the exact counterpart of “the temple of the Lord—
the temple of the Lord— the temple of the Lord are these,” in
Jer. 7:4. Of course a man was deemed a secret rebel, who
did not conform to the established religion, and finally was thrust
into pillories and jails, and abridged of some of his highly im-
portant civil and social rights, for non-conformity. The Pilgrim
Band could not—would not—brook this. They sought an asy-
lum from the oppression and contumacy of their rulers, spiritu-
al and temporal, on the shores of a new world, so distant that
they indulged the hope, that “ rumour of oppression and deceit
would never reach them more.” Here they established a gov-
ernment which has grown up, and become consolidated, and has
comprised, and still comprises, a body of men, such as all the world
besides is unable to exceed, if they can anywhere equal them,
as to intellectual, civil, and social acquisitions and privileges.
These are facts which no well-informed considerate man will
venture to deny. Every legislative speech, every public oration,
every harangue in Fanueil Hall, admits and boasts of all this ;
and Unitarians as much as others. ‘Our fathers did this; and
our fathers did that ; and by their immortal wisdom and Saga-
city, and their lofty spirit of freedom, they erected the goodly
structure in which their posterity meet to eulogize them, and to
exhort one another to walk in their steps, and to copy their ex-
ample.
Here now is one of the most singular things ever recorded
by the faithful Muse of history. What sort of men were they,
then, who achieved all these wonderful deeds, worthy of eulogy
until time shall be no more ? The very class of men, whom
Dr. Channing, and his admirers, and indeed many Unitarians of
all grades, proclaim to be worshippers of a God who has the
attributes of a devil; to be credulous, superstitious, and given to
“old wives' fables;” to be zealous for doctrines “which fall far
below most of the heathen systems of religion;” to aim at cramp-
ing and subjugating all freedom of investigation, reasoning, or
opinion, in matters of religion ; and to be bent upon fasten-
ing on the necks of the community a yoke more galling than
that of the Inquisition itself. For surely, if all these things are
said of the present generation of the Orthodox, (and no one will
dare deny that they are), then they are affirmed a fortiori of our
fathers, who went much further in giving legal protection to the
churches than we, and were much farther than we now are,
from the true line of entire Christian liberty. But how comes
it about that these “devil-worshippers,” and “bigots,” and “fol-
POSTSCRIPT, 365
lowers in the train of St. Dominic,” erected such a glorious tem-
ple to Liberty, lofty as the heavens, and wide as the domain of
the Commonwealth P. How came the most perfect Republic on
the face of the whole earth, from the hands of such men as
these ? If any Unitarian, who reëchoes the reproachful words
of Dr. Channing and his disciples, will solve me this enigma, I
promise him more fame than Oedipus ever acquired by solving
the riddle of the Theban Sphinx. It is out of all question.
The Unitarian Orators who blazon the virtues and good deeds
and glorious achievements of our Pilgrim fathers, feel obliged to
throw off the shackles which men of Dr. Channing's stamp would
impose upon them—not to say (which would be somewhat in-
decorous) give the lie to all accusations of that nature. Since
the world was created, a higher, nobler race of true LIBERTY-
MEN never lived upon it than CALVINISTs.
Where (in the language of one of our most potent orators)
was “ the first considerable Church established in modern times,
without a bishop, and State without a king 2" Was it not at Ge-
neva, and under the auspices of Calvin P. That little Republic,
built up by his wisdom, and consolidated by his discretion and
true love of liberty, has stood amidst the wrecks of kingdoms
around it, respected by all the world, and the abode of freedom,
until Unitarians forced the government of it to be put into their
hands; and since that time, it has become the abode of oppres-
sion and violence.
Who does not know, that the English exiles learned at Gene-
va their notions of true religious liberty, which they carried
home from thence, and which in the end dethroned the hypo-
critical and domineering Charles 1., and breathed the air of free-
dom over the whole kingdom, from John o' Groats’ to the Land's
End P. At this eventful period, our Republic sprang into exis-
tence. The Liberly-men in question were its founders. A noble
building did they erect. If the Corinthian and the Composite
did not pervade its original architecture, it exhibited, and still
exhibits, in its grandeur and massive strength, the Doric and
the Palmleaf column. Who dares to rail at these men, now,
among ws? I was ready to say: Not even a dog moves his
tongue. But no; I find that I must recall this. There is at
least one man, once I believe a minister of the Gospel in this
State, (whether a native I know not), who has published even
a volume to show, that the Pilgrim Fathers were actually all
which Dr. Channing has so recently afflrmed us to be. I un-
derstand, however, that he is on his journey to St. Peter's and
31%
366 POSTSCRIPT.
in a fair way for a rapid and prosperous voyage thither. There
too he will meet with those choice spirits, which in England
have taken up the cowl that Ignatius Loyala bequeathed to all
St. Peter's Elect—with Newman, and Ward, and a host of Ox-
ford compeers—with others too of our own country, whose in-
significance protects them from all exposure to the public. In
that joyful throng, which are so soon to meet under that cracked
dome, which is the wonder (if not the terror) of the world, they
will doubtless raise their voices so high, as to fill the vaulted
ceiling with the notes of a Te Deum for their wonderful deliver-
ence from the bondage (not merely or principally of sin and
Satan, but) of Calvinism and Orthodoxy, and their restoration to
the glorious liberty of kissing the toe of St. Peter's successor, or
at any rate, if they should fail of this, of kissing the toe of that
statue, which was once the image of Jupiter Olympius in a
heathen temple, but is now converted by baptismal water into a
true and exact representation of Peter himself. All hail to
these choicest of the elect of the Vicar of God and St. Dominic!
May they live a thousand and one years, and their shadows never
be less! Live, I would say, in a monastery of their own—sepa-
rate forever from the sacred soil of Liberty and of Orthodoxy.'
But to return ; nearly all political orators have too much
tact to make open and public assaults upon the Pilgrims.
Some of our pulpit orators and pamphlet and review-writers,
have less of discretion and magnanimity. The names, indeed,
of those venerated fathers are rarely called out in the way of
reproach. The art of Sagacious management consists, in throw-
ing contumely and contempt over all that was distinctive in their
religious opinions, without being suspected of such a design.
It is only in this way that the descendants of the Pilgrims can
be misled.
I make the challenge, then, openly and fearlessly, to all who
tread under foot the religious Creed of our fathers—the chal-
lenge to show the consistency of what they affirm of all Ortho-
doxy, and of orthodox men as bigots, and unrelenting supersti-
tious zealots, and advocates of religious oppression, and enemies
to all freedom of inquiry and free religious action, with the high
encomiums which they feel obliged to bestow on the civil and
social institutions of the very men in question. There is no
way of meeting this challenge. FACTs—facts that are before
the whole world—contradict all which they affirm of the ten-
dencies of Orthodoxy to suppress civil, social, or religious liber-
ty. FACTS TESTIFY THAT THIS AccusATION IS NoT TRUE.
POSTSCRIPT. 367
If now such matters are not to be decided by experience, by
Jacts, in what way is any question of a practical nature ever to
be decided ? I do insist upon a reasonable answer to this ques-
tion, from all thinking and sober men.
But I have lost myself in turning aside to pay my heart-felt
homage to the Puritan Pilgrims. I must now resume the con-
sideration of our present reception in the Halls of Justice with-
in our State.
I certainly do not and cannot believe, that our forefathers acted
wisely in that particular of their new government, which had re-
spect to the rights of a freeman. But I can easily see that they
are pardonable for the mistake, on the ground of the vexations
and oppressions which ungodly civil rulers, the legal heads of
churches in England, had inflicted upon them. They meant to
foreclose the civil power, for the future, against oppression and
abuse. But how is it with their descendants of the sixth and
seventh generation ? The church has no rights now, except as
leaning upon and connected with the parish. It is a body un-
known to the law, and unrecognized by it, except as a mere ap-
pendage to those who are not the church. Truly, I may say
again, a revolution as great in our civil rights as in our the-
ology
If now the “glorious uncertainty of the law” can throw its am-
ple shield before our Judges, and protect them from any other ac-
cusation at the most than that of mere error in a legal opinion,
(and even from this, in the view of Unitarians), still, I have a
deep seated conviction that Unitarianism has unconsciously ope-
rated on the minds of these same Jurisconsults, and given un-
consciously a hue to their thoughts and reasonings on this sub-
ject. It is indeed no small matter to disfranchise Christian
churches, and make them virtual outlaws, and dependent for their
property and their sacred utensils on the will of a parish. One
simple principle seems to me to be enough to settle this whole
matter, in the mind of any plain unsophisticated reasoner. This
is, that a lawful gift to a man, or to any body of men recognized
and approved as such by the laws of the State, is boma fide their
property, and their’s forever. It may indeed be wrenched from
them by some hair-splitting chicanery of legal ratiocination; but
the simple and eternal, principles of justice decide the matter
beyond appeal. I make no accusations of intention to do wrong,
on the part of those distinguished Judges. I do not believe
they were conscious of any such design. But it is impossible'
for me to believe, that the lawful intention of donors to churches
368. - JPOSTSCRIPT.
has not been substantially frustrated by the decisions of our
Courts; and therefore I must think that it is a just matter for
legislative interference. Even if we fully concede, that the de-
cisions in question can be technically justified, in the eye of our
present laws, my convictions would not be changed in the least.
It is one of those very plain cases, where I should spontaneous-
ly say: Summum jus, summa injuria.
Why should it be a matter of wonder, then, that the Ortho-
dox are dissatisfied with what they seriously regard as an inju-
rious infringement upon their rights P Nay, I might boldly ven-
ture to ask a different question: Do they not deserve great
credit for patience and longanimity and aversion to tumult and
disorder, since they have waited in quiet for redress so long—
and I fear that I must add, with so little prospect of obtaining it?
Yet, after all, I cannot belp hoping, that when the excitement
which attends the commencement of disputes shall have passed
away, Unitarians will return to the feeling, that the denial of
just claims to the larger portion of the community, whether
under the specious cover of law or in any other way, is not the
best method even of spreading or of establishing their own re-
ligious views. A generosity of feeling will yet, as I am inclined
to think, obtain the upper hand. There is surely a large class
of men among them, who would look on oppression and injus-
tice, in almost any other form, with scorn and indignation.
What we ask of them is, to reflect soberly on the wrongs of
which we complain. We have no wish, even if it were entire-
ly within our power, to abridge them of their right to propagate
their own views, or to establish Universities, Theological Semi-
maries, Academies, Schools, and Churches, when and where
they please. We have no desire to appropriate their ſunds to
our use. They stand in no need of appropriating ours to their
use. Above all—to seize upon the little property or the sacra-
mental utensils of a country church, and to force the Supreme
Court to become an instrument in such an act of spoliation—
really looks so undignified, so grasping, so oppressive, that I
must confess it fills me with unqualified astonishment. It needs
no second sight to predict, that in the Bay State such proceed-
ings will not be likely to open the way to popular favour and
success. The suppressed sense of injury, which all thinking
men entertain with whom my religious views associate me,
forbodes some future efforts in earnest to secure their religious
rights and liberties, unless the hand of oppression is lightened.
Most sincerely do I hope that the time may never come, when
such efforts must be made.
POSTSCRIPT. - 369
The lofty position which Massachusetts has always taken, and
still takes, in the cause of civil and social liberty, renders all the
proceedings, which it has been my painful task to describe, the
more strange. Who will ever believe hereafter, that Unitarian-
ism is not a sectarian religion ? What has it not done here, in
leading such enlightened men, worthy in other respects of all
estimation and honour, to measures so inconsistent with the
professions and the character of this free republic P What has
it not done at Geneva 2 What is it not doing in the Canton of
Vaud 2 No; while Dr. Channing and his friends and followers
pour out the vials of their indignation upon a large portion of
their fellow citizens, and reproach them with the superstitions of
the dark ages, and attempts to bind the consciences of men in the
chains of an Inquisition, and the like, we need no delay to make
the reply: JMutato nomine, de te fabula narratur. You are the
men who oppress, by denying to others their just and law-
ful rights, and in seeking a refuge from the consequences of
this, by interposing the broad shield of legal technicalities. But
Aixm, (the Guardian Spirit of Justice), if we may hearken to the
assurances of Aeschylus, though slow of foot, is sure of progress.
She will come at last, and speak in language that the very deaf
shall hear.
IEND.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DATE DUE
AUG 27 º

lullû,
F！！！！！！！---- ~~*–C E* : --~~
----- ----→ • ~ - -№ s= <！--∞ √æ√∞ √،
， ， ， ， ， º،·→º • • • •aerº***ae （ º ;* ， ， ， ， ∈<; • •
！！！！！！！！！！!！….……. ~~~~º::：：:：:：::：::：:：:::：…, :
： --~--~--~----~--~***！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！!!！3！！！）: ''，
<！-- ∞-∞ae）. № zī£----★ → ∞， ∞， ∞• • • w:•
→→→→-_-
º < > ≡ ≈ ~~~~ ~~
№ ：===== <==<==<！=<！-- ***** ！===：：
ſº ： · · *= * * * * * =：= * ~~~~*=~~=?==+==~:=*
----~--~~~~）====~：:~~=++~~~~=?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~， ， ， ， ， ， ， ، ، ،
• • • • • • •~~ = ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ • • • • • • • • • • • •∞ = <！--~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~= <=…=.=…--~--~
∞-，-，-，-，-，-,∞ √≠ ≤
• × × × × × × × •****） • • • • • • •
< < < < • • • • •■■■■ && ！، ، ، === Œ œ •• • • • • • • • • • •■ ■ ■ ■ *-º-： • • •■■■■ > ■ * ºººººººº…~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ º
º -> -， ， ， ，→ →∞
<∞ → √≠√∞ → ∞， ∞